I don’t think there is a GOOD explanation anywhere
for the origin of matter and energy.
The big bang and the big god both fall short.
Actually, some “explanations” are more interesting and plausible than others. The more I learn, the more ancient myths like Genesis look like such archaic clunkers. I mean, even the Big Bang is becoming a bit obsolete as other theories start taking into account new discoveries and observations. Luckily, there will always be more to learn until humanity comes to an end, which the way things look, will be sooner rather than later.
I even have my own theory that involves black holes and white holes it makes sooooo much more sense then christianity’s GAWD
oh my sweet jonquil what are we learning?
and kuze can you give an idea about those black/white holes?
turtlebaby, there is so much to learn about cosmology and the origins of the universe it’s unreal, and it seems that there are new discoveries and theories popping up concurrently. Search Wikipedia, Google and Amazon on cosmology, the Big Bang, and origins of the universe.
You really have to do this work yourself, turtle, and it will require some discipline and reading to sort things out. Even the Big Bang has gone through permutations, and other theories are thought to be even more plausible.
If you’re not into creationism or intelligent design, you can leave “God” out of it, but that is not required either. I think that the only beneficial energy required is a thirst for knowledge and an open mind.
Existence is absurd, there will never be a good explanation for it nor can there be.
you are probably right angry. do you think we will ever understand how life got going?
I think so… to some extent. We seem to be somewhat close these days, yes? Lightning seems to be the key 
I’d go with the idea that energy has always existed, in an infinite amount, and finite parts of it happen, through truly random fluctuation (and possibly some underlying selection process), to have become permuted into all the forms we perceive around us now.
why would you go with the idea that energy always existed in infinite amount?
It seems, to my curious mind, like the most natural ancestor for our reality.
“Energy” had no origin. Energy IS the origin for all else including matter. The universe had no beginning.
Yeah, I think this too.
I’m not a physicist, but my weak university education in physics taught me that if you condense matter enough, it will reach a point of singularity. Around this point of singularity is an event horizon. To an outside observer, you will quickly be “sucked up” if you approach this event horizon. As an “inside” observer, though, space and time are stretched out so far that you will fall towards the event horizon for all of “eternity” but never reach it.
I always thought, well, if the universe came from one concentrated point of high energy, then time really has no meaning at that point does it? If time has no meaning there, then neither does our concept of causation.
But I’m sure some physics guru will school me on this in a minute.
The idea of a singularity came from extrapolating the simple equations for gravity to infinity. They had no reasoning skill at the time to tell them that gravity (nor anything else) could ever exist at an infinitely small level. The very concept of a singularity is non-sense and is now only spoken of in the vague sense of meaning, “something extremely small but massive”.
I have very little doubt that Black-holes are merely single particles that have grown much larger than their neutron counterpart. The Big Bang theory is non-sense other than referring to a possible event in history when perhaps black holes collided or merely reached an astable level and flew apart. The Big Bang was certainly not the beginning of time. Rational thought forbids time from ever having a beginning. But Science has never been one to strictly adhere to rational thought.
Rational thought does not forbid time from having a beginning. Rational thought doesn’t speak in either direction as to the finite or infinite nature of time as our only concept of rationality exists within a universe that consists of a singular time arrow. I don’t see how you can possibly propose that time is necessary to existence.
Amazing.
You make contradictory assertions. Care to back them up? Realize that, “I don’t know any reasoning that would suggest…” is a very poor foundation for presumptive assertion.
I’m asking you to back up your assertion. I didn’t say anything in that quote of yours. I said that rational thought doesn’t speak in one way or the other towards the cardinality of time.
You made the claim it does.
YOU back it up.
I didn’t see any question. I saw merely false contrary statements. The red-highlighted statement is false. I was curious as to what made you think that you knew what rational thought did or did not reveal (since you made the challenge).
But moving on…
Time == the measure of relative change.
Where there is change, there is time. Where there is time, there is change. One cannot exist without the immediate presence of the other.
Existence == that which has affect.
To affect means to alter or change. Thus there can be no existence without time. More importantly, there can be no existence without change (ie. affecting). Physical existence IS the changing and nothing else.
For anything to come into being (existence), something must change. But for anything to begin to change, there must be time. For there to be time, there must be change already. Thus if you propose to begin with nothingness (pre-Big Bang) wherein there is no changing or anything to change, because there is nothing to change, there can be no changing. No changing means no universe - ever.
To begin something means to change. To begin changing itself means to begin beginning. Such a thought leads to an infinite regression of contingent pre-existence. An eternal universe thought also requires such an infinite regression of contingency, but there is a difference.
With the presumption of an absolute beginning, the infinite regression diminishes in existence infinitely yet can never reach zero affect. Considering that each action requires passage of time, any infinite chain of diminishing events must consume time and include progress toward infinite speed so as to include a zero point. Infinite speed is not rational due to a sequential chain being required (each event must precede another). Thus without infinite speed, there can be no infinite regression of affectance that began at zero.
The infinite regression concerned in eternal change does not require any diminishing of affect, but merely eternal alteration, “eternal energy - conservation of energy”. Science confirms that conservation of energy, for whatever the reason, seems to be the case. But the thought of the “beginning of beginning” is actually an oxymoron.
So what is your “rational” objection?
Counter examples:
-
An unchanging, unmoving universe. Nothing you said makes that impossible, though I will concede that we do not live in one.
-
A universe where time has both an end and a beginning.
-
A universe where time is only a single moment… now. (in other words, all your memories, thoughts, whathaveyou, materialized all at once)
Do I believe in any of these. No. Do I believe that time is infinite, though? No. I see no evidence for it.
You are wrong on three points:
A) You perceived change and assumed consistency.
B) Your perception of change was applied to the external world, not the internal self from whence it came.
C) Your whole argument is one big post hoc fallacy.
Here, I’ll do you a favor and quote your mistakes:
Unfounded claim.
Incorrect. You assume a contiguous reality. Reality could be discrete and you would be none the wiser.
What you are saying is that we, as beings of matter, are trapped in time and space. Nothing else.
The universe does not only contain matter, it contains forces (such as weak and strong). It contains energy. In fact, you have no idea what else it could contain. Do not speak as though you are an authority. You. Are. Not.
I deny your premise that action requires time. Period. That’s a flat out unsupported statement. See example 3.
So, that’s my rational objection. You failed to measure all edge cases, and therefore my argument stands that we don’t know if time is finite or infinite.
You speak with far too much certainty. You cannot even measure causality due to the HUP. You seem to have, in your own glorious mind, solved a problem Feynman, Schrodinger, Bohr and Einstein couldn’t.
I tell you what, champ… google it. Read up on time, no fuck it, here’s the wikipedia entry. Start there and control-f “finite”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Your claim to know whether time is finite or infinite is B.S.
Take it somewhere else.
I can’t wrap my head around a beginning to existence. In any theory, there was something before and while there was nothing. Nothingness is something in itself. When there was nothing, that nothingness still embodies a sense of time.
I find it much easier to simply believe that God created everything and has existed forever. Call me lazy or small-minded but it’s the only (as strange as this sounds) rational logic I can assert to the matter. But still, with this thinking, my mind is stumped as to where and when God came from.
The idea of ‘forever’ is too vast to understand, but it is fun to think about.