| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed 16:49 - Mar 2 with 1553 views | Davillin |
Draw your own conclusions about this one.
"The Big Bang Never Happened? New Equation Says The Universe Always Existed" So much for the delusional "singularity" theory. Story at:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1830863/the-big-bang-never-happened-new-equation-says-t
p.s. There are several other articles on this subject. Use your favourite search engine to find some. Use "universe always existed." |  |
| |  |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 17:12 - Mar 2 with 1530 views | dgt73 |
Ah, this is a question that no one can answer. What we know about the universe is next to nothing. |  |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 17:38 - Mar 2 with 1514 views | Batterseajack |
That's a kind of weird contradictory article...
"In addition to disproving Big Bang theory, the model could also explain the cause of dark matter and dark energy."
"According to Earth Sky, the new model doesn’t necessarily prove the Big Bang never happened, as there’s still an expansion of the universe to account for, but it could greatly contribute to the scientific discussion about the origin of everything."
I guess they need to now prove that this graviton exists |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:28 - Mar 2 with 1484 views | WarwickHunt |
You lost me at inquisitr. |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:34 - Mar 2 with 1473 views | Humpty |
So much for the delusional "singularity" theory.
Delusional? |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 19:31 - Mar 2 with 1433 views | phact0rri |
Wow, talk about a imaginary numbers, or stable founding-- this seems a bit much to publish on. Granted I'm biased as I think a force of "quantum liquid" is a bit much. But really as its been said there's little to say either way. But its like "because we have variants of unchanging forces, we must have an unchanging spacial system.
Though my thoughts and support are just about as loved as this. As I still feel that the Red Shift Theory of an always expanding and growing infinite universe makes the most sense. |  |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 19:56 - Mar 2 with 1409 views | libertine |
i'm sure I've seen this elastic type theory before, and maybe I have 15.6 billion years ago
where the universe continually expands to a moments then contracts to a moment for ever and then continues to expand again
which would is suppose mean that everything we've everdone like whoever reads this thread has happened before an infinite amount of time and will continue to happen for an infinite amount of times.
great idea
by the way who's seen WHAT THE BLEEP ? |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 23:21 - Mar 2 with 1311 views | Cottsy |
Ethan Siegel is your friend when it comes to the big bang, he makes some pretty brain melting stuff accessible. There's loads on his blog including this piece in response to the equation in the OP.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-two-big-bangs-1493194f5cd9
"When cosmologists – that’s the sub-field of astrophysics dealing with the origin and evolution of the Universe – speak about the Big Bang, they mean one of two things:
The hot, dense, expanding state that our observable Universe emerged from, that expanded, slowed, cooled, and gave rise to elements, atoms, stars, molecules, planets, and eventually us.
The initial singularity that represents the birth of space and time.
The only problem is, while these two explanations were interchangeable back in say, the 1960s, they no longer are.
The first explanation – the hot, dense, expanding state – still makes sense as “the Big Bang,” but the second one no longer does. In fact, as far as the question of where space and time come from goes, there is still plenty of debate on all sides, and this recent paper that came out is simply another drop in the ocean of that debate: nothing more.
The biggest thing you should learn from all this? That “the Big Bang” represents where everything we see in the Universe comes from, but it is not the very beginning of the Universe anymore. We can go back before this explanation is any good, to an inflationary Universe, and we have good reasons to argue over and debate the finer points of what, exactly, that means for the ultimate origin of everything we know.
But did the Big Bang happen? By the first definition, yes, absolutely. And if you’re using the second definition, you may really want to rethink using the term “the Big Bang.” You won’t be alone, but wouldn’t you rather be right?" |  |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 23:26 - Mar 2 with 1307 views | Uxbridge |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:34 - Mar 2 by Humpty |
So much for the delusional "singularity" theory.
Delusional? |
The Earths only 4,000 years old innit... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 23:35 - Mar 2 with 1298 views | Cottsy |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 23:26 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
The Earths only 4,000 years old innit... |
I think current creationist thinking puts it at somewhere between 6-10000. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 00:39 - Mar 3 with 1277 views | Humpty |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 23:26 - Mar 2 by Uxbridge |
The Earths only 4,000 years old innit... |
I'd just like to find out Dav's views on the origin of the universe. I'm no cosmologist so I don't know. And if you ask a cosmologist he/she will tell you that they don't know either, but the majority, by studying the scientific evidence that we can see before us, tend to believe in the Big Bang theory.
So I sort of go along with that myself, whilst knowing that could change if more compelling evidence comes to light. It's called the scientific method.
I don't know if Dav himself is a cosmologist. He might be, as he is very clever. He's told us enough.
Just wondering how he knows that most of them are not only wrong but deluded.
And I'd like him to tell me, as he knows, how the universe came into being. | | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 02:09 - Mar 3 with 1254 views | JJJack |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 00:39 - Mar 3 by Humpty |
I'd just like to find out Dav's views on the origin of the universe. I'm no cosmologist so I don't know. And if you ask a cosmologist he/she will tell you that they don't know either, but the majority, by studying the scientific evidence that we can see before us, tend to believe in the Big Bang theory.
So I sort of go along with that myself, whilst knowing that could change if more compelling evidence comes to light. It's called the scientific method.
I don't know if Dav himself is a cosmologist. He might be, as he is very clever. He's told us enough.
Just wondering how he knows that most of them are not only wrong but deluded.
And I'd like him to tell me, as he knows, how the universe came into being. |
I'd go further and ask "Why the hell does anyone care??!!" . Naturally there would be a curiosity but frankly , at the ridiculous extortionate cost that an almost financially bankrupt world spends on such "research" one can only wonder at the correct priorities of those that make these decisions. I.e......can they not think of better, more pertinent and pressing matters/issues to finance. e.g. Why do 80 odd human beings own more wealth than an entire continent?! And why don't more people ask this question?!
As for Dav or anyone else that thinks they have "an answer" or "a definitive theory" , well, words fail me. The sheer preposterousness of someone, anyone, even trying to pinpoint the starting point of something that we could not ever possibly establish, let alone prove, is so mind-bogglingly insane that said person should be given a small padded cell with only a TV channel showing Jeremy Kyle (the U.S. version) 24/7 whilst they consider where they've gone wrong in life.
Christ on a bike.... |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 02:49 - Mar 3 with 1245 views | Davillin |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 00:39 - Mar 3 by Humpty |
I'd just like to find out Dav's views on the origin of the universe. I'm no cosmologist so I don't know. And if you ask a cosmologist he/she will tell you that they don't know either, but the majority, by studying the scientific evidence that we can see before us, tend to believe in the Big Bang theory.
So I sort of go along with that myself, whilst knowing that could change if more compelling evidence comes to light. It's called the scientific method.
I don't know if Dav himself is a cosmologist. He might be, as he is very clever. He's told us enough.
Just wondering how he knows that most of them are not only wrong but deluded.
And I'd like him to tell me, as he knows, how the universe came into being. |
I don't know how the universe came into being. And I'm not uncomfortable saying that.
Nor do I believe that there is any value in cosmologists tending to believe in the Big Bang Theory. "Tending to believe" is neither "knowing" nor scientific fact.
Nor does anyone else know.
Certain scientists say they do, but they do not, and are only theorizing in the dark. All religions say they do, but they're only making things up in the dark.
I cannot accept any theory that postulates that the universe came into being from nothing and with nothing to have caused it to be [and continue to become].
Nor can I accept any religious explanation involving personal gods ["personal" meaning gods who appear or appeared as "persons" -- specifically in "bibles" by whatever name -- such as white-bearded human-like creators doing it in six days, etc.
Aside: Why was it necessary for you to insert personal remarks directed at me?
Don't misquote me, please. I did not say that "most of them" -- whether you mean theories or cosmologists or both -- are deluded. I wrote that the theory about "the singularity" is delusional.
Humpty, if you make any more personal remarks about me, or misquote me again, neither of which is part of courteous discourse, I won't respond to your posts. | |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 04:14 - Mar 3 with 1234 views | Humpty |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 02:49 - Mar 3 by Davillin |
I don't know how the universe came into being. And I'm not uncomfortable saying that.
Nor do I believe that there is any value in cosmologists tending to believe in the Big Bang Theory. "Tending to believe" is neither "knowing" nor scientific fact.
Nor does anyone else know.
Certain scientists say they do, but they do not, and are only theorizing in the dark. All religions say they do, but they're only making things up in the dark.
I cannot accept any theory that postulates that the universe came into being from nothing and with nothing to have caused it to be [and continue to become].
Nor can I accept any religious explanation involving personal gods ["personal" meaning gods who appear or appeared as "persons" -- specifically in "bibles" by whatever name -- such as white-bearded human-like creators doing it in six days, etc.
Aside: Why was it necessary for you to insert personal remarks directed at me?
Don't misquote me, please. I did not say that "most of them" -- whether you mean theories or cosmologists or both -- are deluded. I wrote that the theory about "the singularity" is delusional.
Humpty, if you make any more personal remarks about me, or misquote me again, neither of which is part of courteous discourse, I won't respond to your posts. |
Sorry I've upset you.
One thing, I've not misquoted you. In fact I didn't quote you at all. You posted an alternative to the commonly accepted big bang theory and also called the big bang theory delusional. Which I take to mean the vast majority of cosmologists are deluded. I think that's fair.
I pointed out that most cosmologists accept that theory as the best they have so far, and none of them accept it as an absolute scientific fact. If better evidence is found they will change their minds. So far the evidence looks like the universe expanded and is still doing so from a singularity.That's why I said "tending to believe." Neither I or the the vast majority of scientists claim to know the truth about the origin of the universe. A minority have other theories.
Nor does anyone else know.
Correct. Which is what I posted in the first place.
Certain scientists say they do, but they do not, and are only theorizing in the dark. All religions say they do, but they're only making things up in the dark.
Incorrect. Please don't equate science with religion. Scientists say "This is the best we can come up with, by looking at the evidence. There is lot's of evidence that suggest we may be right, though we may not be."
Theists say "Forget the evidence. WE KNOW what is right because a very old book said it. And we will never change our minds. And depending on what religion we are, and what point in time this is, we might kill you for having other ideas. Stick your evidence up your arse!"
I cannot accept any theory that postulates that the universe came into being from nothing and with nothing to have caused it to be [and continue to become].
I think most cosmologists would agree with you. Where has anybody said that? What they would say is that scientific evidence shows that the universe is expanding from a single point. Which is true, to the best of our knowledge.
Aside: Why was it necessary for you to insert personal remarks directed at me?
I apologize. But your previous behavior on this forum in the past has seen you display a very condescending attitude to those you think are not on the same intellectual level as you. You have alluded to your higher academic achievements compared to the person you are conversing with. Something which is never going to go down well in working class South Wales.
We don't care what you've achieved educationally. It's what you say on here counts.
Put me on ignore if you like. | | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 10:44 - Mar 3 with 1157 views | macthejack |
Humpty fairly spot on here to be honest. As was the post saying that this theory is just a drop in the ocean. One paper neither proves nor disproves a theory but this one does provide an interesting consideration.
I think every Cosmologist (at least one worth their salt) would agree that the hot big bang model is not ideal and has its problems, however the article stating that
“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,”
Isn't strictly true. It certainly has its problems but it is not the most serious issue with general relativity.
Cosmology is almost entirely based on the theory of general relativity; it is basically just an extension of general relativity. Now it is pretty much universally accepted that general relativity is correct. It describes physical experimental anomalies so well that it must be true. The hot big bang theory follows on from general relativity so it is a very good model (or at least the best we have now) for the origin and evolution of the universe.
I've read the paper but it is beyond my level of understanding, however it's worth keeping in mind that hundreds of papers are published every day and they can often just contain incorrect mathematics and ridiculous leaps, again this paper is beyond my understanding so I cannot critically evaluate it but just because a paper is published does not mean it's correct.
Whilst the idea of a singularity seems weird, physics IS weird. There are so many things that defy Newtonian logic. Things like particle wave duality and special relativity make no sense when looked at from a CLASSICAL point of view. That's just it though, there was a time when we only knew about classical physics, things that happen on a scale easy for humans to understand, however as you reach the extremes of velocity and size for example, classical physics breaks down. This does not mean classical physics is incorrect it simply means that there are others laws that were needed, such as relativity and quantum mechanics. Who's to say that this is not the case when investigating the origin of the universe? It is not a classical problem so should not be looked at using classical physics.
One of the best theories is the idea of quantum gravity and there are many other theories based on quantum mechanics too often involving string theory, pretty much all of which I don't properly understand.
The bottom line is, we don't know. That's fine, there was a time when we didn’t know about the structure of the atom. We're working on it but just because something seems incomprehensible does not mean it should be disregarded. If that were the case we would not have Quantum Mechanics (something Einstein famously disagreed with, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.")
A few more quotes on quantum mechanics:
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." Neils Bohr
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman
and another (alleged) quote from Feynman:
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy"
The point is that sometimes these theories ARE counter-intuitive and difficult to comprehend, that doesn't make them incorrect and one shouldn't simply disregard something that they don't like or understand.
I hope I've got my points across well! [Post edited 3 Mar 2015 10:50]
|  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 10:47 - Mar 3 with 1149 views | Cottsy |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 02:49 - Mar 3 by Davillin |
I don't know how the universe came into being. And I'm not uncomfortable saying that.
Nor do I believe that there is any value in cosmologists tending to believe in the Big Bang Theory. "Tending to believe" is neither "knowing" nor scientific fact.
Nor does anyone else know.
Certain scientists say they do, but they do not, and are only theorizing in the dark. All religions say they do, but they're only making things up in the dark.
I cannot accept any theory that postulates that the universe came into being from nothing and with nothing to have caused it to be [and continue to become].
Nor can I accept any religious explanation involving personal gods ["personal" meaning gods who appear or appeared as "persons" -- specifically in "bibles" by whatever name -- such as white-bearded human-like creators doing it in six days, etc.
Aside: Why was it necessary for you to insert personal remarks directed at me?
Don't misquote me, please. I did not say that "most of them" -- whether you mean theories or cosmologists or both -- are deluded. I wrote that the theory about "the singularity" is delusional.
Humpty, if you make any more personal remarks about me, or misquote me again, neither of which is part of courteous discourse, I won't respond to your posts. |
"I cannot accept any theory that postulates that the universe came into being from nothing and with nothing to have caused it to be [and continue to become]."
I don't think anyone is saying that the universe came from nothing or was caused by nothing (although there plenty of examples of something from nothing in quantum mechanics).
Don't confuse the big bang as being an explosion out of nothing that the universe grew out of, the term 'big bang' is a pretty poor term for the expansion of the arbitrarily small, hot, dense state that our observable universe grew out of anyway. | |
| If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys? |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 10:49 - Mar 3 with 1144 views | oh_tommy_tommy |
it was god mun
god done it & he only took 6 days because he went down the pub on the 7th.
Some bloke in a church said it. |  |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 11:41 - Mar 3 with 1111 views | Highjack |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:28 - Mar 2 by WarwickHunt |
You lost me at inquisitr. |
My head was spinning at "Must read". |  |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 13:32 - Mar 3 with 1061 views | dickythorpe |
Another great thread |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 15:10 - Mar 3 with 1036 views | GreatBritton |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 13:32 - Mar 3 by dickythorpe |
Another great thread |
Does anyone know if any other fan sites discuss quantum physics and cosmology with the levels of knowledge and understanding displayed here?
Is it a further dimension of The Swansea Way? |  | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 17:08 - Mar 3 with 1008 views | Nookiejack |
This theory would also mean 'No Cause and Effect' so was philosopher David Hume right after all?
Also 'No beginning or Ending to the Universe' - very difficult for us to get our minds around this. | | | |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:05 - Mar 3 with 986 views | DJack |
Another below that adds to the mass of scientific evidence linked with mainstream theories Dav - and I know you don't believe in quantum... but tough luck  
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/03/light_relief_as_photons_wave_goodbye_to_ |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Must Read -- New Scientific Theory that the Universe has Always Existed on 18:13 - Mar 3 with 979 views | phact0rri |
This so turning into a strawman argument. And really its in a place where its easy to do because a lot of it isn't known. I mean before anyone can really start thinking about origins of the universe outside of models and theories there needs to be understanding of the universal laws-- most of which can be argued against on our planet let alone a guideline through all of existence.
So even if you think you have some idea, its so deeply set in imaginative numbers and the quantum mechanical states of chaos that its really far out of the way. But I do hate that people assume things on theories that seemingly showcase that they don't haven't done much reading on the subject. But it doesn't matter so much.
what we can say are that there are quarks and isotopes that are aged well into the millions of years. We can say that there was a time that atoms were not bound to one another. We can say there is a force that puts elements into the poles of other elements. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
