Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

New cosmology

The Warthog

By The Warthog
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
Posted

I was listening to CBC's wonderful science program, "Quirks and Quarks" today, and learned that some cosmological theories that are being taken seriously suggest that the universe did not begin in a singularity, and that time and space existed before the creation of the universe.

Maybe someone can comment on the new theories, because I have to admit, this is way beyond me, but the idea that time and space existed before creation helps me with some serious theological difficulties I have had with the Big Bang theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
philsail1

philsail1

Posted
Posted

Good morning Warthog! Wow, that's a deep, deep question for anyone to tackle. When I've been sitting out under the stars, or on a beach listring to waves lapping on the shore, or lying on my back in a field on a summer's day just watching the clouds floating by, I too have sometimes pondered the "beginning" of everything. After a few minutes, it becomes impossible (for my tiny brain anyway) to try to imagine how everything began or what came before God. I can only put this "impossibility" to imagine these concepts as the fact that everything in our existence has a "beginning," and an "end." Thinking of concepts which do not fit those criteria is indeed difficult.

As you know, there are several theories on the beginnings of the universe (everything!) There's the "Steady State" theory whose advocates believe that the universe has always existed. There are the "Big Bang" believers, and lately, those who believe in the "Multiverse" theory - that there are many, many universes, all co-existing simultaneously (but perhaps in different time zones).

My own personal belief is that there is a God. He did create the Universe, but He created not just one planet with life, but many, in different parts of our boundless universe. I find it difficult to think beyond those boundaries. Of course I ask myself the questions like "if there is a God, then who (or what) created him?

Perhaps there are some things we are just not meant to know. It is all part of this wonderful universe (and planet) we have. The only crying shame is that some of us human beings (for various reasons) do not appreciate any of it, and furthermore, seem "hell bent" on destroying it all!

Regards,

philsail1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cygnusx1

cygnusx1

Posted
Posted

Perhaps there are some things we are just not meant to know.

Those are exactly my beliefs. Man, for all his ingenuity and intelligence, has a finite capacity for understanding concepts such as these.

It's frustrating in part to think we'll never know everything, but on the other hand, what good will that knowledge do us.

Also, if we knew everything, what point would there be to exist :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supernova

supernova

Posted
Posted

I would love to know, but how can we find out, if the new replacement for Hubble, the James Web Space scope due to go up in 2013, finds that time when the universe was opaque we may never know because the big bang will be just behind it, a few seconds earlier.

Any questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, well. I've mentioned before that I am an Anglican subdeacon, but my main point was to find out if anyone knew anymore about the topic. The theory is, apparently, that many universes exist side by side, and the universe always existed containing a huge potential energy in the form of strings, which were moved to become matter when the edges of two of these universes bumped together, causing matter to spring into being, at several loci, not just at a singularity. Apparently, this does a better job of explaining the 'lumpiness' of the universe that we observe. It also takes away the problem of 'acceleration,' and some other problems witht he Big Bang theory. There is also room in there for a cyclical universe, that expands and contracts, then expands again. One of the Eastern religions, possibly Hinduism, believes this has actually happened, eight times. (Or eleven, I can't remember.)

The theological problem was that the Big Bang puts the beginning of time at the moment of the Big Bang, and before that, there was no time. Theologically, this would limit the eternal God, and is already considered a heresy. That's all I know about it, and I'm saying that out of interest's sake, not to start a debate. OK?

I always found the idea of the universe being condensed into a singularity to be aesthetically unpleasant, and I would prefer something like this newer model, if it is supportable, which apparently it is. Interestingly, some cosmologists feel the same way. Not that it makes a great difference to our lives on Earth. We are here, whether we can explain it or not. When I die, I'll ask God to explain it to me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cloudwatcher

Cloudwatcher

Posted
Posted

We seem to be concerned with theories and articles of faith in this thread. The two are not mutually exclusive until one or other is proven. The theorists will claim that they have reason on their side whilst the faithful will claim that it is all,including the theories, part of the omnipitant one's grand design.

An argument,at this time, as impossible to disprove as it is to prove the theories.

Theories or faith? You pays your money and you makes your choice.

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philsail1

philsail1

Posted
Posted

Science is advancing all the time. Our technological advances constantly reveal new aspects about our past, present and future environments. It has got to be a situation of "wait & see." I believe mankind is slowly getting "there" - as far as a gradual understanding of where we come from, why we are here, and where we are going.

It's great to debate these things, but what else can one say, when even the best of today's scientists just don't have the answers.

Regards,

philsail1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leehawkins

leehawkins

Posted
Posted

The chances are and there most probably is! other planets the same as ours out there, and they are definitely our close neighbours, just because they are so far away and we cant visit them, don't mean they are not there and not our close neighbours, If when earth was created (not religiously meaning) and another earth was created at an exact time, we will only come in contact at the same time, the chances are we would only evolve/advance at the same rate,

So we can only guess really, when we are going to make contact, discover life out there.

Just my thinking on the subject :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sam Bo

Sam Bo

Posted
Posted

Scientists will fight to the death to protect their pet theories, especially if they are the one that came up with it. Emotion pays a much bigger role in scientific debate than most scientists would care to admit.

A good scientist will reject or accept a hypothesis or theory based on the evidence at hand and not on personal opinion or gain. It is ok for a scientist to be emotional about a subject or theory as long as he has evidence to back it up. An emotional argument that is not based on reliable data is not science. Because of this the theories of the formation of the universe are based on scientific evidence that is not connected with a theological argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
themos

themos

Posted
Posted

I can't see how you can do science with unique events, be it the formation of the Universe or any one of those unique events described by religions.

So how good is science when presented with singular events?

There have been some experiments that produced singular events when hunting for magnetic monopoles.

Cabrera event: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v48/i20/p1378_1

Caplin event: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v321/n6068/abs/321402a0.html

In both cases, as far as I know, it has been impossible to build a scientific case around these and they might as well never have existed, as far as science is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiny

Tiny

Posted
Posted

Didn't Hawkin say that the latest theory of how it began and the Maths that go into it make rather less sense than the discworld with a flat planet, 4 elephants and a rather large turtle plus light that travels at different speed and all the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
themos

themos

Posted
Posted

And they should not be connected to a theological argument, except by theologians. But I really started this thread to see if there was anyone who could explain this hundred-dollar theory in five cent words. :D

It's wrong.

I mean, what are the odds?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Warthog

The Warthog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And they should not be connected to a theological argument, except by theologians. But I really started this thread to see if there was anyone who could explain this hundred-dollar theory in five cent words. :D

It's wrong.

I mean, what are the odds?!

I don't know. As good as everything starting with the entire universe compressed into a point with zero dimensions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.