Page 22 of 29 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 281

Thread: Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

  1. Top | #211
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Sheffield/Englnd
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    25
    For me personally. I do not believe the ( whole ) Universe had a beginning. I think it's always been here and it always will be. (Space time is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end.)

    OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

    The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

    Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.

  2. Top | #212
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    952
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by FinBack View Post
    ...
    OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

    The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

    Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.
    This viewpoint, with an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll, is not too dissimilar to the Penrose idea that started the whole thread! The two main differences are:
    (a) Penrose, an expert on black holes and general relativity, views "our universe" as created in an "entropy death" after super massive black holes have evaporated;
    (b) Penrose believes it MAY be possible to "see" the prior universe via faint patterns in the CMB.

  3. Top | #213
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    6,263
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    19,239
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FinBack View Post
    ...
    OUR little universe could have been 'Created' by a super massive black hole 13.2 Billion years ago.. What we call today the 'Big Bang'. And there will be an infinite number of universes within universes.

    The CMB, entropy etc fit in with our Current observable universe.

    Sadly we will never be able to see 'outside' our universe to prove my theory but i will die believing in it.
    This viewpoint, with an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll, is not too dissimilar to the Penrose idea that started the whole thread! The two main differences are:
    (a) Penrose, an expert on black holes and general relativity, views "our universe" as created in an "entropy death" after super massive black holes have evaporated;
    (b) Penrose believes it MAY be possible to "see" the prior universe via faint patterns in the CMB.
    It seems to me that the similarity would be only that the two view the universe is eternal.

    My understanding of the Penrose CCC is that the universe is continually expanding and that black holes are only temporary as they will eventually evaporate. That the universe will eventually reach a condition of maximum entropy, 'smoothness', or uniformity. As this is the condition of the early universe shown in the CMB, applying conformal geometry means that the 'end' of the expansion is indistinguishable from what is commonly seen as the 'beginning' in the BB theory. It is a compelling cosmological model and I see the math but have qualms about the physics.

    The nested black hole model also proposes an eternal universe but suggests that what would be seen as an expanding universe from within one of the 'black hole universes' would actually be an ever collapsing of space time. This is also a compelling cosmological model but again I have qualms about the physics.

  4. Top | #214
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    952
    Rep Power
    14
    Rather than simply "an eternal universe," both Penrose and FinBack see "an infinite series of universes fitted together like a Russian doll." It was that similarity that caught my eye.

  5. Top | #215
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,467
    Rep Power
    20
    Anything that is causally connected known or unknown to us is the Universe, creation, whatever you label it.

    I used to imagine it as a gooey pile of fecal matter, but I evolved my thinking. I am pretty sure it is like a Winsor knot necktie, but that may change base on new evidence.

  6. Top | #216
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,242
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,148
    Rep Power
    79
    Yet the biggest black hole explosion ever recorded does not appear to have created a bubble universe:

    ''The biggest cosmic explosion on record has been detected – an event so powerful that it punched a dent the size of 15 Milky Ways in the surrounding space. The eruption is thought to have originated at a supermassive black hole in the Ophiuchus galaxy cluster, which is about 390m light years from Earth''

    Perhaps a greater event is necessary, something to destabilize the singularity itself?

  7. Top | #217
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,404
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,443
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

    So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."
    So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?
    Bumpity bump bump...

    Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

    What say you, Learner?

  8. Top | #218
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    5,571
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    8,482
    Rep Power
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    Depends.... if you actually understand at all, the plain and simple context, differentiating Solid, Structural, Observable, Able-to-touch, Physical Matter from non-solid, non-physical, non-structural, invisible forces and energies. Hey if you need to catagorize with materialsim, then I don't mind and cool with that too - I'll notice those 'technical' tricks, should there be any going on (I've always thought Atheists would make good Lawyers ).

    So it's quite simple really: Something from Something as opposed to atheistic belief, "something from nothing."
    So you are saying there are things non physical? Like what?
    Bumpity bump bump...

    Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

    What say you, Learner?
    I mean shit, even neutrinos are physical, even DARK MATTER is physical, even though we don't know what it is, even though it's interactions are weak as shit.

  9. Top | #219
    Formerly Joedad
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    PA USA
    Posts
    7,404
    Archived
    5,039
    Total Posts
    12,443
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post

    Bumpity bump bump...

    Hoping Learner tells me what he means by non-physical. I can't see the water molecules floating around in front of me but I take them to be physical.

    What say you, Learner?
    I mean shit, even neutrinos are physical, even DARK MATTER is physical, even though we don't know what it is, even though it's interactions are weak as shit.
    Right. I mean we can use a beam of light to push things. So I don't know what he means. If he responds at least I'll know. How would one even go about detecting and measuring something that is non-physical? It would be impossible I would think, and axiomatically so. Non physical would be the same as non-real.

    Waiting...

  10. Top | #220
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    24,037
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    34,514
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Yet the biggest black hole explosion ever recorded does not appear to have created a bubble universe:
    How could we tell, from outside the event horizon?
    ''The biggest cosmic explosion on record has been detected – an event so powerful that it punched a dent the size of 15 Milky Ways in the surrounding space. The eruption is thought to have originated at a supermassive black hole in the Ophiuchus galaxy cluster, which is about 390m light years from Earth''

    Perhaps a greater event is necessary, something to destabilize the singularity itself?
    Or perhaps there's someone inside that black hole right now, making a similar claim about the absence of bubble universes in the black holes he can see...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •