The Seed of Origin

Navigator said:
The evidence is not being questioned. What is being questioned has to do with the interpretation of the evidence, which leads to the magical notions of an infinitesimal object existing which contains everything which exists, and spews that into itself and in doing so, expands and becomes the universe we currently observe.

It is all very well to honestly state that we don't know where such an object came from, but is it honest to claim that such an object actually ever existed and did what the theories claim, when there are other ways in which to interpret the evidence which do not require such magical notions by way of explaining/interpreting the evidence?
Click to expand...

We know that the universe (i.e. space/time) is expanding. If we wind back the clock, we get to the beginning of that expansion, which we call the Big Bang.
There is nothing remotely magical about that: it is simple logic, based on observation.
Do you accept that the universe is expanding, and, if so, what is your alternative explanation for that?
 
Navigator said:
It is all very well to honestly state that we don't know where such an object came from, but is it honest to claim that such an object actually ever existed and did what the theories claim, when there are other ways in which to interpret the evidence which do not require such magical notions by way of explaining/interpreting the evidence?
Click to expand...
Again, there is nothing magical. All the steps to get from a very small object close to "time zero" to now are demonstrated to various degrees.

And I doubt you can come up with an alternate explanation that actually explains things.

You're just here to keep repeating the lie that it is magical.
 
Again, there is nothing magical. All the steps to get from a very small object close to "time zero" to now are demonstrated to various degrees.
Click to expand...

Have scientists shown it to be true that one can condense great amounts of matter into a small thing and then release that matter and watch it return to what it was before being condensed?

Because that is the theory we are expected to believe is true.

Demonstrating to "various degrees" does not a truth make.

You're just here to keep repeating the lie that it is magical.
Click to expand...

How can it be I am lying, when obviously the 'explanation' itself has all the ingredients of the magical expounded as some 'most likely' theory?

Your accusation is akin to my pointing out that a magician isn't using real magic only to be told by the magician that I am lying because it IS real magic.

But we know through experience that a magicians tricks simply appear to be magical because we don't know how it was done.

Since the same applies to the theory of a mystical object - just because we do not know how it was done, shouldn't give us reason to exclaim magic.

And I doubt you can come up with an alternate explanation that actually explains things.
Click to expand...

I already have done - it is simply a matter of explaining things without invoking any magical elements to such theory.

It cannot be the case that something so tiny as to almost not exist itself, has the capabilities to produce the universe, because that is magical thinking.
Therefore it must have to be that space existed in an undisturbed state, and something profoundly immense happened which caused a disturbance and subsequent formation of objects.
 
Navigator said:
It cannot be the case that something so tiny as to almost not exist itself, has the capabilities to produce the universe, because that is magical thinking.
Therefore it must have to be that space existed in an undisturbed state, and something profoundly immense happened which caused a disturbance and subsequent formation of objects.
Click to expand...

Very detailed, Sir, much more detailed than established physics. I think we should teach kids this exact quote, nothing else. :rolleyes:

Also: Space was undisturbed, as in "not expanding" but suddenly (after something profoundly immense happened,lol) it started expanding? How big was space at that time? What was the "something profoundly immense" that influenced ALL of space at the same time? Was it the entitity that is sending you word salad?
 
Last edited:
EaglePuncher said:
Space was undisturbed, as in "not expanding"
Click to expand...

It is not expanding as space is infinite -

but suddenly (after something profoundly immense happened,lol) it started expanding?
Click to expand...

Why laugh at one profoundly immense idea while supporting another?

How big was space at that time?
Click to expand...

Infinite -


What was the "something profoundly immense" that influenced ALL of space at the same time?
Click to expand...

Not ALL of it - simply that portion of it which was effected that we call 'the physical universe'

As to what it was that caused the event, it was obviously something huge enough to have created said effect...relatively speaking...on the surface of infinite space.
It would also have been a mere spark relative to infinity and there is no reason to think similar activity isn't happening at great numbers of points throughout infinite space...causing inert sections to spark into form [time].
 
Navigator said:
EaglePuncher said:
Space was undisturbed, as in "not expanding"
Click to expand...

It is not expanding as space is infinite -
Click to expand...
Infinite space can expand or contract over time.

That seems counter-intuitive to people who don't understand the mathematics of general relativity, but almost everything about general relativity seems counter-intuitive to people who don't understand it.

ETA:
W.D.Clinger said:
The meaning of spatial expansion in a spatially infinite universe. In FLRW solutions, the scale factor a(t) provides an objective measure of expansion and contraction. When a(t)=1, the universe is the same "size" it is now (because we arbitrarily set a(t)=1 to match today's conditions). If a(t)=⅓ at some point of spacetime, then the universe at that time is said to have been only a third its size today, even though the universe was spatially infinite both today and then. This notion of size may sound arbitrary but isn't: it's tied to the pseudometric tensor, which is tied to the geometry of spacetime.

How can the universe become infinite if it started out as a single point? Although journalists and popularizers may try to explain the big bang by saying the entire universe started out as a single point, that's not what mathematicians and physicists mean by a big bang singularity. The word "singularity" means our current understanding of the mathematics and physics is not sufficient to tell us what goes on there, if indeed there is a there there.

In particular, the FLRW models with flat space do not start with a pointlike singularity and suddenly blossom into spatial infinity. The FLRW models actually extrapolate backwards and forwards from current conditions. The big bang singularity sets a limit to how far backward we can extrapolate using FLRW models of the universe. We may be able to extrapolate arbitrarily close to the big bang singularity, but we can never reach it. That is why the FLRW models do not have to explain how a point-like universe suddenly becomes infinite. The big bang singularity is a mystery, not a point.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Infinite space can expand or contract over time.

That seems counter-intuitive to people who don't understand the mathematics of general relativity, but almost everything about general relativity seems counter-intuitive to people who don't understand it.

ETA:
Click to expand...

Yes - I watched a video recently which got me thinking about the idea of infinity as per Roger Penrose;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypjZF6Pdrws&t=2s

He explained that when timelessness [end of the universes movement - no objects/energy] - "size" is not relevant - 'the universe forgets how big it is' as he put it. and "becomes the big bang of the next scale" - but it is all based on the assumption that the universe started as the result of an object which exploded and 'became' the universe...

Whereas, an infinite field of space which reacted to an explosion at a point which in turn set in motion the formation of what we call our universe and the effects of that explosion [including chain reactions] will eventually die down and that part of infinite space will return to its former inert state.

This idea fits in with the observations, even that it is a different way of looking at and interpreting the evidence, but also does away with any magical thinking altogether.
 
Last edited:
EaglePuncher said:
I WANT THOSE EGGHEADS TO LEAVE ROOM FOR A GOD OF THE GAPS, WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...:)
Click to expand...
Since there is a gap between time=0 and the earliest moment that we can deduce anything about the universe, I'd say that you got your wish.

Think carefully about what you want to insert inside that gap.
 
psionl0 said:
Since there is a gap between time=0 and the earliest moment that we can deduce anything about the universe, I'd say that you got your wish.

Think carefully about what you want to insert inside that gap.
Click to expand...
Just be aware that it is a very, very, very, very, very, very tiny gap. Most things won't fit.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Since there is a gap between time=0 and the earliest moment that we can deduce anything about the universe, I'd say that you got your wish.
Click to expand...

It was not "my wish", my trolling, confused friend. :rolleyes:

psionl0 said:
Think carefully about what you want to insert inside that gap.
Click to expand...

I think you should stop strawmanning and projecting. Also: You should think carefully before you click "Submit Reply". :)
 
psionl0 said:
I have never heard of "dumbing it down" being described as "lying".
Click to expand...

From the link:

The authors acknowledge that some people might dispute the applicability of the term lie, while defending it on the grounds that "it is for the best possible reasons, but it is still a lie"
Click to expand...

It's only a problem when it's not made clear that the lie is just a stepping stone on the way to a full understanding. That's when you get threads like this one.
 
Pixel42 said:
The authors acknowledge that some people might dispute the applicability of the term lie, while defending it on the grounds that "it is for the best possible reasons, but it is still a lie"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I don't dispute it on those grounds. Sometimes it is impossible to convey the truth. That would make everything (including silence) a "lie".

That renders the word "lie" meaningless. Strictly speaking, a lie is a falsehood that is deliberately told in order to deceive.
 
psionl0 said:
Strictly speaking, a lie is a falsehood that is deliberately told in order to deceive.
Click to expand...
I'd define it as saying something you know is not true, regardless of intent, in which case this qualifies, but I agree it's arguable. A quick check of online dictionaries shows some include the "in order to mislead/deceive" qualifier and some don't. But it doesn't really matter, it's clear what the coiners of the phrase mean by it, and I think it's an important point - at least on this forum, where those who fail to grasp it regularly start or contribute to threads like this one.
 
Pixel42 said:
I'd define it as saying something you know is not true, regardless of intent, in which case this qualifies, but I agree it's arguable. A quick check of online dictionaries shows some include the "in order to mislead/deceive" qualifier and some don't. But it doesn't really matter, it's clear what the coiners of the phrase mean by it, and I think it's an important point - at least on this forum, where those who fail to grasp it regularly start or contribute to threads like this one.
Click to expand...
I can't use the word in this section of the forum, but the common vulgar word to describe what comes out of the back end of a bovine is defined in the scientific literature as something that is said without regard to its truth or falsity. This is distinguished from a lie, which is something that is said despite the fact that it is known to be untrue.

A liar tells lies in order to deceive. A ********ter says ******** because they just don't care if it's true or not.
 
Pixel42 said:
But it doesn't really matter, it's clear what the coiners of the phrase mean by it.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. "Lie" is an emotional word that has negative connotations associated with it - like, "don't do it".

So what do you do when your children ask questions? Do you patronize them and say "You'll understand when you are older" or do you give them something they can digest even if it is not 100% the truth?
 
psionl0 said:
I don't know about that. "Lie" is an emotional word that has negative connotations associated with it - like, "don't do it".
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it also gets across the point that what's being described is not even partly true; understanding it is a way of preparing your mind so it will eventually be able to grasp what is true.

So what do you do when your children ask questions? Do you patronize them and say "You'll understand when you are older" or do you give them something they can digest even if it is not 100% the truth?
Click to expand...
I don't have children, but if I did I would explain the concept of "lies to children" to them before giving them the version they can currently grasp.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nice hypothesis but I ask you the same question I asked re the OP, do you have anything, theoretical or evidentiary, to support this universe contemplating?
Click to expand...

Oh, I did just come across something pretty interesting about this idea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeRgFqbBM5E

It's from the PBS Space Time YouTube channel, which has some pretty good stuff, in my opinion. I don't pretend to fully grok everything he covers, but it seems pretty clear that the idea that the universe is a white hole remains a possibility and has been proposed by some prominent physicists.
 
Pixel42 said:
That is the "lie to children" version. It does not remotely describe the physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
Click to expand...

And in this case it isn't even being employed to ease understanding, but rather to prevent understanding. It's like the "why are there still apes?" objection - it's meant to help one ignore the greater complexity of the subject in order to ease the employment of arguments from personal incredulity. We've got one poster who simply refuses to accept a cosmology that doesn't need a creative agency, and another who simply wants everyone to think that he's burped up an alternative cosmology that just happens to imply that he's far more brilliant than generations of physicists.
 
Billy Baxter said:
I suppose you can tell us what happened before the Big Bang?
Click to expand...

Gord_in_Toronto said:
Much too easy, "Nothing'.
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
It wasn't a bald assertion, and you would have known that if you knew anything about the Big Bang beyond its name.
The Big Bang was the beginning, not just of space, but of time. Nothing happened before the Big Bang because there was no 'before the Big Bang': time hadn't started yet.
The proof you asked for is the actual definition of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

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...

Foster Zygote said:
Modern cosmology says nothing about any "before" the Big Bang. Your question is as meaningless as "what's north of the North Pole?".
Click to expand...
Don't be certain nothing was taking place before the Big Bang.
PBS Space Time. https://youtu.be/chsLw2siRW0
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I do love this kind of thing, but it needs to be in language I can understand, and this video literally gave me a headache.
Would you mind explaining it in simpler language?

I did watch this one, which I understood. It does state that the idea of the Big Bang is incontrovertible: Navigator take note.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8gV05nS7mc
Click to expand...
All of his vids give me a headache and no I cannot at the moment give a simpler explanation. The point made by the vid is possibly the Universe was doing something before it expanded. The problem with our current mathematical models is units of time less than Planck Time is were our math fails to describe what's going on.
 
Pixel42 said:
The definition of magic is something that contradicts the observed laws of physics. The Big Bang does not contradict the observed laws of physics, in fact it was deduced from them. So you are, once again, about as wrong as it is possible to be.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to the event as the magic, but to the idea that everything was contained within something so small that it almost doesn't exist.

Pixel42 said:
That is the "lie to children" version. It does not remotely describe the physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children
Click to expand...

From what I can gather - what you mean is that it is the mythological version told to those who do not know how to read the math.

Pixel42 said:
I'd define it as saying something you know is not true, regardless of intent, in which case this qualifies, but I agree it's arguable. A quick check of online dictionaries shows some include the "in order to mislead/deceive" qualifier and some don't. But it doesn't really matter, it's clear what the coiners of the phrase mean by it, and I think it's an important point - at least on this forum, where those who fail to grasp it regularly start or contribute to threads like this one.
Click to expand...

If I started this thread because of a mythology told to those who otherwise cannot grasp the math, then it is up to those who make the claim to expand on the mythology in a manner that best represents the math.

I myself am fine with whatever the facts are, magical or otherwise...for my part I am just showing how it is easy to glance behind the curtain and see other possibilities which explain the evidence in a manner that one can understand follows the observed rules of physics and I do so on the grounds that whatever birthed this universe can be observed in the physics of this universe - as in the Mother is observed in the Child...patterns within patterns...

Furthermore, it was no accident that I called the thread "The Seed of Origin" as representative of the Object which existed prior to the Object exploding [germinating] to become the Subject.
 
Navigator said:
I was not referring to the event as the magic, but to the idea that everything was contained within something so small that it almost doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

At this point, given the information you have been provided with, this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
I'll ask again: we know that the universe is expanding. We know this from observation. If you wind the clock back, you get to the start of that expansion. The beginning of the expansion must be smaller than what it is now.
What part of this do you consider to be magical, and what alternative explanation do you have?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
At this point, given the information you have been provided with, this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
I'll ask again: we know that the universe is expanding. We know this from observation. If you wind the clock back, you get to the start of that expansion. The beginning of the expansion must be smaller than what it is now.
What part of this do you consider to be magical, and what alternative explanation do you have?
Click to expand...

I have given the alternate explanation - it only appears to be expansion but in actually it is movement away from the ground zero event which caused form and time to happen upon the prior inert area of infinite timeless space being activated by that event.
Any incredulity has to do with explanations which fail to account for physics existing prior to this universe coming into exitance. My explanation includes physics...so should be less incredulous on account of that.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
If I started this thread because of a mythology told to those who otherwise cannot grasp the math, then it is up to those who make the claim to expand on the mythology in a manner that best represents the math.

I myself am fine with whatever the facts are, magical or otherwise...for my part I am just showing how it is easy to glance behind the curtain and see other possibilities which explain the evidence in a manner that one can understand follows the observed rules of physics and I do so on the grounds that whatever birthed this universe can be observed in the physics of this universe - as in the Mother is observed in the Child...patterns within patterns...

Furthermore, it was no accident that I called the thread "The Seed of Origin" as representative of the Object which existed prior to the Object exploding [germinating] to become the Subject.
Click to expand...

This thread was started and named by the poster Billy Baxter.
 
Navigator said:
I have given the alternate explanation - it only appears to be expansion but in actually it is movement away from the ground zero event
Click to expand...

Movement outwards from a central point is not expansion? How does that work, then?

Navigator said:
which caused form and time to happen upon the prior inert area of infinite timeless space being activated by that event.
Any incredulity has to do with explanations which fail to account for physics existing prior to this universe coming into exitance. My explanation includes physics...so should be less incredulous on account of that.
Click to expand...

I think your explanation should include details of how space can exist without time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom