Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,582 Year: 2,839/9,624 Month: 684/1,588 Week: 90/229 Day: 1/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   questions about the origin of singularity = nothing
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 38 (285846)
02-11-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Glory2God
02-11-2006 12:15 AM


quote:
The theory of relativity predicts an ABSOLUTE beginning.
Perhaps it does. However, all our laws of nature and theories concerning the universe are based on observations made in the here-and-now. It is possible that processes that we do not yet suspect operated in the very early universe.
-
quote:
The first law of thermodynamics can not allow for such a beginning.
Perhaps it doesn't. However, again, the First Law of Thermodynamics is based on observations made within the universe; it may have not be valid to apply it to the universe as a whole (look up the Fallacy of Composition).
-
quote:
Nevertheless, that there was a beginning is without question.
Actually, it is not without question. In fact, I have questioned it myself many times on this very message board. The only response I have gotten to date are either very old arguments already known to be unsound, or the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.
-
quote:
The only other alternative MUST by needs be supernatural.
Not at all. There may be naturalistic alternatives that no one has yet thought of. Or naturalistic alternatives that have been thought of, but you have not yet heard of.
Edited to correct minor typos.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-Feb-2006 07:18 PM

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Glory2God, posted 02-11-2006 12:15 AM Glory2God has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 02-11-2006 6:09 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 32 of 38 (285873)
02-11-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
02-11-2006 2:13 PM


Hi Chirop,
Actually, it is not without question. In fact, I have questioned it myself many times on this very message board. The only response I have gotten to date are either very old arguments already known to be unsound, or the Fallacy of Personal Incredulity.
Are you asking if the universe could have existed "forever"?
Absolutely, but "forever" is a little naive... take the space-time of an electrically charged black hole - the Reissner-Nordtrom solution. It has an infinite number of sub-universes all connected by an infinite corridor, and each sub-universe is eternal: no beginning and no end. The key point is that there is no universal time. The question is not "has the universe existed forever?" but "does the universe contain any time lines that extend infinitely far back?". This is perhaps one of the hardest things to appreciate in GR, that time is purely local and has no global meaning... "Will the universe go on forever?" "well, which bit of it?"
Every time line (in the kind of universe we live in) is predicted to begin in a singularity by the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems. But these do not take into account quantum gravity, which could smooth off the singularity (into a nice North Pole as I describe it in my globe anaogy but really the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal), or just as easily open up the geometry into an infinite past, perhaps revealing a larger embedding universe.
This message has been edited by cavediver, 02-11-2006 06:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2006 2:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2006 6:26 PM cavediver has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 38 (285876)
02-11-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
02-11-2006 6:09 PM


quote:
Are you asking if the universe could have existed "forever"?
No. I am stating that it is possible that the universe has always existed in the ordinary intuitive sense of the word.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 02-11-2006 6:09 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 02-11-2006 7:57 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 34 of 38 (285898)
02-11-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Chiroptera
02-11-2006 6:26 PM


Intuition and the universe have very little in common. Does your intuition provide a better understanding of the workings of time than GR? Can you explain what YOU mean by "the unverse has always existed"?
Simply stating something is so is not really part of what most of us call science...
This message has been edited by cavediver, 02-11-2006 08:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2006 6:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Nasa from Creation Talk
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 38 (285903)
02-11-2006 8:24 PM


If there was no beginning how can anything exist?
There was a beginning to all we observe for all we observe declares it.
Everything came form an eternal beginning and ending.
God is Love, (The Beginning) the Law of Love became flesh, “it is finished.” (The End)

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 02-11-2006 8:37 PM Nasa from Creation Talk has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 38 (285904)
02-11-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nasa from Creation Talk
02-11-2006 8:24 PM


If there was no beginning how can anything exist?
Existence is not dependent upon a beginning. Every example we think we see of a beginning is in fact just a change, with perhaps the exception of our own self-realisation.
There was a beginning to all we observe for all we observe declares it.
What do we observe that declares a beginning, rather than simply a change? Even the Big Bang is not a beginning, unless you can describe the North Pole as the beginning of the Earth...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nasa from Creation Talk, posted 02-11-2006 8:24 PM Nasa from Creation Talk has not replied

  
Nasa from Creation Talk
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 38 (285906)
02-11-2006 8:43 PM


Ivy Baker Priest:
"The world is round and the place which may seem like the end may also be the beginning."
What do we observe that declares a beginning....?
"Love"
Ever begun to be fallen?
This message has been edited by Nasa from Creation Talk, 02-11-2006 08:47 PM

  
Nasa from Creation Talk
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 38 (285907)
02-11-2006 8:45 PM


This is a science forum. Please take the scripture to a more appropriate place.-The Queen
"I am the Alpha and the Omega." - Jesus ---- "Son of God." ----
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-11-2006 07:52 PM
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-11-2006 07:52 PM

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024