Origin of the universe

Robittybob1 said:
So have you discussed your personal theory on any thread previously? I know that the Physforum is basically unmoderated so anything can be said there. You just got to accept the abuse, but you don't get threads pulled or locked etc.
The whole topic is so theoretical I really can't see how one idea dominates.
Last week on I watch a video on Multiverse and the Stephen hawking on on the origin of the Universe. Is that two ideas? Completely at odds with each other for in the multiverse concept the start of each separate Universe was independent of others, but all popping off independently, so there didn't seem to any time you could say there was nothing before as there had been whole Universes come and go before our own.
The whole thing has left me feeling no one really knows. And then you are too afraid to offer your idea! It can't be as odd as the Multiverse Concept surely!
Click to expand...

My theory is posted everywhere. Some of it got deleted. You might struggle with it though if only Stephen Hawking can understand it.

If a Universe adds up to zero total, then having lots of Universe still adds up to zero total. So far 4 pressure points have been located in the Cosmic Background, which could identify 4 other Universe. My theory predicts 6 next to us, or 12 if Universe line up in 3D. They should all have the same physics, but I think that science currently doesn't know.
 
Last edited:
@Pincho All I know was what was revealed in a dream. I was studying the string theory and obviously loss with all the new things to get my head around. The dream said Science can see the 11 dimensions of the universe but there are 12 dimensions. God put the Energy into the Universe and that is the twelfth dimension, the "Putting in".
Now that still doesn't help me much but I see they are still saying 11 dimensions in the string Theory. Can you use that in your theory?
 
Robittybob1 said:
@Pincho All I know was what was revealed in a dream. I was studying the string theory and obviously loss with all the new things to get my head around. The dream said Science can see the 11 dimensions of the universe but there are 12 dimensions. God put the Energy into the Universe and that is the twelfth dimension, the "Putting in".
Now that still doesn't help me much but I see they are still saying 11 dimensions in the string Theory. Can you use that in your theory?
Click to expand...

We are in a science room. I am basing my explanation on Newton's kissing problem. I am not allowed to add more than science.
 
pluto2 said:
Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?
Click to expand...

You are asking a question that nobody on Earth knows the answer to; however, to date nobody has ever observed *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything) to be real.

pluto2 said:
What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_universe_in_Taoism
Click to expand...

Those are not scientific views. They theological make-believe.
 
One theory for the creation of the universe is to begin with only a speed of light or C reference. The speed of light is the same for all references. This is the one consistency in the universe that is absolute. Why not use the only consistent reference to begin the universe?

Since mass cannot travel at C, if we only had a C reference to begin, there could not yet be mass in the universe, since mass cannot go at C. This is time=0, before the primordial atom appears as mass/energy.

Say we had a rocket ship moving say 75% C. If we slowed it down to zero velocity, energy would be released, such as kinetic energy into brake heat. As such, going from the ground state C reference to less than C, so mass becomes possible, will result in the release of a lot of energy; brake heat. This brake heat is the source of energy needed to create the primordial atom. With this new reference less than C, mass is now also possible. Now we have the primordial atom from C.

Since the universe of primordial atom is finite, we did not use up all the potential energy in C. Since C was the original state or the original ground state of the universe, the finite universe that formed would create a potential with the universal C reference. The universe will need to evolve in ways that can lower this potential so it can head back to C reference.

This is movement is observed in the universe. Mass to energy conversion, such as from fusion, moves mass back to C as energy. Gravity causes space-time to contract in the direction of the reference C; peaks at the black hole. Even an expanding universe is using SR heading in the direction of C; v increases. All forces interact at the speed of light, to name few things.

That being said, the direction of the BB singularity should reflect the finite universe trying to move back to C. The BB can't go directly back to C reference, once mass appears, since mass is locked out of C. This will require infinite energy, which is not in the finite universe. Instead the finite universe needs to use a different path, via the laws of physics, so it can indirectly move back to C.

Some of the paths were described above, such as GR, SR, forces, etc. The BB event reflects the beginning of the backdoor approach, on the way back to C, due to the potential between C and finite.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
It's irrelevant to what I stated.
Click to expand...

It's very relevant, because you stated that nobody knows, however Hawking uses maths. Maths is the only way to work with zero, because you can't suck everything out of the Universe. If you don't think that maths is relevant, then you will never get any proof of how to work with zero.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It's very relevant, because you stated that nobody knows, however Hawking uses maths. Maths is the only way to work with zero, because you can't suck everything out of the Universe. If you don't think that maths is relevant, then you will never get any proof of how to work with zero.
Click to expand...

Um... Stephen Hawking has a theory (just as there are many theories of the universe and / or reality). He does not *know*.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Um... Stephen Hawking has a theory (just as there are many theories of the universe and / or reality). He does not *know*.
Click to expand...

It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
Click to expand...

Not even hawking posits the existence of objective *nothing* (I.e. an absence of everything and anything). He at the very least always relies on "laws of nature" to be preset. Regardless, there are no other theories of the universe or reality that posit the existence of objective *nothing* either (at least not that I am aware of). None of them are "proven"... none of them and to claim otherwise is simply a blatant lie.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
Click to expand...
So you have no problem believing in the miracles of Jesus then, for you have no problem with creating something from nothing? I struggle with the whole concept, of the Universe from Nothing.:)
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Not even hawking posits the existence of objective *nothing* (I.e. an absence of everything and anything). He at the very least always relies on "laws of nature" to be preset. Regardless, there are no other theories of the universe or reality that posit the existence of objective *nothing* either (at least not that I am aware of). None of them are "proven"... none of them and to claim otherwise is simply a blatant lie.
Click to expand...

What you just posted is the proof. Don't you understand? Nothing is two things opposed.

(I.e. an absence of everything and anything)... doesn't exist.

So when you said... "Nobody Knows" You are now saying that you know.

You even said 'Blatant lie.' Which not only suggests that you know, but it suggests that you will get angry at anyone who doesn't say so.
 
Robittybob1 said:
So you have no problem believing in the miracles of Jesus then, for you have no problem with creating something from nothing? I struggle with the whole concept, of the Universe from Nothing.:)
Click to expand...

I said you can't start a universe from nothing, because nothing is two things combined to create zero.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
What you just posted is the proof. Don't you understand? Nothing is two things opposed.
Click to expand...

It's not surprising that you don't understand what proof actually is. It is a demonstration that something is true and accounts for every possible variable. What I posted is not proof... it's not even really evidence of anything. *Nothing* (at least objective nothing) is an absence of everything and anything. It is a human concept but at present has no known correspondence to actual reality.

Pincho Paxton said:
(I.e. an absence of everything and anything)... doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Holy cow holy cow! This may be your first correct statement... ever! Yes, *nothing* doesn't appear to be anything more than a human made concept (i.e. it is not a real entity in actual reality).

Pincho Paxton said:
So when you said... "Nobody Knows" You are now saying that you know.
Click to expand...

Your "logic" makes no sense of course. Stating that "nobody knows" the origin of the universe points out a very well-known limitation of modern human knowledge. That is why there are several theories and not just a single correct model.

Pincho Paxton said:
You even said 'Blatant lie.' Which not only suggests that you know, but it suggests that you will get angry at anyone who doesn't say so.
Click to expand...

The blatent lie is claiming a current theory of the universe / reality as being proven. You should always expect people being angry at you for lying... and you should expect an absence of trust, respect, and credibility as well.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
It is proved in the fact that you can't start a Universe from nothing. That's the proof. You need two things to create nothing. It is a mathematical, and logical proof.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that Pincho for I thought for a moment you had used "can't" when you really meant "can".

So now we have cleared that up you say you can't create the Universe from nothing.
Two opposing mathematical values will cancel each other out and you end up with zero.
But in the physical world a positron and electron annihilate each other but it does result in nothing, and I cant think of a situation where two opposites add to absolutely nothing.
So if the Universe can't be made from nothing am I right in saying it was made from something, then where do you get the "something" from.

And if you say the "something" came from nothing you are still stuck.:)
 
Crunchy Cat said:
It's not surprising that you don't understand what proof actually is. It is a demonstration that something is true and accounts for every possible variable. What I posted is not proof... it's not even really evidence of anything. *Nothing* (at least objective nothing) is an absence of everything and anything. It is a human concept but at present has no known correspondence to actual reality.



Holy cow holy cow! This may be your first correct statement... ever! Yes, *nothing* doesn't appear to be anything more than a human made concept (i.e. it is not a real entity in actual reality).



Your "logic" makes no sense of course. Stating that "nobody knows" the origin of the universe points out a very well-known limitation of modern human knowledge. That is why there are several theories and not just a single correct model.



The blatent lie is claiming a current theory of the universe / reality as being proven. You should always expect people being angry at you for lying... and you should expect an absence of trust, respect, and credibility as well.
Click to expand...

In red means that YOU KNOW. Therefore when you said NOBODY KNOWS.. you were wrong!!! You used the word 'correct'... so that means you KNOW.

I am posting about you saying that NOBODY KNOWS. Not what you are arguing about.

Let me remind you what you said....

You are asking a question that nobody on Earth knows the answer to; however, to date nobody has ever observed *nothing* (i.e. an absence of everything/anything) to be real.
Click to expand...

Yet you are arguing about your own comment, and saying "Holy Cow CORRECT!!!"

We both say that nothing doesn't exist, yet you allowed it to exist by saying NOBODY KNOWS. Which means you think that nothing could exist.

Now do you understand?
 
Last edited:
Robittybob1 said:
Sorry about that Pincho for I thought for a moment you had used "can't" when you really meant "can".

So now we have cleared that up you say you can't create the Universe from nothing.
Two opposing mathematical values will cancel each other out and you end up with zero.
But in the physical world a positron and electron annihilate each other but it does result in nothing, and I cant think of a situation where two opposites add to absolutely nothing.
So if the Universe can't be made from nothing am I right in saying it was made from something, then where do you get the "something" from.

And if you say the "something" came from nothing you are still stuck.:)
Click to expand...

Like Stephen Hawking said "It is hard to understand."

You don't need to think about it, all you have to do is read the maths..

+1 + -1 = 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top