How do you think the universe started ?

[Campion]

.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Campion

[Macnamara]

Creation flows out of a well and becomes 5 rivers. Its through those that we perceive reality

[shabbirss]

Consciousness...
 

• •  

Posted May 27

Sanksrit Lullaby - You are Everything

 

 

SANSKRIT SONG from The Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa

[ManxCat3]

On 8/23/2020 at 6:17 PM, QuodHumana said:

I think the universe was always just there, no creator, no big bang. It was just always there. And will always be there.

But then youre saying "something" always existed

[Arnie]

33 minutes ago, ManxCat3 said:

But then youre saying "something" always existed

 

I can't actually see any way that "something always existed" cannot be true.

 

Let's go down the "headscrewed" route. Nothing existed. Just getting your conciousness around that statement is hard enough. Then all of a sudden, something suddenly existed. Errr...how?

[Campion]

27 minutes ago, ManxCat3 said:

But then youre saying "something" always existed

 

This reminds me of the Steady State Model (alternative to the Big Bang) which was a respectable theory with a minority support until the cosmic background microwave radiation was discovered in 1964 which (for reasons I can't remember) favoured the Big Bang. 

[jois]

4 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

I can't actually see any way that "something always existed" cannot be true.

 

Let's go down the "headscrewed" route. Nothing existed. Just getting your conciousness around that statement is hard enough. Then all of a sudden, something suddenly existed. Errr...how?

I'm not necessarily a propenent of the big bang.but it doesn't even suggest that there was a time when nothing existed.just that it was very small

[jois]

5 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

This reminds me of the Steady State Model (alternative to the Big Bang) which was a respectable theory with a minority support until the cosmic background microwave radiation was discovered in 1964 which (for reasons I can't remember) favoured the Big Bang. 

It was a bit more than that. It was the model that Einstein based his relatively theories on. Which he had to reright when it turned out it wasn't in the 1930s.

 

It then was his theories run backwards that lead to the big bang theory.though he wasn't a fan

 

The CMB conclusively proves that the universe was at one point very hot and very dense. For reasons that would take me 3000 words to explain briefly

[Campion]

6 minutes ago, Arnie said:

 

I can't actually see any way that "something always existed" cannot be true.

 

Let's go down the "headscrewed" route. Nothing existed. Just getting your conciousness around that statement is hard enough. Then all of a sudden, something suddenly existed. Errr...how?

 

"Nothing" is a paradox in itself. After all you need to have a concept of nothingness to be able to think about it in the first place, which seems to contradict the definition of nothing.  

 

Similarly, "everything" (which is a synonym for the universe) is also paradoxical because every idea of it is formed within it. You can't have an objective understanding of everything. 

 

"Then all of a sudden, something suddenly existed. Errr...how?" 

I guess space-time would need to exist before or simultaneously with anything else. There would be no "sudden" or "suddenly" unless there was time. 

[Campion]

1 minute ago, jois said:

It was a bit more than that. It was the model that Einstein based his relatively theories on. Which he had to reright when it turned out it wasn't in the 1930s.

 

It then was his theories run backwards that lead to the big bang theory.though he wasn't a fan

 

The CMB conclusively proves that the universe was at one point very hot and very dense. For reasons that would take me 3000 words to explain briefly

 

That's right, I remember now. Einstein introduced a fudge factor into his equations didn't he, a constant to make them agree with steady state rather than big bang because of his bias. If only he'd left that out he would have predicted the big bang ahead of the others. 

 

In any case, both theories need to explain the red-shift of the galaxies, understood as them moving apart. In another life I'd have been a cosmologist, but I have an itch which I can't quite scratch which tells me there's more to this than we realise. If the universe is supposed to be expanding, what is it expanding into?  By definition, space-time itself has no boundary with an inside and an outside. 

[jois]

6 minutes ago, Campion said:

 

That's right, I remember now. Einstein introduced a fudge factor into his equations didn't he, a constant to make them agree with steady state rather than big bang because of his bias. If only he'd left that out he would have predicted the big bang ahead of the others. 

 

In any case, both theories need to explain the red-shift of the galaxies, understood as them moving apart. In another life I'd have been a cosmologist, but I have an itch which I can't quite scratch which tells me there's more to this than we realise. If the universe is supposed to be expanding, what is it expanding into?  By definition, space-time itself has no boundary with an inside and an outside. 

There a re various not very satisfactory answers to that.like

If it's infinite it has infinite room to exspand into ie you half infinity it's still infinitely large

To be clear we only know the visible universe is expanding.the rest of it,if there is a rest of it may be doing fuck all

[TheConsultant]

55 minutes ago, Campion said:

In any case, both theories need to explain the red-shift of the galaxies,

Magnetism produces both redshift and blueshift of light and of course can bend light.
 

Space-time isn't a thing.

Magnetism is also why we have anything in the visible universe at all. Opposite of counterspace is space, centre of a magnet is counterspace. Loss of that infinitely small space/potential is space and what we are able to see.

So you could argue a big bag emanating from counterspace due to loss of inertia is absolutely reproducible in a magnet, as all stellar objects act as large magnets you could argue we overlook something very simple all of the time.

Put another way, magnetism is what shapes the entire known universe.

Edited September 13, 2022 by TheConsultant

[The All Eye]

The universe, in my opinion, started when a highly superior being ate too much Chipotle and let out a giant fart.

[Campion]

58 minutes ago, jois said:

There a re various not very satisfactory answers to that.like

If it's infinite it has infinite room to exspand into ie you half infinity it's still infinitely large

To be clear we only know the visible universe is expanding.the rest of it,if there is a rest of it may be doing fuck all

 

Yeah, like there's all that dark matter and dark energy which I'm not really up to speed with. 

 

"If it's infinite it has infinite room to exspand into ie you half infinity it's still infinitely large"
I can see why this is unsatisfactory  tho I thought the conventional idea was a finite size for the universe based on its age of 13.8 billion years and the speed of light as the max speed.  Although I vaguely remember that the cosmologists still introduce fudge-factors like inflation to super-size the expansion and something else to explain the lack of symmetry. So as a theory the big bang is rather cobbled together and inelegant. 

 

20 minutes ago, TheConsultant said:

Magnetism produced both redshift and blueshift of light. 

 

That's a new one to me, haven't had time to watch the video yet but I'm open to new ideas. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Campion

[TheConsultant]

9 minutes ago, The All Eye said:

The universe, in my opinion, started when a highly superior being ate too much Chipotle and let out a giant fart.

THATS why the majority of matter is hot gas! you might be on to something!!

[ManxCat3]

21 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

I can't actually see any way that "something always existed" cannot be true.

 

Let's go down the "headscrewed" route. Nothing existed. Just getting your conciousness around that statement is hard enough. Then all of a sudden, something suddenly existed. Errr...how?

 

The fundamental problem is the only two possibilities are unacceptable which is why I think it means that there must be something which is the equivalent of  a God because its the only way out of the unsolvable problem.

[Talorgan]

Or we experience it as the universe because of our senses 

[Arnie]

19 minutes ago, ManxCat3 said:

 

The fundamental problem is the only two possibilities are unacceptable which is why I think it means that there must be something which is the equivalent of  a God because its the only way out of the unsolvable problem.

 

Nah. Who made the god. It's the same problem, only now we have a magic sky wizard.

[jois]

35 minutes ago, ManxCat3 said:

 

The fundamental problem is the only two possibilities are unacceptable which is why I think it means that there must be something which is the equivalent of  a God because its the only way out of the unsolvable problem.

Umm. The big bang theory is quite possible wrong in whole or part. The thing it has its favour is it is the simplest theory that fits what can be observed or measured.

 

The problem with involving god into the mix is it makes the explanation more complicated not less. Now you not only have a universe to explain but also a god

[Talorgan]

I think in the Kabala God is the void   in which anything or everything can manifest into but is also the consciousness that evolves into it  to know itself ,bit of a loop?

[jois]

1 minute ago, Talorgan said:

I think in the Kabala God is the void   in which anything or everything can manifest into but is also the consciousness that evolves into it  to know itself ,bit of a loop?

You not only complicated it with a god but also stuck an addition complication of a void

[Talorgan]

8 minutes ago, jois said:

You not only complicated it with a god but also stuck an addition complication of a void

The kabalistic logic  is for anything to be there must be a space for it to create into ,

You could say God or infinite love or consciousness

[jois]

2 minutes ago, Talorgan said:

The kabalistic logic  is for anything to be there must be a space for it to create into ,

You could say God or infinite love or consciousness

Space and a void are not the same thing. You cant exspand into a void or it would no longer fit the definition of a void

Edited September 14, 2022 by jois

[Talorgan]

Well that's what they said with their long beards back in medieval Spain ?

I suppose you can't fill a bowl with apples if the bowl has no space in it

[jois]

3 minutes ago, Talorgan said:

Well that's what they said with their long beards back in medieval Spain ?

I suppose you can't fill a bowl with apples if the bowl has no space in it

It's more the fact a void has to be deVoid of anything in order to be a void. One spec of dust and it's no longer a void