Hugh wrote:"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (p. 140-1)"
Moonlord wrote:Stephen Hawking mentions to have changed his mind since he wrote "A brief history of time". [
irockyou wrote:Besides Hugh, you say that evidence "points" to your side, but it actually doesn't. Your theory requires there to have been at least more than one big bang/big crunche(s). However, Science now "points" against the Big Crunch Theory. You see, there was never any proof for the big crunch; it was simply the logical conclusion to the end of a universe after the big bang theory was created. However, now scientists are starting to challenge it.
Try to prove to me a Big Crunch, Hugh. Good Luck!
moonlord wrote:However, observation suggests that there will be no Big Crunch, therefore tossing Hugh's theory.
Hugh wrote:Now, I'm done.
Hugh wrote:You know irockyou, I wish you could understand what I am saying but after 4 pages now, I don't think you will and I am getting a little tired explaining it.
moonlord wrote:As I said earlier, you two are not communicating... There are two main theories regarding the begining of the universe. Hugh supports one, irockyou supports the other. I personally like Hugh's because I cannot explain correctly the other one. However, observation suggests that there will be no Big Crunch, therefore tossing Hugh's theory.
Hugh wrote:There has to have always been something around, always, that might have been the something that makes up the universe (or multiverse), or God.
Hugh wrote:... so you know what, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like.
moonlord wrote:As I said earlier, you two are not communicating
moonlord wrote:Oh, wait. Hugh said it does not matter if there will be or not a Big Crunch. This throws a new light, as you cannot have more than one Universe without Big Crunches. Maybe he can explain it more?
pat wrote:In empty space, particle-antiparticle pairs constantly spring up and annihilate each other. This is known as "the quantum foam".
Hugh wrote:When I say "nothing" I mean "nothing", not even "empty space", nothing at all. Something can't come from that nothing is what I mean.
PWrong wrote:It just occured to me that I killed this thread . It was up to 4 pages, and as soon as I post something, everyone stops talking. I only just noticed.
PWrong wrote:Maybe quantum foam applies to spacetime too. I think Brian Greene suggested that tiny "threads" of spacetime might pop into existence, even without any empty space. Then quantum foam might cause inflation to start inside this thread of spacetime, causing the big bang.
Hugh wrote:So you're saying that these threads of spacetime create themselves from absolute nothingness, appear from nowhere into nowhere (not even in empty space), then quantum foam creates itself from nothingness and, following physical laws self-created, it causes inflation to occur causing the big bang?
PWrong wrote:I'm not sure if that's exactly what Brian Greene said. I haven't read the book in a while.
PWrong wrote:There's also another theory, where there was a whole "pre-big bang period". In this theory, space has always existed, and quantum foam naturally results in a big bang.
Okay, well I don't think that self-creation from "absolute nothingness" is a part of what he said, nor is it a part of what any scientist says.
PWrong wrote:Hugh wrote:Okay, well I don't think that self-creation from "absolute nothingness" is a part of what he said, nor is it a part of what any scientist says.
How do you know? That's what we're all saying, why wouldn't a scientist say the same thing?
Hugh (?) wrote:In "absolute nothingness", there is no physics, space or rules of any kind at all.
moonlord wrote:However, you can't find a theory that exactly describes the universe because all experiment fact that sustain it is aproximative. Therefore, all you can do is find a better and better aproximation for the TOE. Or...?
moolord wrote:Hugh wrote:In "absolute nothingness", there is no physics, space or rules of any kind at all.
If there are no rules, what stops a singularity popping out of nowhere and exploding?
houserichichi wrote:Aside from the odd string theorist (or some derivative thereof), I don't think anyone has any plausible ideas about where things came from "pre-creation" as it's just beyond the realm of physics at this point. The string theorists and co. have their little bashing-branes ideas but as string theory has no more evidence than my no-causality idea I really don't feel comfortable saying they're "more right" than I am...not yet. What my argument relies on is the lack of causality pre-big bang. What theirs hinges on is an entirely new branch of unproven, no evidence physics.
houserichichi wrote:If one starts off with pre-existing anything is that any better than absolute nothingness?
houserichichi wrote:I mean absolute nothingness doesn't exist in our universe so it's terrible to grasp and unappealing.
houserichichi wrote:On the other hand isn't timeless "foreverness" a close cousin?
houserichichi wrote:On one hand we assume nothing and then creation. On the other hand we assume creation from something that was never created in the first place.
Yuck on both accounts.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests