A universe from nothing

• Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-15 02:09
  Only slightly related:
  
  [video=youtube;dcncPpQ8loA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA[/video]
• Omegatronic wrote on 2010-10-16 05:16
  Real scientists do not discuss "before the big bang" or even "the big bang". Here's why: if all the mass in the universe were a singularity, there is no space-- there is no time-- there is no spacetime. There is no next. There is no before. Real scientists will talk to you about the universe all the way back to when time = 5.39124 x 10^-44 second. But, before that, the equations break down and there is nothing to discuss.
  
  The problem with cosmology, it requires faith. Or, for those who may be offended by the idea that your scientific beliefs require faith, an acceptance of an axiom. In the case of an endless cycle of big bang and big crunches, you must accept the existence of a second unit of time. Evidence for this? None. It's Quasi-science, just to answer the question of "before". It's not based on evidence or observation. It is based on the hope of explaining all this something with some more something. But, no matter how elegant an explanation it's scientifically meaningless without proof. Proof that will never be forthcoming.
  
  Pick your favorite theory-- God, Big Bang expansion, M-brane collision-- all will hold the same scientific weight. Weight = 0.
• Phunkie wrote on 2010-10-16 05:25
  I don't believe in the Big Crunch or the Big Bounce.
  
  I think the Universe is going to expand forever and eventually will lead into the Big Rip, where everything will be broken down to sub-atomic particles and whatnot.
• DragoniteAce wrote on 2010-10-16 18:26
  Allow me to post this up for comic relief.....i found it while i was searching for.... "interesting" or "funny" pictures >>>> from my twisted humor :evil:
  

  [Image: http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs766.snc4/66682_10150286716010128_604355127_15224813_3242572_n.jpg]
• Cryosite wrote on 2010-10-21 18:24

  Quote from Zid;183809:

  I don't grasp "infinity" as defined by you very well, because I have no reason to believe there isn't a start and an end.

  
  
  Not my definition, as defined by math. Having a start or end is, by definition, not infinite.
  
  Your argument is "well I don't understand it, so I can't really apply logic to it very well. But I like the idea of there being a start, so I'll believe that.
  
  The topic of discussion is mostly about "here are some ideas of what the start of everything is" and trying to figure out "the before that start." If we conclude that there has to be something around before the start of our current universe (be it some god or just plain existence of some sort in general) then that "before" needs to have come from somewhere, and itself have some sort of beginning and before.
  
  Much like how scientists currently unravel another layer up or down in microscopic scale or macroscopic scale from time to time, eventually they will figure out wither or not this big bang was really how our universe started, and what was before it in a proven undeniable manner (or prove it is wrong, and something else is right). Yay, another layer unraveled, and it will take awhile to figure out stuff about that new layer (pre big bang existence or whatever) and eventually worry about the beginning of that.
  
  It comes down to something really simple. Do you believe that at some point in time... there was no existence at all. No god, no matter/energy, no space, nothing. And spontaneously "stuff" exists. What that "stuff" did over time is not really important. Wither that stuff became a god and started creating/organizing other stuff, or that stuff was all of matter and energy existing in a single point and exploding to form our universe doesn't matter. It could easily have been some completely different stuff, that did a whole lot of changing and moving about to eventually become one of those other options. Or do you think that, however our current universe started, something existed before that, and something existed before that, and something existed before that (forever and ever and ever) without a real beginning as something always existed in some form or fashion.
• Omegatronic wrote on 2010-10-21 20:44

  Quote from Cryosite;190228:

  Not my definition, as defined by math. Having a start or end is, by definition, not infinite.

  
  
  Finite is a distance between any two arbitrary points with an upper bound. Infinite is a distance between any two arbitrary points that does not have an upper bound.
  
  If I draw a ray, the length of that ray is infinite, but it has a defined point at which it starts.
  
  

  Quote from Chillax;183827:

  Which came first: the bird, or the egg?

  
  
  Christian answer: The bird. The bible says so.
  
  Scientific evolutionary answer: First we must clarify that "the egg" is "the bird egg" as opposed to some egg of another species which may or may not be related to the bird. For example, an egg laid by a fish is not "the egg" in the question, but rather we want an egg from which comes a bird-- a bird egg.
  
  Evolution teaches us that life evolves in steps. So prior to the bird, there was a species quite similar to the bird, but yet not the bird. I'll call this the proto-bird. The proto-bird lays a clutch of 12 eggs. These are proto-bird eggs. They were laid by the proto-bird and probability dictates that it is highly likely that proto-birds will hatch from these eggs. There is no reason to call them anything but proto-bird eggs.
  
  However, one egg in this clutch has a genetic abnormality. When the eggs hatch, we have 11 proto-birds and 1 "genetic mutation of a proto-bird". What type of egg did this genetic mutation hatch from? At this point in time, the only answer would be a proto-bird egg. What else can we call it? Now we examine the proto-bird with the genetic mutation and find that it is a bird. At this time, we can conclude that the bird hatched from the bird egg, because birds hatch from bird eggs. But this conclusion can only be reached after first observing the bird.
  
  So, the first bird was observed before the first bird egg was even defined therefore the bird came first.
• Intex wrote on 2010-10-21 21:08
  My view on "Where the big bang came from" is just that it always existed.
  Nothing in the world is ever "created."
  Atoms form into molecules, that form to "create" a banana or etc.
  Everything is just rearrangement from the original.
  
  

  It comes down to something really simple. Do you believe that at some point in time... there was no existence at all. No god, no matter/energy, no space, nothing. And spontaneously "stuff" exists. What that "stuff" did over time is not really important.

  
  This sums it up very well in my opinion.
  
  

  Even if it's infinite, the universe is there, it's existing. Thus, something in nothing. A something isn't a part of nothing. It has to be created somehow.

  
  If A had to start from some B, then what came before B? And then C?
  If everything comes from something, then how did something come from nothing to start the whole loop?
  That whole argument can't hold water, it contradicts itself.
  
  Maybe there is no reason to believe that the universe has always existed but there is even less reason to believe there is some origin (from nothing).
  
  

  Which came first: the bird, or the egg?

  
  Without regarding all the pre-bird organisms, since evolution doesn't occur in organisms that are already alive, the egg must have come first.
• Kazuni wrote on 2010-10-21 22:24
  Personally, I think the bird came first. But that depends on your definition of an "egg".
  
  I think at one point birds were somewhat like ... well, before dinosaurs, since they had eggs... something like a mammal.
  When mammals are born, they have a thin membrane around them, no? I think over time (a lot of time) it just went from membrane -> leathery -> eggshell.
  
  That takes millions if not billions of years, so it's hard to tell when that turned into an egg :I