• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

The Seed of Origin

RecoveringYuppy said:
There's not much basis for speculating about what came before the big bang.


Just a nit: That object would be part of the Big Bang. Everything back to the singularity is part of the Big Bang. The theory is not powerful enough to say if the singularity and the earliest fraction of a second after it are accurately described by the theory though.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Well whatever it was, this event has made a lot of people angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...niverse&oldid=1070784766#The_first_20_minutes
Click to expand...

Crossbow said:
Since we do not know what happened before the Big Bang and since it is quite unlikely that we will ever know what happened before the Big Bang, then the answer to your question is:

'Yes'.
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
We have a good idea of the basic rules of how the universe works today. Applying those rules, we can describe how the universe must have worked in the recent past, and how it probably worked in the distant past - up to a point.

Beyond that point in the distant past, the rules we observe today lose all descriptive and explanatory power. The rules we observe today strongly suggest that in the distant past the universe was in a state where these rules do not apply. And we have so far been unable to figure out what rules do apply. Even such a basic rule as the passage of time seems to have no meaning there and then.

So, in one sense, sure. Anything goes! Anything is possible! Is your proposition possible? Absolutely!

That's the good news.

The bad news is that there's no way to test this possibility. The other bad news is that whatever the rules back then, they must necessarily somehow result in the rules we see today. Without that bridge from your speculative cause to the effects we observe, your speculation is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Yes.

My question isn't focused on what happened before the BB but has to do with the rather magical idea that everything we currently know to exist, all came from something supposedly containing all that matter, as it doesn't make physical sense.

It is like squeezing a single grape and expecting it to produce an ocean. There is no thing in nature which behaves in that manner, so why should we have a magical object being responsible for everything that exists, yet does not of itself have the same properties?

And suggesting that before physics, there was some moment where the rules of physics did not apply, may be a hangover from the idea of God-creator(s) who were equally capable of creating stuff out of nothing that actually existed.... Creatio ex nihilo

Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object not-magical physical objects?

My question is asking "why not have that the fabric of space already existing and being disturbed into shape and movement through a cataclysmic explosion which caused a ripple to occur in the fabric of space which in turn created a chain reaction re everything in the immediate blast zone, and beyond?
 
Navigator said:
Yes.

My question isn't focused on what happened before the BB but has to do with the rather magical idea that everything we currently know to exist, all came from something supposedly containing all that matter, as it doesn't make physical sense.

It is like squeezing a single grape and expecting it to produce an ocean. There is no thing in nature which behaves in that manner, so why should we have a magical object being responsible for everything that exists, yet does not of itself have the same properties?

And suggesting that before physics, there was some moment where the rules of physics did not apply, may be a hangover from the idea of God-creator(s) who were equally capable of creating stuff out of nothing that actually existed.... Creatio ex nihilo

Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object not-magical physical objects?

My question is asking "why not have that the fabric of space already existing and being disturbed into shape and movement through a cataclysmic explosion which caused a ripple to occur in the fabric of space which in turn created a chain reaction re everything in the immediate blast zone, and beyond?
Click to expand...

You are free to believe whatever you want. Just don't try to peddle your beliefs to people who dedicated their whole lifes to studying the universe.
 
There is absolutely no magic nor abandoning of physics in the Big Bang theory. The whole thing traces back to very close to the singularity using well understood physical transformations (that would be physics).
 
Navigator said:
Yes.

My question isn't focused on what happened before the BB but has to do with the rather magical idea that everything we currently know to exist, all came from something supposedly containing all that matter, as it doesn't make physical sense.

It is like squeezing a single grape and expecting it to produce an ocean. There is no thing in nature which behaves in that manner, so why should we have a magical object being responsible for everything that exists, yet does not of itself have the same properties?

And suggesting that before physics, there was some moment where the rules of physics did not apply, may be a hangover from the idea of God-creator(s) who were equally capable of creating stuff out of nothing that actually existed.... Creatio ex nihilo

Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object not-magical physical objects?

My question is asking "why not have that the fabric of space already existing and being disturbed into shape and movement through a cataclysmic explosion which caused a ripple to occur in the fabric of space which in turn created a chain reaction re everything in the immediate blast zone, and beyond?
Click to expand...

Well, ...

If you can ever figure out your boggle, then kindly let the rest of us know.
 
Navigator said:
Yes.

My question isn't focused on what happened before the BB but has to do with the rather magical idea that everything we currently know to exist, all came from something supposedly containing all that matter, as it doesn't make physical sense.

It is like squeezing a single grape and expecting it to produce an ocean. There is no thing in nature which behaves in that manner, so why should we have a magical object being responsible for everything that exists, yet does not of itself have the same properties?

And suggesting that before physics, there was some moment where the rules of physics did not apply, may be a hangover from the idea of God-creator(s) who were equally capable of creating stuff out of nothing that actually existed.... Creatio ex nihilo

Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object not-magical physical objects?

My question is asking "why not have that the fabric of space already existing and being disturbed into shape and movement through a cataclysmic explosion which caused a ripple to occur in the fabric of space which in turn created a chain reaction re everything in the immediate blast zone, and beyond?
Click to expand...

You need to take ten minutes out of your day to watch this as you have several of your assumptions wrong...

NOTE: Do not be put off by this woman's ditzy demeanour. She is very smart, has a BA in Physics, was research fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics after graduating, and spent five years as a science communicator at PBS.


 
Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object not-magical physical objects?
Click to expand...

correction - what I meant to write;

Why abandon physics just because there is a veil in front of the very point we need to observe in order to know for sure? Why not assume that there is a physical explanation rather than adhere to the idea that a magical physical object birthed not-magical physical objects?
 
smartcooky said:
You need to take ten minutes out of your day to watch this as you have several of your assumptions wrong...

NOTE: Do not be put off by this woman's ditzy demeanour. She is very smart, has a BA in Physics, was research fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics after graduating, and spent five years as a science communicator at PBS.


Click to expand...

The idea that an infinite inert fabric called 'space' fits in with what Dianna [woman in the video you linked] is saying is 'expanding' - but what may be happening is not expansion but movement of the galaxies which formed through the initial blast and the movement of the galaxies are like ships on the waves of an ocean - the ocean is space and the movement of objects is time.

Eventually the dust will settle and the fabric of space will once again become inert.

Also to add to Dianna's concepts - it can be imagined that space is a sphere.

Inert space is always a potential for 'something' [defined] and is itself 'something'. [undefined]

When something [defined] causes a ripple on the sphere of space, the energy from the cause of the ripple, creates condensed matter which eventually develop into galaxies, all moving on the wave of of the energy of that which caused it to happen, while also appearing to be collapsing into themselves...

The energy will eventually dissipate and space will return to its inert state - still existing, but no longer influenced by energy, and thus timeless - because that it the state of its inertness. no movement = no time

Re the sphere of space - Its infinity is related to its shape as a sphere and the inert stuff it consists of.
 
psionl0 said:
Denying that possibility without evidence is ignorance or fiction.
Click to expand...

1. Strawman. I have not denied that it is not possible. Rather, I have said that our understanding of the Big Bang so far indicates that time began with this event, but as science is constantly expanding the frontiers of our knowledge, this understanding is subject to revision. What I believe now about the Big Bang is based on our understanding so far: I have said this so many times already, and honestly, it's quite frustrating that you continue to ignore this.

2. Also a logical fallacy. You are saying I'm wrong about time starting with the Big Bang, and using as your evidence speculation about what we might discover in the future- speculation which in any case, you yourself have dismissed as fiction. You can't use things we don't know to argue that what we do know is incorrect.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Escape_to_the_future
 
psionl0 said:
False but it is understandable that you say this since you consistently censor out all speculation about the nature of time.
Click to expand...

I'm doing what now?
You were the one who said we were ignorant of the Big Bang, and that any speculation about the nature of time 'before' it was fiction.
I'm now wondering about your motives here. First you throw science under a bus, then you do the same thing with your own posts. It could be argued that you are either tripping or trolling here. Not that I would say such things, of course- but some might speculate such.
 
psionl0 said:
You are doing what I said you are doing. You believe that the words "as we understand it" are redundant (implying that there is nothing else to learn about time).
Click to expand...

No, that's not my implication: that's your inference. As I have repeatedly told you that's not what I mean, I refer you to my earlier post about your possible motives here.
 
psionl0 said:
There you go with the proof by definition again. It doesn't prove that time didn't exist in any form 'before' the Big Bang. It only argues that time as we understand it started with the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could actually go and read about the extensive evidence for expansion cosmology instead of dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't include a deus ex rima.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Asking what happened before the Big Bang shows an ignorance of that theory...
Click to expand...

In much the same way as asking "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?".

What little most people know of cosmology assumes that there was an infinite expanse of time and empty space into which the universe suddenly exploded from nothing. The idea that the universe is simply incredibly hot and dense at one coordinate of spacetime, and that there is no "outside" spacetime is harder to understand, and doesn't lend itself so easily to the smug assertion that goddidit.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Maybe you could actually go and read about the extensive evidence for expansion cosmology instead of dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't include a deus ex rima.
Click to expand...
Or maybe you could explain why we must not speculate about the causes of the big bang or the nature of space-time.

Foster Zygote said:
The idea that the universe is simply incredibly hot and dense at one coordinate of spacetime, and that there is no "outside" spacetime is harder to understand, and doesn't lend itself so easily to the smug assertion that goddidit.
Click to expand...
It is even harder to cling on to the smug assertion that this is a totally spontaneous event.
 
psionl0 said:
Or maybe you could explain why we must not speculate about the causes of the big bang or the nature of space-time.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between speculating and making a positive claim. :rolleyes:

If you are happy with "A thinking entity outside of the universe created everything, including the universe" then ok, believe away as much as you like but don't act all hurt and arrogant when someone rightfully points out that there has not been a single shred of evidence for this thinking entity that seems to solely exist on "Well, why not, har har har" :rolleyes:

psionl0 said:
It is even harder to cling on to the smug assertion that this is a totally spontaneous event.
Click to expand...

It's not a smug assertion..while you were protecting your baby from dingos, other people dedicated their lifes to studying the big bang. Show at least a little bit of respect for people who know a trillion times more about the universe than you, ok? :)
 
psionl0 said:
Or maybe you could explain why we must not speculate about the causes of the big bang or the nature of space-time.
Click to expand...
Hey, speculate all you want. Just don't expect people more familiar with cosmology to pat you on the head and stick your speculation on the fridge with a banana magnet and turn to the astrophysics community and ask what they have to say about that. Don't expect "what happened before the Big Bang?" to shake the pillars of cosmology any more than "why are there still apes?" has shaken the pillars of biology.

It is even harder to cling on to the smug assertion that this is a totally spontaneous event.
Click to expand...
Is it?

First of all, you're still thinking of spacetime in the wrong way. Again, it's like asking "what's north of the North Pole?". Think of time like north and south on a globe. The surface of the globe is a curved, two dimensional universe. (We're not going into the fact that our best observations point to a flat topology for our universe. We're just addressing the idea of "before the Big Bang".) In this anology, north is the past. You can go all the way back in time to the northern pole, but you can't go anywhere else without traveling forward in time. There is no "north of the North Pole".

And second, even if the Singularity represented a discrete moment of genesis in time that you could just step past like a chalk line - a demarcation between an infinity of past nothingness and the existence of a universe - what could be more smug than the assertion that the necessary explanation for this is the intention of some agency? What could be more smug than anthropomorphizing the universe as something that we can relate to?
 
Last edited:

Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss - ASU Feb 4, 2012

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://richarddawkins.net/)
Taped live on Feb 4, 2012 by http://www.youtube.com/user/ShirleyFilms
In conjunction with the Origins Project at ASU http://origins.asu.edu/

(there are still some edits and color correction to be done but we wanted to have the YouTube version out as soon as possible)

Join critically-acclaimed author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and world-renowned theoretical physicist and author Lawrence Krauss as they discuss biology, cosmology, religion, and a host of other topics.

The authors will also discuss their new books. Dawkins recently published The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, an exploration of the magic of discovery embodied in the practice of science. Written for all age groups, the book moves forward from historical examples of supernatural explanations of natural phenomena to focus on the actual science behind how the world works.

Krauss's latest book, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing, explains the scientific advances that provide insight into how the universe formed. Krauss tackles the age-old assumption that something cannot arise from nothing by arguing that not only can something arise from nothing, but something will always arise from nothing.

Founded in 2008, the ASU Origins Project is a university-wide transdisciplinary initiative aimed at facilitating cutting edge research and inquiry about origins questions, enhancing public science literacy, and improving science education. Since its inception, the Origins Project has brought the world's leading scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, to Tempe to explore origins questions. The Origins Project has hosted workshops and public events that have focused on questions as fundamental as the origin of the universe, how life began, the origins of human uniqueness, and the origins of morality.
Click to expand...

Two hours long, but worth the time. There is very little book peddling here so don't let that discourage anyone from watching.

I have an equally hard time buying the something from nothing theory as I do buying the theory that something was always there. Turtles all the way down .... What are you going to do?:cool:


BTW, ASU's Origins Project is excellent and covers many different aspects of life and the Universe with panels of scientists in relevant fields as well as one on one discussions with Krause.
 
EaglePuncher said:
There is a huge difference between speculating and making a positive claim. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact.
-Carl Sagan

Yes, and furthermore, I see no evidence of anyone here not being careful to distinguish speculation from fact (except for those speculating about magic deity creators).
 
Last edited:
EaglePuncher said:
If you are happy with "A thinking entity outside of the universe created everything, including the universe" then ok, believe away as much as you like but don't act all hurt and arrogant when someone rightfully points out that there has not been a single shred of evidence for this thinking entity that seems to solely exist on "Well, why not, har har har" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

100%! I knew it would only a matter of time before "goddidit" entered the debate.
 
Last edited:
Something from nothing doesn't need to be an item on the table but thinking everything came from almost nothing is essentially the same thing - magical thinking rather than physics.

Turtles all the way down is acceptable, given the premise that if something had a beginning, [as is speculated - with good evidence - our universe had] it ultimately has to be sourced within something which has always existed, which is what I am thinking re space being infinite per my other comments in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Gord_in_Toronto said:
OK.

The Big Bang is defined as the beginning of everything. Therefore there can be nothing before it. QED.
Click to expand...
There was a committee that said we have to get this just right. All the laws of physics and all the particles including the Higgs and the dark matter thingys.
 
BillyBaxter, I hope you're reading this. Some of the posts/references/links above should give you a perfect understanding of how science works. There are no gods in science, even the most holiest of houses can and do tumble as our knowledge increases.
Please don't demand that your 'book' should get preferential treatment, try opening a different book. The answers you seek could be in there.
 
EaglePuncher said:
There is a huge difference between speculating and making a positive claim. :rolleyes:

If you are happy with "A thinking entity outside of the universe created everything, including the universe" then ok, believe away as much as you like but don't act all hurt and arrogant when someone rightfully points out that there has not been a single shred of evidence for this thinking entity that seems to solely exist on "Well, why not, har har har" :rolleyes:



It's not a smug assertion..while you were protecting your baby from dingos, other people dedicated their lifes to studying the big bang. Show at least a little bit of respect for people who know a trillion times more about the universe than you, ok? :)
Click to expand...
I never brought a deity into this thread once. However, the usual response to querying about the spontaneity of an event is to charge the questioner with insanity or heresy. In the past, this was the standard way to silence dissent within the church hierarchy. The only thing different today is the religion ("science is my religion" - Karl Sagan).
 
Foster Zygote said:
First of all, you're still thinking of spacetime in the wrong way. Again, it's like asking "what's north of the North Pole?". Think of time like north and south on a globe . . . .
Click to expand...
I still don't know why this is considered such a clever response.

AFAIK the "Big Crunch" hasn't been ruled out completely yet (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2759-universe-might-yet-collapse-in-big-crunch/). If that happens then there will be a new Big Bang and since there is no time before the big bang, this current universe can't exist. Right?
 
Navigator said:
Something from nothing doesn't need to be an item on the table but thinking everything came from almost nothing is essentially the same thing - magical thinking rather than physics..
Click to expand...

Nope... There is no current non-religion based "creation of the universe" theory (lambda-CDM cosmology) that posits an "everything from nothing" scenario.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I still don't know why this is considered such a clever response.
Click to expand...

Presumably because you're not clever enough to understand it.

psionl0 said:
AFAIK the "Big Crunch" hasn't been ruled out completely yet (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2759-universe-might-yet-collapse-in-big-crunch/). If that happens then there will be a new Big Bang and since there is no time before the big bang, this current universe can't exist. Right?
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be a serious argument? :sdl:

1. The article you link to is speculation- indeed, it says it is 'exceedingly speculative'. You yourself characterised such speculation as fiction. If you don't believe your own sources, don't use them.
2. The article you don't believe also makes no mention of multiverses or a new Big Bang. That's just you making stuff up.
3. You yourself said we are ignorant of the Big Bang. By your own argument, then, you cannot predict another one.
4. 'This current universe can't exist'? Super-lame attempt at a gotcha. Obvious sophistry.
I stand by my previous assessment of your motives here.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Presumably because you're not clever enough to understand it.
Click to expand...
Insulting the arguer is always easier than dealing with their argument. :rolleyes:

Cosmic Yak said:
The article you link to is speculation- indeed, it says it is 'exceedingly speculative'
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be a serious argument? :sdl:

There is no point in dealing with the rest of your post. You are basically saying that we must never speculate on the origins of the universe because the words "Big Bang" are the be all and end all to the subject and the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
 
psionl0 said:
Insulting the arguer is always easier than dealing with their argument. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You don't have an argument.

psionl0 said:
Is this supposed to be a serious argument? :sdl:

There is no point in dealing with the rest of your post. You are basically saying that we must never speculate on the origins of the universe because the words "Big Bang" are the be all and end all to the subject and the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
Click to expand...

No, that's what you said. Have you forgotten your own post?

psionl0 said:
We are precluded from speculating about multiverse theories simply because we have no information to go on beyond fiction.
Click to expand...

And again, for at least the fifth time, I am not saying we shouldn't speculate: it is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I'm saying. You are saying we shouldn't speculate, and then telling me that's what I said. Do please try to rise above the level of trolling.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
And again, for at least the fifth time, I am not saying we shouldn't speculate: it is, in fact, the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what you are saying. As soon as I linked to an article that suggested that the big crunch can not be categorically ruled out and the possible implications this might have about whether subsequent big bangs are possible or for a concept of time "before" a big bang you went full nuclear on the article.

Cosmic Yak said:
You are saying we shouldn't speculate
Click to expand...
That quote was taken out of context. I was paraphrasing another poster.
 
psionl0 said:
That's exactly what you are saying. As soon as I linked to an article that suggested that the big crunch can not be categorically ruled out and the possible implications this might have about whether subsequent big bangs are possible or for a concept of time "before" a big bang you went full nuclear on the article.
Click to expand...

Full nuclear? You really are tripping, aren't you?
The article was speculation. I quoted the article as saying it was speculation. Is that what you call going 'full nuclear'? Ludicrous.
I also compared what the article said with what you had said previously, and pointed out the contradictions. This is to be expected on a sceptics' forum: your arguments are supposed to be coherent and cohesive.

psionl0 said:
That quote was taken out of context. I was paraphrasing another poster.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old politician's excuse. :rolleyes: Not buying it, I'm afraid.
Are you now going to claim that your assertion that we are ignorant of the Big Bang- and thus, by extension, any speculation is pointless- was taken out of context too? Given that I have repeatedly pointed out to you the contradictions in your own posts, you might want to disown that one too. Then, perhaps, you could explain why Hawking was wrong and you are right, as a good first step to advancing a fact-based and internally consistent argument.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Ah, the old politician's excuse. :rolleyes: Not buying it, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Of course not. You prefer to hope that nobody clicks on the link to the post that you quoted. :rolleyes:

Cosmic Yak said:
Are you now going to claim that your assertion that we are ignorant of the Big Bang- and thus, by extension, any speculation is pointless- was taken out of context too?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
psionl0 said:
I never brought a deity into this thread once.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
However, the usual response to querying about the spontaneity of an event is to charge the questioner with insanity or heresy. In the past, this was the standard way to silence dissent within the church hierarchy. The only thing different today is the religion ("science is my religion" - Karl Sagan).
Click to expand...

Claims he is not mentioning deities. Mentions religious persecution in the very next sentence. :thumbsup::D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I don't see the connection. You are clearly trying to silence me.
Click to expand...

LOL, doubling down on the persecution angle. priceless. Please explain to me (in easy language, I'm not even close to being as smart as you are):

How is there any reasonable chance to SILENCE you, when there are several thousands of miles between me and you? You seem to be extremely confused and paranoid.
 
EaglePuncher said:
LOL, doubling down on the persecution angle. priceless. Please explain to me (in easy language, I'm not even close to being as smart as you are):

How is there any reasonable chance to SILENCE you, when there are several thousands of miles between me and you? You seem to be extremely confused and paranoid.
Click to expand...
Your method is attempted ridicule but you are not the only one.

Anybody who fails to heartily and unquestioningly endorse current scientific dogma is a heretic in the eyes of many in this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom