Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.
Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 1 of 79 (192585)
03-19-2005 6:45 PM


The Omnipresent Law of the Universe
By: Guido Arbia
According to the Big Bang Theory, the beginning of the universe began with a colossal explosion which apparently came out of no where. In other words, in the beginning of time, there was no existing thing, but then out of this nothingness came existence packaged with physical laws and the material which was in the universe evolved into highly advance systems to produce everything around us including us.
However, this raises a red flag in my mind. If you rest a ball on the table with no external force acting on that ball to move it, that ball should hold position. There would be no reason why that ball should suddenly decide to move from one location to another.
Well, if the universe has an absolute beginning then that means that at one point there was no universe. At one point, there was nothing. No physical laws, forces, or cosmological constants existed, and according to a lot of recent theories and books, the laws of the universe even, had a beginning.
Now, here is where the rested ball analogy comes into play. If something is the way it is without any thing external acting upon it to cause it to change, it will remain as it is. So, if in the beginning there was nothing, then there should continue to be nothing. The only possible way for there to be something is if there was a physical law that said that something can exist.
This physical law itself would then need to come from some place. This physical law could not have sprang into existence though. If there are no laws, then there will never be laws. Therefore, in order for 1 law to be present it must have always existed, because if not, it won't get a chance to.
OK, so now we have the understanding of the concept that there must have been a law extending into infinite past which would allow time and space and matter. Without this law, no law would ever come, and no matter would ever come, because if my car is green, it will stay green until someone changes it. So if the world is void, and no forces exist to change it, it shall remain void. This is why a past everlasting force must have existed to begin the universe.
Now, there must have been an exact point in time in which the universe as we know began to exist. This law is what is required in order for the universe to come into existence in the first place. It seems as though this law would just pick a random point in time and say, exist. If this is true, then maybe this law is not being random, perhaps there is a chance that is has made the decision to create, because why just suddenly create now. Why not 50 years ago?
This law would have begun our universe. We would have eventually come, packaged with the human consciousness. This law must have been capable of producing the physical laws and entities required to produce consciousness. If this is so, then isn't it likely that this law would be a source of consciousness itself? And if this law is a source of consciousness itself, then can't this law be conscious.
In conclusion, based on all the logical evidence presented, it is possible that since infinite past, although hard to comprehend, could have held a law witch was conscious of itself and was able to make decisions, such as to create the universe. According to the logic, we are forced to draw this conclusion, because there is no way that anything will happen without something causing it to happen. To assume this would be to assume that your computer will suddenly transform into a cat without reason. Without a cause, there can be no effect.
Therefore either god is real and:
1. Caused the big bang,
2. Created the world in 6 days. (My prefered belief) or
3. Did it another way.
Sources about what the BB is:
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-19-2005 08:20 AM
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-19-2005 06:39 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-19-2005 7:14 PM Christian7 has replied
 Message 41 by nipok, posted 04-28-2005 9:38 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 45 by kuresu, posted 03-24-2006 4:25 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 52 by Dr Jack, posted 03-27-2006 9:11 AM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 78 by complexPHILOSOPHY, posted 04-27-2006 7:29 PM Christian7 has not replied
 Message 79 by Christian7, posted 05-19-2006 7:54 PM Christian7 has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 79 (192588)
03-19-2005 6:49 PM


To everyone responding!!!
I'd like to keep this discussion somewhat limited and try to avoid mass attacks.
Please, respond to one point in Guido's thread ONLY.
Let the first responder on that point discuss it with Guido until that one point is settled before we move on.
Try not to pile on.
If Guido asks, the thread will be closed temporarily if he needs time to marshall a response.
When you ask a question or post a response, wait for him to respond before posting anything else.
If any of the Admins feel this is getting out of hand WE will step in to try to keep it manageable.
Thank you.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Oscar, posted 07-11-2005 12:11 PM AdminJar has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 79 (192593)
03-19-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian7
03-19-2005 6:45 PM


quote:
If you rest a ball on the table with no external force acting on that ball to move it, that ball should hold position. [...] if in the beginning there was nothing, then there should continue to be nothing. [...] if my car is green, it will stay green until someone changes it. [...] The only possible way for there to be something is if there was a physical law that said that something can exist.
That's true in this universe. But isn't it possible that Newton's first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics had no relevance before the Big Bang, that they were created along with the universe as we know it?

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm here to learn, and I know only that I know nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian7, posted 03-19-2005 6:45 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Christian7, posted 03-19-2005 9:28 PM Funkaloyd has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 79 (192597)
03-19-2005 7:30 PM


Okay, Funkaloyd is up first.
Everybody hang loose. Let Guido and Funk discuss this aspect fully before adding anything else.
Guido will tell us when he's ready to go on to the next issue. Until then, EVERYBODY else sit out and just wait!
Thank you.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Christian7, posted 03-19-2005 9:14 PM AdminJar has not replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 5 of 79 (192632)
03-19-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminJar
03-19-2005 7:30 PM


Re: Okay, Funkaloyd is up first.
quote:
That's true in this universe. But isn't it possible that Newton's first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics had no relevance before the Big Bang, that they were created along with the universe as we know it?
Exactly my point, then nothing would ever move, without laws of motion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminJar, posted 03-19-2005 7:30 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 03-19-2005 9:23 PM Christian7 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 79 (192640)
03-19-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Christian7
03-19-2005 9:14 PM


Re: Okay, Funkaloyd is up first.
Respond to Funk. He has the floor. If you don't reply to his post he doesn't get notified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Christian7, posted 03-19-2005 9:14 PM Christian7 has not replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 7 of 79 (192642)
03-19-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Funkaloyd
03-19-2005 7:14 PM


quote:
That's true in this universe. But isn't it possible that Newton's first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics had no relevance before the Big Bang, that they were created along with the universe as we know it?
Exactly my point, then nothing would ever move, without laws of motion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-19-2005 7:14 PM Funkaloyd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 12:28 AM Christian7 has replied

Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 79 (192707)
03-20-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Christian7
03-19-2005 9:28 PM


Ok, I'll try this again. In your conclusion you state that "there is no way that anything will happen without something causing it to happen." This is true, according to natural laws. You say of laws: "At one point, there was nothing. No physical laws". If there were no laws before the Big Bang, then there's no reason to assume that events couldn't happen without cause, that objects couldn't move completely spontaneously. Do you follow?
Whether there actually was a time (or time itself) before the Big Bang, and whether it makes any sense to speculate to what happened before Planck length/time are questions which I'll leave for others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Christian7, posted 03-19-2005 9:28 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 8:12 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 9 of 79 (192736)
03-20-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Funkaloyd
03-20-2005 12:28 AM


If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.
Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.
You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 12:28 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 12:16 PM Christian7 has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 10 of 79 (192790)
03-20-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Christian7
03-20-2005 8:12 AM


The following quote is just plain wrong!
Guidosoft writes:
If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.
Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.
You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.
If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.
Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.
You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 12:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 8:12 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2005 12:29 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 2:12 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 79 (192794)
03-20-2005 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 12:16 PM


Eta
I'm trying to help Guido work through this issue. To keep things within a reasonable context, I've asked folk to be patient and let him deal with only one person at a time.
If he responds to you, please feel free to answer. But try to do so in a manner and at a level where he can understand.
GUIDO is a young man just blossoming into the idea of questioning. He's only thirteen years old and so if you respond to a message from him, please remember his possible base and try to keep things in an appropriate setting. You're going to have to do more than just say something is wrong, you will have to explain what is wrong and why it is wrong at a level, and in a style, that is appropriate.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 12:16 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 12 of 79 (192811)
03-20-2005 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 12:16 PM


Re: The following quote is just plain wrong!
There IS NO law which prevents anything.
Friction IS NOT a force which prevents objects from moving. Friction IS a force which converts physical energy into thermal energy when 2 objects slide past each other thus naturally causing them to slow down.
Gravitation IS NOT a force preventing things from flying off into the air. Gravitation IS a force that pulls things towards the earth.
Inertia IS NOT a force which prevents sparatic movement of object. Inertia IS a force which allows objects to move. If this law is absent then objects simply will not move. NO sparatic activity will occur.
The idea of preventing something is merely an illusion when it comes to the laws of physics. We think it is preventive but it preventitivity is just a natural result of it causing something to occur which in term appears to prevent something.
Another thing is actually about what a law actually IS. How do you know that all physical laws are not just a natural result of the working of 3 or less laws?
Counter acting forces are different because it is not a LAW which is preventing anything. The LAW allows for these 2 forces but it is the forces which are counter acting each other.
Two equal charges push each other away. They are not preventing each other from getting close, they are just pushing each other away.
And they both are governed by a law which just says that 2 equal charges repel. However, this is just a human-defined extracted law. It may be part of a collection of laws which are really just the result of 1 law. So we may understand certian natural cociquences as laws but when I talk about laws I mean natures working itself. Not just are definition of splitting 1 law into 50 laws. All of newtons laws may be governed by the same mechanism who knows?
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-20-2005 02:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 12:16 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 2:49 PM Christian7 has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 13 of 79 (192823)
03-20-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Christian7
03-20-2005 2:12 PM


Don't get up about the word law.
If you want an example of a 'law' that prevents something then think about the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 2:12 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 3:30 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Christian7
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 628
From: n/a
Joined: 01-19-2004


Message 14 of 79 (192833)
03-20-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Eta_Carinae
03-20-2005 2:49 PM


Re: Don't get up about the word law.
OK, I just looked it up and it is not very clear how they explained it can you elaborate.
Anyway, when a scenario arises in which they are those 2 things with equal quantam numbers present, does it cause a problem? If it just causes a problem, then this is not a prevention, it is mereley the natural result of those 2 things being present.
Example: Brother and sister can not be in the same room.
Why? Not because of a preventive law, but because of the natural conciquence when you put them in the same room.
Sister comes in.
Brother says, get out of my face.
Sister says make me.
Brother rips her hair out.
Girl runs screaming out of room.
So there was no actuall absolute law stating that they can not be both in the same room.
As for matter no occupying the same position in space at the same time, it is just the nature of the particles making up the matter which are doing something which seems to be preventitive.
The law may say that the particle just takes in energy from the other particle on contact and move away for example. It does not nessicarily mean that the law says that no 2 objects can be in the same position.
There is no law preventing atoms from being phased together. Why not, because of the orbiting electron repeling the other atom's orbiting electrons. It is not preventive, it just yeilds a result that we can classify as a preventitive law but in reality it is not.
Edit: If you can provide me with a truly preventitive law then I will withdraw this argument and use a different one instead but I will continue to shell my whole point. If you say that preventive laws are real, I could just use that as part of my point although at this present time it don't fit yo. However, that would alter my whole point which I don't wan't to do and I think my present point is right so I defend the non-preventive law idea in order for me to maintain my present point.
This message has been edited by Guidosoft, 03-20-2005 03:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 2:49 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-20-2005 3:37 PM Christian7 has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 15 of 79 (192835)
03-20-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Christian7
03-20-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Don't get up about the word law.
I said not to get hung up on the word law.
Look at the twisting you just did with your brother/sister analogy.
This is all because I think you have a misunderstanding of the use of the word law as applied in physics.
Please tell me what you think a law is? Because your use of preventitive seems to imply tha this is somehow on a lesser footing than what you think law is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 3:30 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:20 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024