Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

Non-religious Evidence That God Exists

Recommended Posts

Hi Eclipse

 

Maths is the language of physics, if you don’t get the maths you are just regurgitating what someone else told you about it but that’s you apparently isn’t it Eclipse.  You seem oblivious to the difference between 10--47 is from 10-27 for example but you can’t be if you want to discuss this stuff rationally, if you want to do more than just regurgitate.

 

If we want to understand the early universe the only thing we have is physics applied to what we observe today.  From there you extrapolate backwards with maths, theory wrapped maths to be sure but without the maths it’s nothing, towards the beginning of the universe.  If you don’t believe that look at what Einstein did and tell me where that would be today if he didn’t have any maths?  Without the maths we don’t know our own history on this planet, without the maths we don’t know how this universe works, without maths there is virtually no science at all.

 

As I’ve explained before science does not deal in absolutes but in degrees of certainty, curved space time is what Einstein described and time and again his theories have stood the test despite the best efforts of scientists to disprove ideas that seem absurd.  You may not like that but curved space time is what his maths described and it keeps working when we test it.

 

Yes the maths is based in observation, the maths tries to model observation and extrapolate beyond what has been observed to new discoveries that have not yet been observed.  When such discoveries are made, led by the maths, we gain strong evidence that there is some truth to the maths.  Remember that has happened often in this field in the past and, no doubt, will continue to happen. As I said above, the maths is critical, without it we have nothing in this area.  Without an understanding of it, even a very basic one, you can’t talk about this stuff you can only regurgitate what others have told you about this stuff.

 

I asked you earlier why the end of the Planck Epoch is seen as a boundary but you didn’t answer.  Do you know because it’s very relevant here, you say we can’t know but if you understood where the idea of that limit came from you’re realise you were wrong in that statement.  Maybe the whole picture is wrong but if it’s not, if this universe had a specific beginning in time then that limit must apply to it.  And it’s not just speculation because that limit applies today as well, it’s not just some guessed at historical artefact but a real world part of quantum physics right now.

 

So my challenge to you stands, if you want to grasp what you are saying here you have to understand a little maths, a bit of quantum physics would help too but maybe that’s asking too much.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , quit your smokescreen game . My statements stand  , regardless of whether you choose to acknowledge them or  not . There is no challenge that I discern coming from you , rather just another mechanism of yours to avoid admitting to the truth of the matter .

 

All the math in the world, accompanied by all the theoretical physics that are known , cannot answer the question - by what means did the Universe come about ? Nor can they put forth anything but speculation as to how the Inflation started . I've already explained what the Planck Epoch was , and stated that too is in dispute , but nonetheless nothing is known beyond it .

 

If you wish to continue with your game on math , go right ahead . YOU have not answered my Question , but have done a ridiculous dance avoiding it .

 

 What does science know ? Not what you think you know , nor what science hypothesizes or speculates ,but what is known ?

 

You have not answered because you can't . And that is because nothing is known . No math , physics ,or quantum theory can provide anything but speculation .

 

As I said , you are not well versed , not even to  amateur status, as to what is actually know regarding Cosmology . You can not differentiate between scientific fact and scientific speculation , which you call " consensus " .

 

Do you really get it Russell ?  No one knows what conditions brought about the Inflation , no one knows how, or when, or in what order, the four forces in nature separated ,in fact no one can explain how gravity came about . There is no Math , nor Physics . This is one of the reasons why there is no Unified Field Theory , and no one has come up with a Theory of Everything .  If you truly knew the subject as you claim to , you would have already known this .

 

    However for the sake of you "winning an  argument " you've generated a blizzard of irrelevant blather and babble . All this does is exposes your ignorance of the issue . Your "dissertation " on the importance of math  is meaningless when there is no math that can be applied .

 

 At this moment , as we speak , there is no theory on the Origin of the Universe . It does not exist Russell . Are you getting that ?

 

So Russell if you know more than Hawking , or Carroll , pay it forward man , the scientific world would like to know .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No I’ve explained the truth of it, I never said science ‘knew’ what started the universe I said that science had ideas that conform to everything we know about the universe that explain it.  You say there is no evidence to base them on but, of course, there is this universes features must come from it and these ideas could create a universe like the one we see.  Will it ever be proven, that’s an open question.  Not long ago people would have said we would never reach the moon, lets face it not very long before that you could get yourself killed for pointing out that the earth wasn’t flat.  So who knows what will be demonstrated in future but at the moment these ideas are exactly what I described them as, ideas, they conform to everything we know but false ideas do that too, only time will tell if that changes.

 

As for the consensus of ideas I’ve presented, that too remains, again you may not like it and it may prove to be wrong one day but this is the current ‘best’ idea that science has to offer and like all ideas in science you are welcome to disagree but you’re best to do that with evidence not  just personal incredulity.

 

And yes Maths is still the language of physics, without it we have nothing, without understanding it you have little more.

 

No you never explained the Planck Epoch, you did mention it long after I named it as the limit but you’ve never shown any understanding of why it’s the limit.  Lets face it you don’t seem to have much idea of when it ended and that’s critical here.  It is a fascinating question if you care to look into it by the way.

 

As for science not knowing that’s true.  I think I mentioned that science doesn’t know that you’ll fall and kill yourself if you step off the 50th floor of a tall building, it has a high degree of confidence that you will but it doesn’t ‘know’ it.  Science doesn’t work in knowledge but in degrees of certainty.  Again as I explained in the past the degree of certainty that would be assigned to the idea that you’ll fall and kill yourself when you take that last step on the 50th floor would be high, the degree of certainty that would be assigned to inflation itself would be quite a bit lower and to the ideas of what came before that would be much lower again but that’s how science works.  Have you ever read any Popper?

 

“ At this moment , as we speak , there is no theory on the Origin of the Universe . It does not exist Russell . Are you getting that ?” – Eclipse

 

I think you need to read back a bit here Eclipse.  That is what I said.  I pointed out that there were ideas that conformed to all the evidence we have that describe what may have happened but no one knows.  You can’t really argue against my ideas here by saying the same thing as I’ve already said.  Yes I explained ideas that exist in quite a bit of detail to describe this, ideas that you are apparently unaware of, but I never said anyone knew what happened only that we do have more evidence than you are aware of or accept and some great minds have ideas that flow on from that data, that’s it.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , you've not yet provided the information you purport to have . What does Science know ? Now you're conceding again , by saying  "yes ideas exist " ....blah ,blah ,blah . Conform to WHAT EVIDENCE Russell ?

 

 Conjecture and Speculation are   " ideas " not evidence . What evidence do you have of what or how the Inflation started ?  All you have said is nothing more than speculation .  There is no theory on the Origin of the Universe because there is no evidence by which to formulate a theory , and that is because there is no information - None . If theoretical Physicists like Hawking have no information , then what do you have ? 

 

 If Hawking has no idea ? How do you have one ?  You continue on in the same manner claiming there is some sort of consensus and it is probably correct - and that is nothing short of pure B.S. on your part , and pure speculation on the part of Science .

  Who are you trying to kid Russell ?

 

 And what a ridiculous analogy you use !  Comparing scientific certainty of stepping off a 50 story building and dying  to certainty of conditions of Energy and Matter that would result in an Inflating Universe we observe today .

 

That is ludicrous on it's face . As I said you are a yes, no ,yes man .

 

 Your last paragraph says it all , as to the nature of your argument ,which is NONSENSE .

 

We don't know but we have evidence  ? Ideas that flow from that data ?  WHAT DATA ? There is no data or evidence . You've contradicted yourself a half dozen times in your most recent load of doublespeak .

 

So now you call speculation , ideas ? Everyone's got ideas Russell . However no one has evidence , no one has data . Not even the "greatest minds " .  They do however , know how to say I don't know . You should learn from them Russell , they do not qualify ideas , conjecture or speculation as evidence .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No I have answered that question right at the beginning of this.  Quantum physics is a very well tested scientific theory, that’s the evidence applied in the case I was pointing out to you.  You may not like it but that is how it is.  If you take the maths of quantum physics and apply it to an environment with very little in it, a vacuum, you see quantum fluctuations exactly in line with the predictions.  According to the maths that so accurately predicts that if you remove space time itself, which is the situation you would find without a universe, those fluctuations are unbounded, they can get much bigger.  In fact, according to that maths, ‘nothing’ is unstable, it contradicts Heisenberg, so it must explode with energy.  Now is that speculation, yes as I explained at the start of this it is but it is speculation that is supported by all the current evidence and which conforms to the maths of quantum physics.  The very well tested maths of quantum physics.  Yes it’s taken beyond that testing to extrapolate further than our current evidence can test but that’s what science does, then it works out how to test it, then it tests it and potentially rejects it if the evidence doesn’t stand up.  Sorry but I’ve explained all of that to you here before so I assumed you’d read what I wrote.  My mistake apparently.

 

So to the question “what does science know” the answer is nothing, it does not know if you will fall when you step of that 50th floor landing but it would suggest that that outcome had a very high degree of probability.  That’s how science works Eclipse.  The probability it would apply to these ideas for the creation of the universe are much smaller than your death from that landing.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How simplistic of you Russell. So you refine your back peddle and dance, in your apples to oranges analogy to :



" the probability of such ideas for the creation of the universe would be much smaller than your death from falling "

Good grief man , do you think before you hit your keyboard ? Or maybe you do think , and are just performing another "step around dance of words" you think will change the absurdity of your analogy.

I am sure the man stepping off a 50 story building , would die upon hitting the ground. But let's qualify your statement - If the man was on Earth , and had no parachute , or any means of breaking his fall , it is a certainty that man would be dead. To even attempt a comparison with logic like this, is just simply ludicrous. In fact it's juvenile , only disguised with an adult vocabulary.

The probability you claim for the "ideas" [ a.k.a. SPECULATION & CONJECTURE] , floated by Science regarding the Origin of the Universe are " much smaller " ? Understatement of the century ,eh Russell ? When nothing is known , I'd say it's a ridiculous comparison.

Again Russell , pick up some books on the subject , and read them. I know it must be a scary thing for you to contemplate , that Science has no idea , but you must learn to live with that fact. But you are free to speculate. After all , whatever source you are referencing , will distinguish between what is speculation and what is based in any evidence ,or data , as you put it.

You haven't provided any data or evidence btw. And you can't , because there is none.

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2uqzztx.jpg
¨
ml378d.jpg



310120627_d9ac682a7e_o.jpg

speckled-emperor-moth--lisaj.jpg

5969029.jpg

329675877_dccaee7925.jpg

9f1c99509190ac33f5363a1edc3a1c37.jpg

frog with false eyes
faf48c179bee383d1d10874bc14ba704.jpg

spider with human or ape face
27585b0201ad883b3f3a6b2da571cc51.jpg

8509383_f520.jpg


Smiley_Spiders_8x.jpg
smile-spider-001.jpg

smile-spider-006.jpg


smile-spider-014.jpg


Smiley_Spiders_main.jpg

Smiley_Spiders_2.jpg

Smiley_Spiders_2x.jpg

6+Eyed+Click+Beetle%252C+Alaus+oculatus%

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Let me ask you something important here, do you disagree that "the probability of such ideas for the creation of the universe would be much smaller than your death from falling"?  If not then what are you complaining about? 

 

You want to know what science ‘knows’ yet as I explained science doesn’t work that way, science works with probability’s and testable ideas.  Ideas that are best if they are risky and testable.  Many of those ideas will prove to be false, many will prove to be only partially correct and will need revision.  You may not like the extrapolations that some scientists come up with, that’s fine by the way, but to write them off you need to show that they are unfounded.  You can’t of course but that is what you need to do.  Until that is done they remain plausible but untested ideas.  That’s the basis of science.

 

One of the deepest problems at the base of this discussion is that you don’t know your maths.  You seem to actually believe that 10-43 of a second is about half 10-22 or a second.  That profound misunderstanding is a problem and I don’t think this discussion can move on until you address it.  With that misunderstanding you have made claims for the limit to our potential knowledge of this universe that span over 30 orders of magnitude (you may have to look up what that means too Eclipse but it’ll be worth it) then complained that I won’t agree with those guesses you post.  Obviously I can’t agree until you settle down to one specific figure here.

 

As for our hypothetical man stepping off a 50th floor landing, you are starting to see the sorts of things that must be taken into account for that to be true.  The building will have to be subject to a gravity field of a certain strength.  Pretty simply as most buildings we know of are, and certainly every 50 story building that I’m aware of is.  There are buildings under water in a number of locations on earth and stepping off a high floor on one of them would not result in your death so it’s not an automatic given, there are things you must take into account.  Yes parachutes, ropes, nets etc are all plausible out clauses for him, what are the chances that something like that would save him?  Recently a child fell from a 20th story balcony trying to escape his siblings teasing, he fell 19 of those 20 stories then landed on an awning which broke his fall.  He survived with some minor injuries.  See the picture is more complicated than you wish to paint it.

Now you are starting to sound like Andalusi.  “When nothing is known” stretches beyond the data here.  We know that whatever was there at the beginning of this universe created a universe that looks like this one.  It has values of matter and energy that are known assuming conservation is true.  Nothing is an overblown statement, I know it’s one you’ve been clinging too for a long time but it’s false no matter how hard you wish to cling to it.

You said that I have presented no evidence then let me present some for your examination.  Whatever existed at that moment, 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe, had to lead to this so I present the universe as a whole as a rather large and obvious piece of evidence.  I’ve pointed that out to you before of course so I see no reason to suspect that you’ll actually listen this time but here it is in black and white one more time.

 

Now as I pointed out earlier the limit to our current direct observational evidence for the beginning of the universe is another question, that one comes in during inflation at around 10-34 of a second in the form of characteristics imprinted on the cosmic microwave background from gravitational and density waves generated during inflation.

 

Those figures are the ones I’ve given here since the very beginning of this.  Compare that to your figures ranging over more than 20 orders of magnitude.  Consider also that you only recently found out, at least I hope you’ve found out, that inflation was not the first event at the start of this universe and ask yourself, who’s dancing here?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russell

 

You ask "who's dancing here ?   You are Russell .  Why ? Lets start out with the premise of our discussion and my remarks ,  I said Science can only look back to a time after Zero . What does ZERO mean ? Zero means the initial event that caused Cosmological Inflation or The Inflation . The Common metaphor use for describing this initial event is of course the Big Bang , although there is no evidence of an explosion a.k.a. Bang , but rather INFLATION . 

 

Now for my statement , I said Science can look back [in theory ] to a short period of time after ZERO or the initial event .I stated that time was  10- 43 seconds . I also explained that, that time span in question , varies among Scientists, and the variations range from 10 - 47   to 10- 33 seconds. I also used the term Planck Segments of time  which is  a measure of the time it takes to travel a specified distance at C . For all practical purposes  a Planck Second or Plank Segment is a Trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second . Thus that time has also been referred to by Scientists as 3 Planck Seconds after the initial event . That initial event being Inflation . There is no evidence of an explosion , there is evidence however strong observational evidence for Inflation .

 

 So what YOU are quibbling over is irrelevant to the original cause for this discussion, which was my statement that Science knows nothing before that period of time . In fact what science hypothesizes back to 10 - 43 [ or whatever you choose to insert ] is just that , because it is based on cosmological constants that have since been revised .The percentage of revision based on new calculations of the speed at which the Galaxies are receding away from our perspective vary also . The variant is between 2% to 5% . Ergo a change here, is a change there .

 

In addition , even though the new calculations indicate a velocity slightly higher than what would be expected , there is still absolutely no theory on why or what is causing the increased acceleration . Hence Dark Matter and Dark Energy have been hypothesized , yet not at all detected . So now those extra zeros you are making a big deal about become insignificant as well as even more irrelevant .

 

Take another step back to the heart of the argument . I said Science can only offer conjecture and /or speculation as to the Origin of the Universe . That is all that String Theory, Multiverse , 2DHolograms ,and any other notion thrown out there by Science is. .

We simply don't know what caused the Inflation , We simply don't know what Physical Laws could have existed to bring about the Universe , nor what Physical Laws caused or created the Four Forces in nature . In fact some Scientists are proposing a Fifth , that we don't yet know about , thus the acceleration and failure to detect Dark matter , may be a result of that Force . Just speculation Russell .

 

No Physicist or mathematician is going to come up with an answer as to how the Universe came into being . It is inscrutable .

 

And therein lies your problem Russell . Go back and read your post #305. In a nutshell you are saying that there are theories that can be applied , but there isn't .There is no theory .

 

And that brings us back again to a previous argument - I said there are Four possibilities for how the Universe came about , no one of them more or less plausible than the other  - Necessity , Chance ,Probability and Purpose .  I am open to any and all . Since none can be proven . You seem to disagree . That is your opinion .

 

BTW , the B.S. about the man stepping off a 50 story building under water ? Are you still a school boy Russell ? Seriously ?

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Maybe you need to read back, I explained to you that the limit was 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe.  You put up guesses that spaned over 20 orders of magnitude but I’ve always used that one figure.  Who was it again who was dancing?  Yes there is some variation about the exact moment for which we can currently gather evidence though the consensus is around 10-34 or a second when density waves and gravitational waves were created during inflation as I explained.

 

That’s the first time you’ve mentioned Zero, that’s a good way of describing what I’ve been referring to as the initiating event that started the universe.   Zero will do so long as you understand what that means.  Zero plus 10-43 of a second is the end of the Planck Epoch for example and you can just add Zero + in front of each of those figures I’ve been trying to explain to you and you’ll start to get the idea.  Remember that, on that scale, inflation started at around Zero + 10-37 of a second so you were wrong when you stated that the limit to our potential knowledge was after that moment as you were wrong with virtually all of those other guesses you threw out there.  Have you looked up how that scientific notation works yet?

 

There are very good reasons why no scientist who understood this stuff would suggest that the limit was 10-47 of a second, as I said you need to understand that scientific notation to get that but it’s important here.  10-47 is also too small to have significance given the limitations we see from Quantum Physics.  Maybe that’ll change one day if some other theory comes out to supersede Quantum Physics but that time isn’t now.  You can’t just wrap up all those vague guesses you threw out there and claim that some unnamed physicist or other believes it so it was reasonable for you to do so.

 

And here you go again with the vague and inaccurate guesses.  A Trillionth of a Trillionth of a Trillionth of a second is 10-36 of a second, that’s during inflation and long after the end of the Planck Epoch which is the most commonly accepted time for the limit to our potential knowledge here.  Like I said vague guesses is what got you into this trouble in the first place.  Please learn a little maths so you understand how wrong you are here.  10-36 of a second is 10,000,000 times the length of the Planck Epoch so it’s a very long time after the potential beginning of our knowledge of this universe.  It’s closer to the time of the creation of those density and gravity waves during inflation but that is a question of our current knowledge of this period not our potential knowledge which is a very different question.  Maybe you need to work out which of those questions you are trying to answer here is it when we could potentially know things about this universe or when we can currently gather information about the universe’s early history, they are different times one at 10-43 of a second and the other at around 10-34 or a second.

 

The name “Big Bang” was invented by a reporter, the event itself was neither big nor a bang so you are correct there.  If you equate it to Zero, to the very moment of the initiation of this universe then it also predated the start of inflation by some time, around 10-37 of a second.

 

Actually the basis of this discussion is that you made claims for the limit to our knowledge that ranged far into the realm in which the vast majority of physicists agree that we do have knowledge.  That’s what I keep trying to explain here.  When you throw out these vague guesses as to the time you run into problems due to your lack of mathematical knowledge.  The guess you just threw out for the limit to our knowledge was 10,000,000 the commonly agreed limit so I stated that we can have knowledge before that time.   When you agree with my statement that the limit it 10-43 I’ll agree that we can’t know what was before that time but you don’t stick to that one correct figure you range over more than 20 orders of magnitude and I’ll disagree with most of those guesses. You range over 20 orders of magnitude as if you are unaware that you are even doing it.  As I said a little understanding of maths would help you a lot here.

 

Yes figures such as the cosmological constant may well affect the exact values by quite a few percent.  If the figures I’ve been discussing were off by 20% even 50% etc, I wouldn’t be shocked but you are suggesting that they may well be off by 1000000000000000000000% and in making that claim you have stepped well beyond the bounds of possibility.  Remember what I said, learn some maths and try again here Eclipse.
 

Dark matter / energy may well play into this, currently it looks like it may account for the majority of matter/energy in this universe.  Again that variation falls far short of the 1000000000000000000000% variation that could save your position Eclipse.  Maths is the key here, not much maths, just a little will help you immeasurably

 

I agree that all that science can offer beyond that point is speculation, that’s what scientific hypotheses are until they can be tested.  You are arguing semantics here Eclipse. The ideas I explained step beyond the point at which they can probably ever be tested but that does not mean that they don’t conform to all of what we know about how this universe works which is what I claimed for them, read back if you don’t believe me.

 

No we don’t know what caused inflation at this stage.  Yes Dark Matter / Energy may well be a manifestation of an as yet unknown fifth force which may also be involved in inflation.  Time may tell on that one.

 

On Post 305 I said:-

"No I have answered that question right at the beginning of this.  Quantum physics is a very well tested scientific theory, that’s the evidence applied in the case I was pointing out to you.  You may not like it but that is how it is.  If you take the maths of quantum physics and apply it to an environment with very little in it, a vacuum, you see quantum fluctuations exactly in line with the predictions.  According to the maths that so accurately predicts that if you remove space time itself, which is the situation you would find without a universe, those fluctuations are unbounded, they can get much bigger.  In fact, according to that maths, ‘nothing’ is unstable, it contradicts Heisenberg, so it must explode with energy.  Now is that speculation, yes as I explained at the start of this it is but it is speculation that is supported by all the current evidence and which conforms to the maths of quantum physics.  The very well tested maths of quantum physics.  Yes it’s taken beyond that testing to extrapolate further than our current evidence can test but that’s what science does, then it works out how to test it, then it tests it and potentially rejects it if the evidence doesn’t stand up.…."

 

Now you’ll have to explain what you mean by applied in that question.  I stated clearly that the ideas are based on things that can be applied and tested here and now, from there it is an extrapolation back to the likely conditions before the universe began, an extrapolation done mathematically, to try to work out what may have happened and make testable predictions based on that.  So far no such testing is possible for this idea but who knows what the future may hold.  That being said if that maths is run forwards from the nothing before the universe existed into the future after one had come into existence this mathematical idea produces a universe with a few key signatures that we can look for, those signatures are the only tests to which this idea can be put to date and they conform to the universe we see around us.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Russell

 

You seriously need to pick up some books and read . Your arguments are based in internet skimming to reply and counter my statements ON THE FLY . You simply have only a superficial knowledge of the overall body of data . The reason for that is , you are defending an OPINION , not FACTS ,and you have not done your homework.

 

 

 My position , need not be saved , and as I stated earlier , your obsession with " the zero's " is simply a red herring for your arguments . They remain irrelevant to the subject matter we are discussing.

 

 

In my latest post , I simply used the reference ZERO in an attempt to make something easier for you to understand a concept which you are obviously blind to . Whether that blindness is out of a superficial knowledge of the subject , or a

purposed and feigned ignorance to support your opinion, that ,only you yourself know .

 

 

 

You use some known quantities in your attempt to counter the reality of the facts on the ground .Quantum Physics DOES have some well tested Theories , but they cannot be applied to any illumination on the conditions that existed before 10 -43 seconds. THAT is fact Russell. And NO , " maths " are not in any way sufficient in dealing with the same problem . Most maths involving this subject are Bayesian in nature . That is they are based on notions and assumptions. You can apply maths to describe  the physics in things that exist and can be seen, tested and ultimately predicted , and upon observing such a prediction as valid.Only then can you say the "maths predict ". Again none of the "maths " can be applied to the What ,How or WHY the Universe came into existence. There is no "maths " that can account for the Inflation. The Universe has already happened , 13.8 Billion years ago , so what will "maths" predict ?  The start of Inflation can not be observed , nor is it anything that can be predicted , or observed. The beginning of the Universe is forever veiled from our view , therefore any "maths " are meaningless . They remain the stuff of conjecture and speculation , just as the latest " Big Bounce " which is just another variation of an oscillating Universe , a Big Bang and Big Crunch .There is absolutely no evidence for this , it is a speculation and the scientists that proposed it will tell you so.

 

 

 

What you seem to be oblivious of , is the fact that the "maths " are being created to fit an hypothesis, based on what is observable now , and existing theories based on the same , NOT on what conditions were or might have been . They describe how their hypotheses might fit their speculation , not the reality of what is . And what is , is the clouded view looking back to 10 -43 seconds after ZERO [ or the start of the Universe ] There are no Quantum Physics or "maths " that can be applied to the Origin of the Universe , nor it's end for that matter. Since the Expansion of the Universe is Accelerating , and by no known Physics , we propose Dark matter , tantamount to an unknown explaining an unknown . We guess at the size of the Universe , because if observations are correct , the acceleration means the farther out we look the faster the Galaxies are moving and eventually reach or even surpass C . So there will be part of the Universe whose light never reaches us , and therefore forever hidden from view.

 

 

C is only the speed limit for objects in the Universe , but there is no limit for the Universe expanding into whatever medium it is expanding into . No one knows what it is that is at the leading edge of the Expanding Universe . So even predictions of a cold death are no longer valid .

 

 

 Only one sentence in your statement makes any sense in view of what we know , can know  ,and what we will never know .And that is your last sentence ,BUT ONLY THE LATTER HALF . The maths can conform only to universe we  see around us , in the

NOW , and from our perspective of the now, looking back to a limited time only , NOT looking back to the " nothing before the Universe existed " . That view is not only preposterous , it is illogical based on the very nature of the Universe itself .

 

We are not talking about future discoveries compared to present experience , like flying , cures for diseases , landing on the Moon , or interstellar space flight .

 

By the way you talk, it is obvious to me , that the logic of all this eludes you . And that is understandable for someone who only has a superficial and fragmented knowledge of Theoretical Physics , and Theoretical Cosmology and Cosmogony .  I am no PHD , but I have studied the subject for the better part of 55 years .  I've been reading Scientific American since 1964 , as well as numerous books by Hawking , Kip Thorn , Gamow , Hoyle, Feinman , and others . And not one of them can offer anything other than conjecture and speculation as to what we are discussing . Yes , they say "maybe someday " , but that is rhetorical and they know it. If you read their books you would know it .Even the latest shining star in Theoretical Physics,  Sean Carroll knows it , and uses euphemistic terms to describe what can never be known .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×