^^^^
What?

jayriginal:
All quotes taken from "The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

Just a silly question for you "pseudo scientists" out there:

Considering the laws of conservation of energy and mass, if at the beginning the universe was infinitely dense (infinite mass) and infinitely hot (infinite energy) and now the universe has finite mass and finite energy, where did all that mass and energy go? After all, the most fundamental premise of the big bang is that the universe is the perfect closed system.

caezar:

Just a silly question for you "pseudo scientists" out there:

Considering the laws of conservation of energy and mass, if at the beginning the universe was infinitely dense (infinite mass) and infinitely hot (infinite energy) and now the universe has finite mass and finite energy, where did all that mass and energy go? After all, the most fundamental premise of the big bang is that the universe is the perfect closed system.

I'm not sure who exactly you were addressing with that "pseudo scientists" comment, but I'll answer your question even if it's presumably aimed at a different audience.

Infinite density does not mean infinite mass at all. The definition of density is mass divided by volume. Now what was the volume of the initial universe? Infinitesimally small. Basically any reasonable value of mass over an "infinitesimally" small volume is an infinitely dense object.

Infinitely high temperature is just a manner of speaking, a way of emphasizing the extremely high temperatures that were present, although infinite temperatures are not ruled out explicitly by any law (at least none that I'm aware of). The thing is, temperature is dependent on motion (such as vibration), and to move at the maximum possible speed (the speed of light), something that was not massless would need infinite mass/energy. Now if there was actually infinite mass then this would presumably be possible in the early universe, but I don't think it makes sense to arbitrarily assert that there would have been infinite mass.

The actual temperature of the initial universe was probably just a number slightly over or somewhat larger than the Planck temperature, but not an "actual infinity". Then the temperature would have decreased as the universe expanded of course.

^^^^^
Explain spacetime continuum like I'm 5 years old.......................make it simple.
Thanks

^
No problem. I'm not an expert on cosmology though, so you'll probably want to consult other (professional) sources to learn about this stuff from more knowledgeable sources at some point.

PhysicsQED:
and to move at the[b] maximum possible speed (the speed of light)[/b], something would need infinite mass/energy.

Isn't the universe supposed to be expanding faster than the speed of light. I read that's the reason that there is an "observable universe" and the rest is unobservable because the light can't reach us.

PhysicsQED: ^
No problem. I'm not an expert on cosmology though, so you'll probably want to consult other sources to learn about this stuff from more knowledgeable sources at some point.

I've read the materials but you seem to be involved in physics and the likes so I just want to read your explanation.

Martian:

Isn't the universe supposed to be expanding faster than the speed of light.

To the best of my knowledge, no. The universe is expanding at around 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html

I read that's the reason that there is an "observable universe" and the rest is unobservable because the light can reach us.

Certain galaxies may be moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, but not actually moving faster than c themselves.

This link gives a good explanation: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

From that link:

Furthermore, as more and more galaxies accelerate past the speed of light, any light that they emit after a certain point will also not be able to reach us, and they too will freeze and fade. Eventually, we will be left with a universe that is mostly invisible, with only the light from a few, very nearby galaxies (whose motions are strongly affected by local gravitational interaction) to keep us company.

^^^^
Not to bug you.. Well actually to bug you do you think it's possible for one with a loathing for math to get general relativity. Is there anything you would reccommend one has at the back of his mind? I get an accelorometer wouldn't register anything in free fall, and what seems straight to you is actually bent like say a line on the planet, supposedly it's doing something with time as well...argh, it's too much. Any tips? Also, if you have time maybe we should have a ask the physicist section or something. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure you won't be bothered much. Thanks

Did someone suggest the universe is a closed system? I think the reverse is far more logical. I had said in a previous thread:

Here I reproduce what Justcool wrote in red:

"Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big slam! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created."

Now you stated that - "that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system."

This has one direct implication: that if the universe is a closed system, energy could not be created in it: to wit: there would never have arisen any energy therein. What this tranposes into logically is that there would have been no energy and no universe.

It therefore means that the very existence of energy herein presupposes an open system: or at the very least at the the commencement, an entrance or reception of energy. It logically could not be otherwise.

This rationally leads to the affirmation that the source of energy could not itself be this universe, or the matter from which this universe expanded.

This is firm reasoning: and it speaks for itself.

And Justcool had written -

Science acknowledges the big slam as an event that gave rise to the formation of the universe in its present state. Contrary to popular opinions, science never said that the Big slam created the universe in terms of creating the materials that make up the universe. Just as on can say the freezing of water gave rise to the formation of ice blocks; this does not mean that the water was created by the freezing. The freezing is an event which caused the water to change its state; you can also say that the freezing state of water or frozen water is a state of the water. Water can exist in many states- liquid, solid, gas and etc. Actually matter can exist in four states: (1) Plasma state, (2) Solid state, (3) Liquid state, (4) Gaseous state. The change of state or stage does not imply the creation of a new substance(matter) but rather it is the same substance or matter, only that the molecules are rearranged. Thus it is the rearrangement of matter or the atoms of the substance that gives rive to a change of state. In Solids for example, the atoms are closely compacted atoms while in liquids the atoms loosely compacted atoms and in gasses the atoms are even more loosely compacted and etc. Also difference in temperature and entropy gives rise to this change of state or rearrangement of the atoms. Plasma state, for example, can only exist at extremely hot temperatures; while solids only can exist in a certain range of temperatures, gasses can only exist in certain range of temperatures, and liquids can only exist in only a certain range of temperatures.

The big slam or the stage that caused the big slam is the plasma state of all the matter in the universe. At this stage it is so hot, extremely and unimaginably hot that the whole universe and all the forces of nature(gravity, electromagnetic forces and etc) are united into one. Indeed the whole universe is condensed or contracted into an object even smaller than an atom; it is so hot that not even gases can exist. Every thing is united and contracted to an object smaller than the smallest nucleus. This is the primordial seed!! In time the temperature gets so hot and the universe contracts to a point unimaginable small and when it reaches the maximum point of contraction it exploded! This explosion is the big slam. Once this explosion occurred, the temperature reduced due to less contraction, and the universe then formed into hot gases or nebulae. Every explosion releases energy or pressure; this pressure caused the hot gas to move further apart and away from the center of explosion. As the gasses moved further away, temperature is reduced and consequently it got to a stage where the temperature is so reduced that dense nebulae can arise, and then consequently from the nebulae liquids and solids can form. As things cooled down, what we call laws or forces (which are nothing but intricate behavior of matter), can now arise. Thus gravity comes into play and many other forces; as the nebulae grow bigger they begin to attract. This is gravity or gravitational potential at work. Soon due to gravity suns, planets asteroids and etc resulted. And consequently groped themselves into solar systems; big bodies like our sun are able to exercise an attraction on smaller bodies and consequently capture them in its orbit. This is our solar systems were formed.

The pressure resulted from the big band is still pushing everything away. Thus the solar systems are moving away from each other; the universe is expanding. Science knows this; but does not know for sure where this expansion will lead. It is my perception that this expansion will continue till the solar systems are so far apart that the initial pressure that arose from the big band slackens. Then gravity will counter the expansion; the universe will start contracting. The contraction will continue; and as it contracts, due to friction, it will become hotter and hotter. Also the bodies will become bigger and bigger, consequently having ever greater attraction towards each other. Based on the law of Gravitational potential which states that “The rate at which two bodies attract each other is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square root of their distance” the bigger the bodies get(their masses) the more they pull each others and the closer the get to each other, the more they pull each other. Soon the universe will collapse, crash or contract into one hot spot. The extreme heat will contract the universe once again into a small invincible(to the physical eye) spot. The universe will return to being a primordial seed, which after a certain degree of heat and contraction will explode again into another big slam.

This circle of explosion, expansion, contraction, and collapse will continue. The big slam is the beginning of the explosion stage and not the creator of the universe. It is the same energy that passes through these four states; it heats up to become plasma, only to explode cool down to condense and become matter. Just like the same lake of water can freeze and condense into solid ice during winter; it also evaporates as gasses during hot summer.

People encounter problems when they try to separate scientific energy from matter as being totally different things. Scientifically speaking, matter is condescend energy or matter is made up of energy. If one understands this, then he/she would stop saying things like “matter can be destroyed during nuclear reaction.” Matter can never be created or destroyed by man or any natural process. Matter only changes state; matter can change its state to plasma state where it becomes pure energy.

Just like a cup of water cannot by itself change from liquid to solid(ice) or to gas without an external force, be it change in the external temperature or other forces; the physical universe cannot be going through these changes or stages without external force acting on it. The pressure from the planes above the physical plane is the external force that is perpetually acting on the universe, keeping it in motion. Behind everything lies the “will” of the creator who set creation in motion and maintains it with ever new power annually.

Everything material passes through the four stages of (1) birth or blossoming, (2) ripeness or maturity, (3) over-ripeness or old age, and (4) decay or death. Our physical bodies, our houses, our cars, the earth, our solar system and even the entire material universe. The stage of death or decay is where the object is dissolved to its original components or constituents which will re-unite in another way to be born again. Thus after death or decay comes stage (1) birth again. This is the eternal circle of everything that is material.

The big slam could be likened to stage (1)Birth of the universe, not birth or creation of the substance that make up the universe. At the point when the solar systems are formed could be likened to stage (2) ripeness. At a stage in its expansion, it goes into stage (3) over-ripeness; then when its contracting it is in stage(4) decay which will lead its death which is a point where everything has retuned to the primordial seed. Then once again it will be born—another big slam.

Thehomer then asked why is a God needed if the universe keeps cycling.

Justcool's response -

(1) The Big slam is not the creation or the universe, in that it is not the creation of matter and energy that make up the universe.
(2) Science doesn’t actually say that the universe was created by the Big slam. Science only says that the universe in its present state started by the Big slam, while acknowledging that before the Big slam the energy and matter that cooled down to become the universe existed in a different form. Science also speculates that other universes might have existed before the present universe.
(3) Although science is not sure where the current expanding universe may lead; many have come up with many speculations. I offered my perception of where the universe is headed to, based on my knowledge of the Laws of creation which are express nothing but the will of God.


Putting all these together you see how ridiculous it sounds when people say that the universe (the energy and matter in the physical world) was created by the Big slam.

I introduced God into it because the cyclic movement could not have started by itself and perpetually maintain itself in order; such would violet the law of thermodynamics.

A liquid cup of water, in isolation of every external force, will remain a liquid cup of water. It cannot by itself, and without any external force change from liquid to ice; or from liquid to gas. Only external forces, like change in the temperature of the environment can cause these changes in the liquid cup of water.

Fishes living inside the lake that is perpetually changing state, from liquid to ice; if such fishes were men, they would know that there is something else beside the lake. Something that they cannot see, yet they see its effects in the environment, the lake. They would figure out there is a source of power(heat) outside of the lake, which causes it to change state. And this power is the sun which sends rays carrying heat, thereby warming the lake; and during winter when these rays are hardly felt, the lake freezes.

The lake could be likened to the universe; the fishes could be likened to us; the sun could be likened to God who through the pressure of His power keeps everything in motion.

This is a coarse analogy though; it faintly reflects the relationship between God, His Power and the universe.


I think all of this is very topical indeed.

It was a very rich thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/570326/linear-chance

Yeah, the cyclical universe theory is popular with some physicists (for example, Roger Penrose, one of the most important theoretical physicists of his generation). Once again, I'm not a cosmology guy, but just looking at the theory on the surface, I don't accept it. I'd need a stronger rationale to accept it than what's currently around.

Here's Penrose talking about his view of the cyclic universe idea:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

^^^^^
The above(by DS/Justcool) is based on the model that gravity will eventually cause the expansion to slow and then the universe should collapse on itself...........and a dose of the supernatural to explain some things that do not have any explanantions.It doesn't mention anything about the increased speed of the universe due to "dark energy" and the ongoing research. And of course the universe is "open" so god can be the thing outside that caused it.


http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
More is unknown than is known. We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion. Other than that, it is a complete mystery. But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.

Another video that's a bit informative about current ideas:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPuhJ98VjoA&feature=fvwrel

wiegraf: ^^^^
Not to bug you.. Well actually to bug you do you think it's possible for one with a loathing for math to get general relativity. Is there anything you would reccommend one has at the back of his mind? I get an accelorometer wouldn't register anything in free fall, and what seems straight to you is actually bent like say a line on the planet, supposedly it's doing something with time as well...argh, it's too much. Any tips? Also, if you have time maybe we should have a ask the physicist section or something. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure you won't be bothered much. Thanks

Well, for a not heavily mathematical explanation of general relativity, you can actually go straight to a book written by the originator of general relativity himself:

Albert Einstein - Relativity: The Special and General Theory

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

The theory as he worked it out originally in his papers is quite mathematics heavy but he presented a much less mathematically involved explanation in that book. This book is in the public domain and is available in many other places online.


A great cosmology book (with basically no equations or math, but lots of helpful drawings to visualize things) is Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne. He also provides a lot of history and context for all of the ideas that were developed and why certain ones were rejected or accepted. It's a really great read although the focus is on black holes in particular.

There are also two books (also non-mathematical) by two science writers that discuss current ideas in astronomy and cosmology that I read some years back that I would recommend:

Marcia Bartusiak - Thursday's Universe (1986)

Timothy Ferris - The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe Report (1997)

Both were really good reads.


On the ask a physicist thing, probably you could start a general thread where input from those with knowledge in chemistry, pure math, astronomy, biology, and/or physics etc. could answer questions. I might answer some.

Oh yeah, and why do you loathe math?

PhysicsQED:

Well, for a not heavily mathematical explanation of general relativity, you can actually go straight to a book written by the originator of general relativity himself:

Albert Einstein - Relativity: The Special and General Theory

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

The theory as he worked it out originally in his papers is quite mathematics heavy but he presented a much less mathematically involved explanation in that book. This book is in the public domain and is available in many other places online.


A great cosmology book (with basically no equations or math, but lots of helpful drawings to visualize things) is Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne. He also provides a lot of history and context for all of the ideas that were developed and why certain ones were rejected or accepted. It's a really great read although the focus is on black holes in particular.

There are also two books (also non-mathematical) by two science writers that discuss current ideas in astronomy and cosmology that I read some years back that I would recommend:

Marcia Bartusiak - Thursday's Universe (1986)

Timothy Ferris - The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe Report (1997)

Both were really good reads.


On the ask a physicist thing, probably you could start a general thread where input from those with knowledge in chemistry, pure math, astronomy, biology, and/or physics etc. could answer questions. I might answer some.

Oh yeah, and why do you loathe math?

Thanks again. Reading the book by the man himself has always seemed daunting, I didn't know it was accessible to the average (Kip Thorne I thought would be inaccessible as well). Math, my time has passed it seems, sadly. I'm not a big fan of current teaching methods, especially pre-tertiary. It seems to cater to one type of student, the rest of us better learn how to figure out stuff on our own. Though the current system does seem to work well for the majority so I shouldn't be complaining too much. I would say it was never presented in a way that was fun to me, and I'm basically useless if whatever task I'm assigned to does not qualify as 'fun'.

That thread idea is awesome. I would need to do some lurking before it's implemented though so that it's not wasted. I'm new here so would have study their etiquette.

I will come to comment here. Need to openly cogitate on and critique some comments. The OP in particular.

Deep Sight:

Exactly. Which is why God exists.



It does not refute the existence of a supreme deity. On the contrary, it affirms it.



For any thing to exist, something or the other must be self existent. As such, that which is self existent must be the cause of that which is not.



Please if you want to strictly theological and philosophical discussion on the existence of God, then leave religious notions out of the discussion.

Very well put. The atheist needs to ask the pertinent question of how the universe exists. It appears most believe the universe is self-existent.

wiegraf:


Do they always release energy? The way I understand it, they usually cancel out. The little bit of matter that is excess is what makes up most of the observable universe, yes? No one really knows what dark matter/energy is, but is it related to antimatter?

These are all technicalities anyways. Bottom line is "nothing" in this universe is not really "nothing". Before big bang, nobody knows. I suppose if you tele-jazzed yourself to a place where big bangs spacetime expansion has not reached you may find true nothing, or do you create spacetime by simply being there? Pointless question, I know

There's actually a fascinating little short story by Stephen Baxter (i think) where doing so leads to a new Big Bang of sorts. Also, don't dismiss the technicalities, they may be the key to the solution.

DeepSight:


I certainly wish you a speedy return to speed.



Oh really? I don't believe I have done so: I have merely shown the incoherence and inconsistency of the notions you bandied about. I should warn you to try not to be as dogmatic about the writings of any scientist in the same way as I warn religious folk not to be dogmatic about their scripture. The simple fact is that not all postulations by all scientists are always right. And in this matter, most postulations so far are outrightly ridiculous and laughable. Some are even frankly illiterate.

I have read a few of your posts about this forum and you come across as quite intelligent. It therefore shocks me that you could have bandied about some of the nonsense that you did in earlier posts on this thread. You should look for a post by MyJoe earlier in this thread where he wrote nothing but simply posted a smiley under a quote from you. THAT quote was as laughable as it gets, mate.

The sad thing is that many people these days imagine that tailing the ideas of every scientist makes them "modern" and "aware" and "intellectually sophisticated". My friend, the only thing that makes anyone intellectually sophisticated is having the guts, originality, brilliance and simplicity to think for himself. Period.

Now let us think for our selves.



No this is not the case because the very fabric of our reality is hardwired in causality. If you would think about it you would see how terribly irrational what you are suggesting is. The laws of motion are very clear and adamant in this respect. We do not see anything that moves that has no impetus. That is as far as it obtains in this physical reality. The universe is physical. It began to expand from a point. Ergo, there was some impetus for that. To suggest that it began to move without impetus or cause, is not only illogical and unscientific, it is outright voodoo.

It amazes me how people who pander to science are willing to abandon plain and simple science in pursuit of dogma.



I have not dodged the question of who created a creator. I explained in very simple terms that the creator is not said to have a beginning: and as such did not require being created. This is very simple when one follows the reasoning as follows:

1. We know that from nothingness comes nothing

2. We know that things exist

3. As such, for things to exist, something or the other must have always existed.

That is what we refer to as a self-existent thing. In philosophy such are also referred to as necessary as opposed to contingent things. A necessary thing self-exists. I am assuming you are well acquainted with the distinctions here. Necessary or self-existent things are also non-material.

This resolves the problem of the infinite regress which you keep raising. That problem, as far as I am concerned, is only pondered by philosophical babies.



No, as I have explained, there was never any such thing as "nothing". By the very definition of the word, nothing is nothing: it does not exist and has never existed. There has only ever been a permanent self-existent "something."



The overall shape of the universe being flat in no way suggests that its total energy is zero. Nor does the mathematical act of cancelling positive energies against negative negative energies suggest that either. You really even have to ask yourself what negative energy is and see if it has anything whatsoever to do with the precepts at play here.

You and your friends are toying around with nonsensical voodoo. It is nonsensical to suggest that the total energy of the universe is zero: at least not in the dictionary meaning of the word "zero". Used as a specially defined mathematical concept (which has nothing to do with true zero), you can have a field day for all I care: but you must be aware that this has nothing to do with the true meaning of the word zero. The true meaning of the word zero is nothing - and so long as the universe is something, its total energy can never be said to equate true zero.

In fact, as I explained earlier, true zero, being the equivalent of nothingness, does not exist.

So there is no such thing as true zero, ab initio,

Therefore you cannot equate the universe's energy with true zero, because no such thing exists. Zero is nothing.

Just before I leave this point let me just give you food for thought on the idea of the universe being flat. What is flatness really?

Consider these two against one another: Is a sheet of paper flat? Is a mattress flat? When you reflect carefully on these two, you will revise your idea of flatness - especially as regards the idea of flatness as against zero energy.



My dear, no such thing has ever been proven anywhere. There are idle and frankly id.oitic speculations by some people intent on proving the nonsensical: and these have NEVER been proven anywhere: nor will ever.

As such, people went to the nonsensical extreme of stating that virtual particles emerge from nothingness in a quantum vacuum. I am a lawyer, and not a physicist, and yet, it took me only the slightest reading to see how nonsensically false that is for it is established that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum anywhere; these quantum vacuums we speak of actually contain low gaseous pressure, and as such the particles observed do NOT emerge from "nothing".

I advise you to be rigorous if you seek to use these ideas in your discourses. You might impress the feeble, but you certainly won't impress me with less.




Please don't tell outright lies. Where is the hard evidence for the universe popping into existence from nothingness?

It's depressing that you cannot see what a silly statement that even is. Nothingness is nothingness: it does not exist ab initio. And yet YOU then claim that the people who make the more sensible claim founded on commonsensical causality - are the ones who are deluded? Whereas you are here advocating pure voodooistic fantasy.



Really. Don't lie again. Why on earth did you bring it up then?



I will be careful not to go to a quack lawyer or mechanic, just as you should be wary of unscientific and dogmatic "scientists".



I have not bothered to look. The premises themselves, even if true, do not bear out any of the illogical conclusions you have tried to arrive at.



Take it easy man.

You advise LordBabs against having "a little knowledge" while yourself refusing to read links to articles which you dismiss as voodoo and nonsense WITHOUT reading through all that he's shared. Now, you said you are a lawyer and so I ask you this: does your profession require or promote arguing without bothering to hear the other side? I think not, but if I'm wrong, do listen to the other side to at least here if you wish to have a discussion that moves forward instead of us merely running around in circles, each chasing the other's or one's own tail.

The zero net energy part that they have been talking about is not just scientific voodoo as far as I know. Now, not being a physicist myself, i can't give an appropriate example... and even as I sat here typing an easier, if not accurate example certain loopholes appeared to me and so I'll refrain from posting clearly invalid examples in the hopes someone else will or has posted an example that can explain the zero net energy system (which frankly has me a little perplexed as while anti matter and matter do cancel out upon collision, this results in energy so wherefore comes negative energy? Somebody (preferably a quantum physicist if there are any around) please explain or point me to the post that does.)

Thanks in advance.

P.S. Do pardon any typos. I am typing on the phone and hence am having a bit of a tough time ensuring proper spelling and grammar.

DeepSight:


Oh LAWD.

There is neither oxymoron nor cop out. Settle down and listen:

1. Something exists.

2. Something cannot come from nothing.

3. As such, the somethings that exist came from something already existing.

4. Since things exist, then there was always a something because if there was nothing, there would always have remained nothing and never any something.

5. Thus, something eternal and permanent exists.

6. Anything which is eternal and permanent is self-existent.

7. Self existent things are not mutable by reason of their self-existent and permanent nature.

8. Matter is mutable and changeable and therefore not self existent.

9. Ergo, matter is not that which is the permanent self-existent something.

10. Ergo, that which precedes all things is a permanent, self-existent, non material essence.

11. This is what is referred to as God.

No cop out, no paradox, simple and clear philosophical logic.

The problem with such reasoning can be seen by the argument by a Greek philosopher which stated it was impossible to move or something along those lines. I don't remember the name but it starts with "to cover a distance x you must first cover x/2 and to cover that you must cover x/4..." ad infinitum and from that he concluded something along the lines of walking from A to B being an impossible task. I'm pretty sure I haven't done any justice to his argument (whimsical as it is) but I hope you see the point. The beauty of language and logic is that you can use them to arrive at whichever conclusion suits you. A friend once showed me a little math trick where you can make a non zero term like 2 equal to zero with just some clever manipulation. Language is easier.

Anyway, saying I buy into your argument I still want to know WHY that being/thing/energy/source exists and where it came from.

Edit: I think I've begun rambling from here on:

The Vedas (Rig Veda, if I'm not wrong) also postulate the existence of a being which was always present and from which all is deriderived in its verses, but the tale was either confusing because of the errors in translation or because the statements within are so convoluted as to be beyond the comprehension of my meagre mind.

Trying to still seek a scientific explanation, i believe that it was probably the nonsensical sounding nature of it that again put me off the idea of that self-existent entity. An entity that came from the first egg/shell which became this cosmos and the being created life or the elements of it and also it's shell from whence it came. In easier terms, what they seemed to be saying was that the chicken came from the egg but the egg came from the chicken. Which made no sense to me. Meanwhile your argument that it was always therr requires faith that it was always there even at a time -t from the current reference.

Also, I believe that while we take time = 0 at the time of creation of our universe it doesnt mean nothing ever existed at a time t prior to 0, as in, by stating that the net energy of the universe is zero and assuming a "Cosmic Crunch" scenario where expansion retards and then reverses, at a certain time in the future there will again be "nothing" when everything collapses in itself, what is to say that such a scenario hasnt already happened and this is just the next iteration in a series of such universes that keep popping up and collapsing as quantum mechanics says is possible.

Note all the above is conjecture.

DeepSight:


Aside from this, there are zillions of everyday pointers to the glaring fact of super-dimensional energy and intelligence, and it is amazing how foolishly the atheist blinds himself to these.

Please share a few. I promise to read up when next I come online.

Do note that I will approach with a sceptic mindset just as you approached (or rather used to justify avoiding) the flat universe scenario.

And about that, flat may not mean "flat" in the conventional sense. Scientific terms shouldnt be dismissed just because of what they sound like, sometimes the term is misleading or leads to presumptions that are overlysimplified.

DeepSight:


In my view, God is the compound of pure intangible energy and the compound of self existent laws.

This is not to say that I subscribe to God being strictly impersonal: for; as someone once powerfully remarked, creation itself reeks of a personal rather than impersonal act. Nevertheless I do not believe that God itself necessarily directly created this universe. Someday humans will create a universe. That does not mean humans and all of reality, have no ultimate origin - which is what God is.

Funnily enough, I liked that last bit. However, if say it is possible for us to create a universe and we have an origin, what is to say that the god that created us has no origin. It could be that whatever created this universe had a creator too. Our universe beinf the First is but an assumption and it is equally likely this universe is just a creation of some higher universe's beings, hell, we have Sim City now, so a Sim Universe shouldnt be all that tough for a species thousands of years more advanced than ours (assuming similar exponential rates of growth, of course). Then again that is still passing the buck. Assuming we aren't the first, who created our creators?

DeepSight:


I posed the question to you, my student, and you are throwing it back at me? Ha.

Ok, here is my own answer: Eternity is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

Now attempt my question on whether eternity exists or not; and whether it is caused or not.

Thank you, ever kind, noble, gracious and majestic sir: Lord of the seven seas, Imperial Regent for Africa, and most exalted Prince of Persia.

Having checked the time stamps, I have realised, to my great mortification that I have and still am posting on an old, and seemingly dead thread. To answer the eternity question, I agree with the way you state it is and then point you to the part about universes being created and collapsing back to nothing before it leads to the birth of another and so on ad infitum. An explanation derived from the tiny understanding I have of Quantum Mechanics. Again, conjecture, but so is god.

CrazyKaps:


Having checked the time stamps, I have realised, to my great mortification that I have and still am posting on an old, and seemingly dead thread.

That shouldnt stop you from contributing. Persons quoted have a chance to reply and by reviving the thread, you bring it to the attention of others who may also have contributions to make.

jayriginal:


That shouldnt stop you from contributing. Persons quoted have a chance to reply and by reviving the thread, you bring it to the attention of others who may also have contributions to make.

Let us hope it is so.

Also, @PhysicsQED, am I right in deducing that the so called negative energy required to satisfy the conservation of energy for our is gravity? Or could there also be negative energy matter/particles, perhaps like the enigmatic Exotic Matter found in contemporary science-fiction stories?

CrazyKaps:


Funnily enough, I liked that last bit. However, if say it is possible for us to create a universe and we have an origin, what is to say that the god that created us has no origin. It could be that whatever created this universe had a creator too. Our universe beinf the First is but an assumption and it is equally likely this universe is just a creation of some higher universe's beings, hell, we have Sim City now, so a Sim Universe shouldnt be all that tough for a species thousands of years more advanced than ours (assuming similar exponential rates of growth, of course). Then again that is still passing the buck. Assuming we aren't the first, who created our creators?

CrazyKaps:

Having checked the time stamps, I have realised, to my great mortification that I have and still am posting on an old, and seemingly dead thread. To answer the eternity question, I agree with the way you state it is and then point you to the part about universes being created and collapsing back to nothing before it leads to the birth of another and so on ad infitum. An explanation derived from the tiny understanding I have of Quantum Mechanics. Again, conjecture, but so is god.

No, kind sir, nowhere have I presumed nor would I presume this universe to be the first such universe: or to be even directly created by God. I would rather think that it is preceded by and perhaps subsumed in virtually infinite prior and succeeding universes and dimensions of reality.

@DeepSight

Apologies about that misinterpretation then. I mistakenly assumed that you had drawn the same conclusions that most others I've talked to do.
Thanks for clearing that up.