16 13

Space (A.K.A. Outer Space, Cosmological Space) is not an empty void, not free of substance or form.

Space contains trace amounts of matter throughout the universe. It’s primarily very hot (hundreds of thousands of degrees), coronal-like gas in most locations between galaxies. Once created, coronal gas lacks effective cooling mechanisms and is incredibly transparent, making the universe appear cold (3 Kelvin), the cosmic microwave radiation from the cooling down after the Big Bang. In addition to ordinary matter, there are neutrinos and other exotic particles zipping through ever volume of space along with radiation. Moreover, there is ten times more dark matter than ordinary matter in each volume and more dark energy than dark matter by three fold on average.

Space itself has structure, a sea teaming with quantum mechanical interactions and fluctuations. Both space and time were created in the Big Bang. There was no time prior to the BB and no way to be “outside” of the BB watching creation of the universe unfold.

By TheAstroChuck8
Actions Follow Post Like

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

16 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

This is a fascinating discussion, with a profound and astute truth being presented by a qualified physicist, and that truth being denied by those who cling to a shallow world view where space, time, and matter are taken to be primary and are not to be questioned. The irony is that the shallow world view is thought to be scientific by its adherents, and they dismiss the statements of the scientist as being unscientific.

I see space, time and things as being modes of thought. In ultimate reality beyond our senses those concepts have little or no meaning. Read “Reality is not What it Seems” by physicist Carlo Rovelli. One of his chapters is entitled “Time does not exist”.

IMO the practice of dogmatic scientism is based on ignorance and bigotry far worse than any religion.

0

Trying to explain the Universe to Chuck is just as futile as trying to explain evolution to a Christian.

gater Level 7 Mar 18, 2019

Between you and Chuck, who, would you say, is more confident of their position?

@skado I can't speak for him, but im 100% positive

0

Very true, but they have many counter arguments and refuse to acknowledge reason

skeptic11 Level 3 Mar 17, 2019

Who is the "they?"

@TheAstroChuck them

0

Hey Chuck, You're never going to win a religious argument with reason. Time is infinite because "something" had to have existed before the big bang and they accept this as a matter of faith The only evidence they are willing to accept is that you prove that "nothing" exists and they are blind to the logical paradox of their own position.

Buttercup Level 7 Mar 17, 2019

Yup, I know that. It's just like the three laws of thermodynamics: 1. You can't win, you can only break even. 2. You can only break even at absolute zero. 3. You can never reach absolute zero. Conclusion: you can't win or break even.

I'm not trying to win. I'm only trying to break even and then not in the eyes of the true believers. I'm merely trying to lay down counter arguments to show the casual visitor what is and is not scientific. True believers are always misinformed about scientific findings and have to resort to bluster because they do not a valid argument.

3

Loving the discussions on here. Sadly my space related knowledge is limited & mostly comes from Doctor Who, otherwise I'd certainly engage.

Decieven Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

I used to love Dr. Who of old. I watched it on Sunday mornings in the US.

1

no time before the Big Bang? tell me about the trillions of years before the BB -

gater Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

There wasn't any time before the existence of time. Not one year, not a thousand, or not a trillion.

@TheAstroChuck you clearly don't understand time

@gater LOL

@TheAstroChuck funny , that's the same reaction I have when I read about your views of the universe.

@gater Great. It's always good to laugh.

@TheAstroChuck "There wasn't any time before the existence of time. Not one year, not a thousand, or not a trillion."

On the grounds that matter / energy can neither be created or destroyed - and if you disagree then tell me how you can create matter / energy out of a state of absolute nothingness - then OF NECESSITY time has always existed. There was NO start to time if matter / energy have always existed. Logic 101.

@johnprytz Your mistake is your assumption of absolute nothingness.

@TheAstroChuck "Your mistake is your assumption of absolute nothingness."

Absolute nothingness would be the total absence of all matter and force particles. In other words, if you have this particle, and that particle, then there is a state of absolute nothingness between them! You MUST have states of absolute nothingness because if everything were a something you couldn't move because something would be in the way. Motion would be impossible if everything were a something!

@johnprytz Yawn.

@TheAstroChuck "Yawn."

Sweet dreams. But that reminds me that sometimes profound scientific insights come to those in dreams. Perhaps you might have such an insight into the state of play about your obsession with the creation of something from nothing and dream up an alternative state of play!

2

"Space contains trace amounts of matter throughout the universe." - This is true.

"In addition to ordinary matter, there are neutrinos and other exotic particles zipping through ever volume of space along with radiation." - This too is true.

"Space itself has structure, a sea teaming with quantum mechanical interactions and fluctuations." - Part of this - the latter part is true - but the former part about linking space with structure is not true.

In other words, all of this matter, neutrinos, exotic particles, radiation, and quantum interactions, etc. exists IN space and independently of space. That in and of itself does NOT give space any actual structure or independent composition. If space has structure then it in and of itself must be composed of something, and what that something is The Astro Chuck hasn't identified. Why? Because he can't because space has no actual structure or composition. Things with structure just reside and move around within the concept we call "space".

johnprytz Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

Just because we haven't discovered what space is composed of, doesn't mean it isn't. When you relieve yourself of any and all metaphysical, supernatural beliefs.. all you are left with is a physical reality. It's very clear that space is a physical medium, it's exact components have yet to be fully identified.

@FatherOfNyx "Just because we haven't discovered what space is composed of, doesn't mean it isn't."

Okay, you (and everyone else) reside in space. Space surrounds you. So it can't be that difficult to analyse on a slab in the lab what's literally surrounding you. It's not as if space where somewhere far, far, far away and out of reach. How difficult can it be?

@johnprytz It's because it's on a level that is so small, we don't have the technology to observe it. You know, like how we couldn't observe atoms for a long time.. Things on such a small scale take time and technology. Hydrogen is another good example. It's so small, that it's very difficult to store.. and we are just now making progress in hydrogen storage. The components that make up space are on a scale so small that it'll probably be a few generations until we develop the technology capable of directly observing it.

All of my statements are correct and there is no need to interject your voodoo into the discussion.

@TheAstroChuck no - time and space had no beginning - the BBT is a failed attempt to explain the universe.

@gater I'd bet you cannot name one single failure of the Big Bang Theory, other than it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion of time and space.

@TheAstroChuck "I'd bet you cannot name one single failure of the Big Bang Theory..."

Here's one. How can you cram the entire contents of the Universe into a size less than that of a pinhead (at the point of the Big Bang event) and not have the Mother of all Black Holes, in which case you couldn't have a "Bang", Big or otherwise.

@FatherOfNyx "It's because it's on a level that is so small, we don't have the technology to observe it."

You're just guessing.

"Hydrogen is another good example. It's so small, that it's very difficult to store."

You have absolutely got to be joking! Really? Call up any company that supplies chemicals and ask if they have a container of pure hydrogen in stock!

"The components that make up space are on a scale so small that it'll probably be a few generations until we develop the technology capable of directly observing it."

And you KNOW this how, exactly? Again, you're just guessing; spitting into the wind.

@TheAstroChuck "All of my statements are correct and there is no need to interject your voodoo into the discussion."

And there was probably no actual need for you to post this into the discussion. It's obvious to Blind Freddy that you think - think, not know - that all of your statements are correct. Obviously some people don't agree with you. No surprises there. That being the case, perhaps you are the one injecting the voodoo!

@johnprytz: @TheAstroChuck "I'd bet you cannot name one single failure of the Big Bang Theory..."

  • Here's one. How can you cram the entire contents of the Universe into a size less than that of a pinhead (at the point of the Big Bang event) and not have the Mother of all Black Holes, in which case you couldn't have a "Bang", Big or otherwise. *

You just violated the second part of my statement. Identify a failure other than one that violates your sensibilities. Your sensibilities (or anyone else's) have no bearing on scientific thought. The only valid failure would be a repeatable quantifiable measurement that is distinctly different from the one that the Big Bang theory predicts.

Edited

@johnprytz The Mother of All Black Holes? We went over this in previous posts. I'm surprised you don't recall. A black hole can only be sustained if the matter compressed into a small volume is sufficiently cold. If the matter is sufficiently hot, it can never form a black hole in the first place. You can't create black holes simply by adding more and more mass. You form a star. Similarly, one cannot cram all of the mass in universe into the volume of a single star, let alone the small volume of a pin head. It's not possible as all the mass will become sufficiently hot to start expanding long before one comes anywhere close to the required densities.

@TheAstroChuck "A black hole can only be sustained if the matter compressed into a small volume is sufficiently cold."

Ah, but I thought the Big Bang event was, or started off as a singularity, just like what apparently lurks inside a Black Hole. In other words, like in a Black Hole, the physics totally breaks down at T = 0 with respect to the Big Bang event. And further, what is the temperature boundary that allows or doesn't allow a Black Hole to form?

Sorry, but to my way of understanding, density is amount of mass per unit of volume. That says nothing about temperature. And at T = 0 you had one hell of a lot of mass inside one hell of a tiny, tiny, tiny volume. In other words, at T = 0 you had a massive density, which is exactly the state of affairs with respect to what a Black Hole represents.

@johnprytz You are correct. The Big Bang is a singularity in which physics breaks down as you approach T=0. That is the very reason you cannot make statements about it being "The Mother of All Black Holes." No conclusions can be drawn in the first second after the Big Bang. A few statements and conclusions can be made about the state of the universe between T=10 sec. and T=10yrs. Even more can be said for T=100yrs to 100,000yrs. Many more statements can be made for T>1Byr and so on.

@TheAstroChuck "You just violated the second part of my statement. Identify a failure other than one that violates your sensibilities. Your sensibilities (or anyone else's) have no bearing on scientific thought."

What sensibilities? I've just applied my understanding of physics - which may be wrong - to an actual scientific concept - the one that states the Big Bang event started off with the contents of the entire Universe crammed down into the size of a pinhead. I'm not objecting just for the state of objecting but because I think the pinhead concept is not only wrong but absurdly wrong based on my understanding.

@johnprytz Perhaps you should use a better understanding of actual scientific concepts. You might try to learn first what scientists are saying, before you start drawing erroneous conclusions.

@TheAstroChuck "Perhaps you should use a better understanding of actual scientific concepts."

While I am well aware that you can’t always apply common sense to scientific matters, the very idea that you can cram all of the matter / energy in the Universe down into the size of a pinhead (or less) is a stretch way too far. It’s absurd; it’s total nonsense and it’s totally beyond the pale. I don’t believe it! Further, you've provided not one shred of evidence that that indeed was the case. You can't because there's no observation you can make that enables you to see further back than roughly 380,000 years post the Big Bang event.

@TheAstroChuck "A black hole can only be sustained if the matter compressed into a small volume is sufficiently cold. If the matter is sufficiently hot, it can never form a black hole in the first place."

So if you just heat up a Black Hole you’ll no longer have a Black Hole – right? Okay, so by some means of astro-engineering, get a Black Hole to swallow up and digest a mainstream star. That outta heat up the Black Hole and destroy it – correct?

"You can't create black holes simply by adding more and more mass."

But in this particular case I’m not talking about adding mass to already existing mass and then crossing some physical threshold and forming a Black Hole. All of the existing mass of the Universe was already present in one place at one time as an initial condition which is a different kettle of fish.

@TheAstroChuck "No conclusions can be drawn in the first second after the Big Bang."

No conclusions can be drawn for the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang event on the grounds that no actual observations can be made between T = 0 and T = 380,000 years. And certainly no conclusions can be drawn before your T = 0, again on the grounds that no observations are possible.

1

That phrase is used to keep people aware that there is no center of the universe and that popular artistic depictions of the Big Bang (you know, the little bright light emanating things) are not correct. Like they explained before, if the universe is infinite or it's curved so that is finite but there are no boundaries (think of the balloon analogy), then all points started separating from each other, thus "it happened everywhere at once".

Reference [physicsforums.com]

Humm, so "IT" Banged and all at once where there was no space anywhere, space appeared "everywhere" all at once Sounds like some illogical science to me.

Antifred Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

"Humm, so "IT" Banged and all at once where there was no space anywhere, space appeared "everywhere" all at once Sounds like some illogical science to me."

Indeed. It is perfectly illogical. There is and always has been preexisting space and the Big Bang event happened within that preexisting space, just like a stick of dynamite explodes in a preexisting space. The Big Bang event couldn't have created space since the Big Bang event would of had to had an initial kick-start without the benefit of there being any existing space in which to kick.

Not illogical. Perhaps beyond your common experience or knowledge.

0

So there was antispace then BANG then space started taking time to push antispace away creating the scientific bubble?

Antifred Level 7 Mar 16, 2019

No antispace. No such thing. Don't get hung up on the word BANG. The Big Bang was not something over there and happening at a specific time. Neither space or time existed before the Big Bang.

@TheAstroChuck I understand the scientific myth of the big bang theory.

@Antifred If you did, you wouldn't be calling it a myth. There is no overlap between mythical thinking and scientific thought.

@TheAstroChuck Carl Sagan a well known hardcore scientist clearly states in video at 2 minutes and 49 seconds that the big bang theory is the current scientific creation MYTH.

Edited

@TheAstroChuck "The Big Bang was not something over there and happening at a specific time."

Excuse me, I thought the Big Bang event was DATED to 13.8 billion years ago. That's getting to a reasonably specific time IMHO.

@Antifred Sagan said "scientific creation" yes. He did not add the word myth. I have no problem with scientific creation, which has nothing to do with myth. There is substantial amounts of myth associated with the origin of god and the universe outside of the scientific realm but there is no mythical thinking in the hard sciences.

@Antifred, @johnprytz While the start of the universe happened 13.8 Byrs ago, the Big Bang did not happen in the context of an already running clock. The Big Bang is a singularity; there is absolutely no prior to the BB. It did not occur at a specific time because time did not exist prior to the BB.

@TheAstroChuck you in denial?

@Antifred No I'm telling you what science, constrained by observations, indicates. It's totally up to you whether you favor mythical explanations over scientific ones.

@TheAstroChuck big bang theory is scientific myth

@Antifred That's your fundamental mistake. There's no such thing as a scientific myth.

@TheAstroChuck Carl Sagan clearly states othrrwise

@Antifred You are mistaken. Carl Sagan never referred to a scientific myth. It's a case of you hearing what you want to hear and disregarding the rest.

@TheAstroChuck

2 minutes 49 seconds

Carl Sagan specifically says and i directly quote, " the big bang is our modern scientific creation myth"

thank you

@Antifred I listened to Carl Sagan for a second time and you are misquoting him. He did say: "The Big Bang is our modern scientific creation." He does not use the word "myth." There really is nothing I can do if you are hearing things that aren't there, but instead are inserted by your brain.

We are at an impasse. Simply repeating yourself won't get us anywhere. You seemingly have chosen to think in mystical terms, which are totally incompatible with science.

@TheAstroChuck "The Big Bang is a singularity; there is absolutely no prior to the BB. It did not occur at a specific time because time did not exist prior to the BB."

And you KNOW this how exactly? You can't observe the state of affairs prior to the Big Bang event and so you have absolutely NO knowledge of the actual state of affairs before T = 0. You may BELIEVE this to be the state of play, but you don't KNOW that.

@TheAstroChuck Must be some of those typical illogical atheist dishonest ears you have going on there.

@TheAstroChuck
Sagan has a habit of clipping some of his words a little short, to my ear. But it does sound like he says:
"The big bang is our modern scientific creation myth."
Now what to make of that is another question entirely, but I do hear a somewhat truncated syllable in there that sounds like "myth" to me.

@TheAstroChuck Nether time or space existed before the big bang??? This statement is so retarded, you do not understand space or time.

Edited

@TheAstroChuck I agree with you generally, but I did hear the word "myth". I think that he was comparing science's need to provide an explanation to that of religions. One comes out of thin air and the other is based on facts and evidence, however.

1

I find this all fascinating and yet hard to understand at the same time. Religion cops out by saying there god has always existed. What if the universe has always existed and there is no need of gods?

DenoPenno Level 8 Mar 16, 2019

The Universe - of at least the Cosmos of which the (our) Universe is a finite part - has always existed. Why? Because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter / energy can neither be created or destroyed. That being the case, matter / energy has existed in a temporal infinity. Anyone who disagrees with this needs to explain how matter / energy can be created out of a state of absolute nothingness.

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.

@johnprytz : You cannot extrapolate the first law to infer the universe is infinite and always existed.

@johnprytz Time is infinite because I say so is not a good argument in the face of the big bang that traces it back to it's start. Actually if it wasn't false it might be a good argument for the existence of god. What happened before the beginning is the same argument as if all this exists it had to have a creator. If the universe depends on an infinite existence of time and matter it would include all possibilities including god. Who created god? The lack of an answer, doesn't make an opinion true.

@ The AstroChuck "You cannot extrapolate the first law to infer the universe is infinite and always existed."

The First Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that matter / energy can neither be created nor destroyed (only changed from one form to another). If you insist otherwise, not only are you trending against a long established law of physics but you need to demonstrate how matter / energy can be created or destroyed. This, I propose, you cannot do.

@Buttercup "Time is infinite because I say so is not a good argument in the face of the big bang that traces it back to it's start."

I never said "because I say so". I gave a perfectly valid argument for temporal infinity based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. I didn't invent anything up!

Therefore there was a before the Big Bang event, just like there's a stick of dynamite that exists prior to its going BOOM!

@Buttercup "If the universe depends on an infinite existence of time and matter it would include all possibilities including god."

Not so. Anything that can happen will happen, given enough time, BUT you're not going to have a four-sided triangle for example; and 2 = 2 won't ever equal 93; and something won't both be and not be at the same time and place. If a God, god, gods and goddess are part of that "anything that can happen will happen" then yes. But such entities might lie in the same realm as four-sided triangles.

@johnprytz You have once again misconstrued basic physics concepts and definitions. Then you go on to conflated separate physics principles into a single self-inconsistent concept, complaining it doesn't make sense.

Thermodynamics deals with the transitions of a bound system. Specifically, how do temperature, pressure, and volume of the system change. Certain processes are exothermal or endothermic. Wind flowing over the top of a mountain is an adiabatic process - not exchanging energy with the rest of the atmosphere or Earth's surface. A consequence of this adiabatic flow is temperatures near the peak become cooler than at lower elevations and warms back up once the wind returns to the low elevations.

The conservation of mass-energy is a separate physics principle. Thermodynamics really has nothing to do with conservation of mass-energy. Discussions of energy (and conservation of energy) in thermodynamics has to do with heat and mechanical energy (defined as Work in physics). If energy is conserved during a thermodynamic transition, then that system does not exchange energy with its exterior - no net amount of work was done on the system and no heat was added or subtracted.

@johnprytz Your reply to @Buttercup did not give "a perfectly valid argument... based on the First Law of Thermodynamics." That is why he accused you of making an argument based on "because I say so."

@TheAstroChuck The First Law of Thermodynamics exists independently of "because I say so". I didn't make up that First Law of Thermodynamics and no one need take my word for it.

@TheAstroChuck "The conservation of mass-energy is a separate physics principle."

Yet that principle does reside within that First Law of Thermodynamics, does it not? The First Law might involve lots of other concepts, but the conservation of matter / energy is one of them.

In any event, the bottom line is that you can't create matter / energy out of a state of pure nothingness and you can't destroy matter / energy back into a state of pure nothingness. That's, again, the bottom line.

@johnprytz Conservation of mass-energy resides along side the First Law of Thermo. not inside it. You didn't make up the First Law of Thermo. that's true. However, your are not using the First Law correctly. You are extending it well beyond its scope, nullifying your arguments.

@TheAstroChuck "Conservation of mass-energy resides along side the First Law of Thermo. not inside it. You didn't make up the First Law of Thermo. that's true. However, your are not using the First Law correctly. You are extending it well beyond its scope, nullifying your arguments."

The fundamental principle; the bottom line inherent in the First Law of Thermodynamics is that you can’t create an absolute something from an absolute nothing. These implications logically follow. 1) The Big Bang event did NOT, could NOT, create out of whole cloth matter and energy. 2) Therefore, the Big Bang event did not create time and space. 3) Therefore the Cosmos has always existed and we have a temporal infinity. Now if you disagree with that, you MUST put your cards face up on the table and explain how something can come from nothing. I very much doubt that you can do that.

2

My mind doesn’t know what to do with “no time”.

skado Level 8 Mar 15, 2019

You needn't worry about it because matter / energy has always existed under that First Law of Thermodynamics and therefore time - which is just change, and change which is just the constant motion of matter / energy - has always existed.

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.

@johnprytz : You cannot extrapolate the first law to infer the universe is infinite and always existed.

the idea of no time is illogical - if you think time isn't a constant, then you don't understand time. the idea of a pre time is retarded.

@TheAstroChuck
Thanks, but I don’t have the background to understand that or what it has to do with time not existing.

@gater There is no such thing as "pre time." It's a meaningless question to ask what happened before the Big Bang since time did not exist.

@The AstroChuck "It's a meaningless question to ask what happened before the Big Bang since time did not exist."

It is most certainly NOT a meaningless question to ask what happened before the Big Bang UNLESS you can demonstrate how the Big Bang event created all of matter / energy (hence time) out of a state of ABSOLUTE NOTHING! Can you do that? Of course you can't do that!

3

I remember being impressed by a lecture by Lawrence Krause about the universe never being "empty". Even space with particles passing through it removed has quantum level virtual particles popping in and out. Not just interesting as a scientific point, but on religion, the false claim that there had to be God because nothing can come from nothing. Wrong. There's never nothing, it seems in science. Even in general language the word nothing is used generally but inaccurately. Nothing on my mind; nothing on my plate; nothing out there..etc Of course my mind is not empty, my plate has food crumbs on it, and things are out there.

David1955 Level 7 Mar 15, 2019

Well said.

all of this is out of my stream of consciousness I watched an old documentary about . the development of telescopes a while back. THey touched briefly on our not so long ago idea of the emptiness of space and showed comparisons of what we see depending on our technology. Pretty basic but enough for me

1

wrong - space and time are infinite - there was no beginning of the universe.

gater Level 7 Mar 15, 2019

"wrong - space and time are infinite - there was no beginning of the universe." And we are supposed to take your word for it...no rationale, no counter theory, etc. Just like you are the sage on the mountain top.

@dahermit Quite apart from the fact that I'd replace his use of the word "universe" with Cosmos, science and logic dictates that time and space are infinite. Time is infinite since matter / energy must have always existed under the First Law of Thermodynamics and you can't have matter / energy independently of the concept of time. Space is infinite because if you assume the opposite then you are faced with the puzzle of what's on the other side of whatever finite container contains that finite space.

@johnprytz Thank you.

@johnprytz Regardless of whether you call it "universe" or "cosmos," science and logic do not dictate space and time are infinite. The vast scientific literature and investigations dating back to Einstein's Relativity indicate time and space came into being at the point of the Big Bang. CC: @dahermit
First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy.

@johnprytz : You cannot extrapolate the first law to infer the universe is infinite and always existed.

Edited

@dahermit yes - take my word for it - because its true.

@TheAstroChuck as I told you before - einsteins special theory is flawed. you probably need to stay away from theories and build your view of the universe based on facts.

@gater I will "take your word for it if you are the oracle at Delphi...all others need to express more than a "bumper stickerish" pronouncement. You could be some dip sitting at the end of the bar for all I know.
Give a rational explanation for your theory or STFU.

Edited

@dahermit lol I gave you facts - wallow in ignorance - I really don't care.

@gater You gave me a "bumper sticker".

@TheAstroChuck ..."science and logic do not dictate space and time are infinite. The vast scientific literature and investigations dating back to Einstein's Relativity indicate time and space came into being at the point of the Big Bang."

Unless of course there was an actual before the Big Bang event. And there's more than one cosmological model in the academic literature that requires a before the Big Bang event and you know that to be true.

@johnprytz "Unless of course there was an actual before the Big Bang event." That's a false assumption. There are no scientific cosmological models in the academic literature that require a before the BB event. Please point to one and I'm sure I can show you where are misinterpreting the actual text.

@TheAstroChuck "There are no scientific cosmological models in the academic literature that require a before the BB event."

Holy Crap! I don't believe you came out with that B.S. Haven't you heard of the cyclic universe concept wrapped up in what's now called the Ekpyrotic Universe (or Cosmos) proposed by actual scientists Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Here's a reference:

Steinhardt, Paul J. & Turok, Neil; Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang; Phoenix, London; 2007.

@johnprytz Unholy crap! The cyclic universe has fallen out of favor because the expansion of the universe is increasing. Moreover, if such a thing was happening, each cycle would be a separate universe and we'd have absolutely no knowledge around each singularity.

@TheAstroChuck "The cyclic universe has fallen out of favor because the expansion of the universe is increasing."

I gather you haven't actually bothered to study Steinhardt's and Turok's Ekpyrotic Universe cosmology.

Anyway, you would know that second, third, etc. generation stars form from the interstellar dust and gas expelled by supernova. If it gets dense enough there's contraction and hence ultimately a new star. Now up that one level. True, our Universe is expanding and apparently is never going to stop and contract. But what if our expanding Universe were to intersect another expanding universe, thus increasing in that region the density of stuff sufficiently to cause that to start collapsing - not into a star of course - but resulting in a Big Crunch and hence the birth of another expanding universe. That sort of cycle might be plausible. And to the best of my knowledge, the idea is original to me.

0

It's hard for us to wrap our heads around, that the statements "nothing is something" and "what was before the beginning" aren't gibberish show the blind spot in our thinking. Nothing really is nothing, time and volume aren't exceptions.

Buttercup Level 7 Mar 15, 2019

"Nothing" isn't "something." It's simply a matter of mistaking something as being nothing. What happened before time existed? That's a meaningless question.

@TheAstroChuck "What happened before time existed? That's a meaningless question."

Not if happenings happen in a temporally infinite time frame. There's no way you can actually demonstrate that that is NOT the case.

@johnprytz There is no proving or disproving a meaningless question. All answers to meaningless questions are shear fantasy, unbridled wishy washy statements that are completely untethered to observation. These are all pointless and of no value.

@TheAstroChuck "There is no proving or disproving a meaningless question".

Whether or not the Cosmos is temporally infinite or not is hardly a meaningless question, especially when the answer lies within the realm of actual physical concepts, such as the one about matter / energy not being created (out of nothing) or destroyed (back to nothing). Demonstrate to me that matter / energy therefore hasn't always existed based on that physical concept.

@johnprytz Your approach leads to questions and "answers" that are meaningless. It's impossible to demonstrate anything to you as you seem to have already drawn numerous erroneous conclusions. Before you challenge me to prove what I've just said, first take some classes and study physics at a university.

@TheAstroChuck "Your approach leads to questions and "answers" that are meaningless."

At this point I think it's just better to agree to disagree. I'm quite content within myself that I've made quite the valid point and argument.

0

Officially the my god is better arguement for Athiest unfolding in the forums, it's my concept of the universe and its being.

Biosteelman Level 6 Mar 15, 2019
2

So, from a practical engineering point of view, a really fast space ship needs a bulldozer blade mounted on her bow?

bigpawbullets Level 8 Mar 15, 2019

Yup. Just the same way that a bulldozer blade helps an aircraft.

@TheAstroChuck
Maybe more like a "cow-catcher" then. I see your point there Chuck. smile009.gif

Write Comment
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Humanist.com is the largest non-profit community for humanists!