First! + Topic: Universe Creation

[Lannister]

Beginning of the Universe anyone?  Creation(by a creator), Laws of Physics, Is it all in our minds ect?

Theories anyone?

[Dok]

that would fall into a religious debate and thats defiantly not what the 3 new agers want. 

[Kinpa]

Beginning of the Universe anyone?  Creation(by a creator), Laws of Physics, Is it all in our minds ect?

Theories anyone?

all of the above...

[Kinpa]

that would fall into a religious debate and thats defiantly not what the 3 new agers want. 

not being a new ager myself, ill take it on...

[Dok]

not being a new ager myself, ill take it on...

really? fooled me

[Lannister]

I think the conversations on the beginning of the Universe are not neccessarily religeous in nature unless a person chooses to argue that side.  Many people out there look at it in a non religeous way.

[Neco]

I think the conversations on the beginning of the Universe are not neccessarily religeous in nature unless a person chooses to argue that side.  Many people out there look at it in a non religeous way.

Yes, how is the origin of life strictly a religious matter?

The purpose of this forum is to discuss matters not strictly religious, not separate the two.

Anyway, I think the Sumerians have by far the most interesting take on how we got here.  =-)

The Sumerian Origins of Humans

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1356843629123064992&q=sumerian+origin+of+humans&total=9&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0#

[Jackson Holly]

Beginning of the Universe anyone?

The Universe had a 'beginning'?

[Neco]

The Universe had a 'beginning'?

=-)

That is what I assume since we can measure it growing larger.

[Dok]

=-)

That is what I assume since we can measure it growing larger.

LOL and how do they do that? 

[Neco]

LOL and how do they do that? 

Mathematics.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

[Kinpa]

really? fooled me

not surprising, youre so easily fooled...judge not lest ye yourself be judged...

[Jackson Holly]

I don't accept the BIG BANG (Red Shift) BALONEY ... but even if I did ... what went BANG?

 ... and did THAT have a beginning?

My little mind goes into an infinite loop whenever I ponder such questions. 

The concept of infinity is slightly easier to comprehend ... no beginning, no end.

[GhostofTsenzei]

Beginning of the Universe anyone?  Creation(by a creator), Laws of Physics, Is it all in our minds ect?

Theories anyone?

My theory?

"I don't know" 

that would fall into a religious debate and thats defiantly not what the 3 new agers want. 

I'll show YOU "defiance"! 

By the way, in the off chance you think I'm one of those "new agers" the answer is that I'm not, though I do like to debate (including from differing viewpoints) many topics.

[Kinpa]

My theory?

"I don't know" 

I'll show YOU "defiance"! 

By the way, in the off chance you think I'm one of those "new agers" the answer is that I'm not, though I do like to debate (including from differing viewpoints) many topics.

i told him/her that too, however he/she seems to have his/her own definition of the term... seems

[HEBGB]

-n x n = 0/n + 0/-n
-0/n / 0/-n = n x-n / 0 x-0
n/0

If everything came from nothing then nothing = the anti-something

Therefore nothing = something and something = nothing


 

[Dok]

neither of you have shown me your not.

[Lannister]

"My theory?

"I don't know"  "

That you don't know I think we've established as fact

_______

I guess before a proper debate on such things can be done there has to be a base of accepted information that everyone can progress from.  Such as if the Universe is indeed expanding or not(among other things).

[Futurist]

Maybe the universe originating from a single point is a subject where "the science is settled". The only question is how fast, how long ago, what was the early universe like, is it accelerating, will the universe collapse, expand forever, rip apart etc?

[Kilgore Trout]

The "New agers" expand ideas and extole virtues far older than anything that Christianity can claim. in fact the "new age" philosophies predate and outthink Christian teaching (wishfull thinking) by thousands of years and millions of minds.

[Kinpa]

neither of you have shown me your not.

why would i need to show you anything? i owe you nothing, you suffer for your own belief, that has nothing to do with me, its all on you...

[Kinpa]

The "New agers" expand ideas and extole virtues far older than anything that Christianity can claim. in fact the "new age" philosophies predate and outthink Christian teaching (wishfull thinking) by thousands of years and millions of minds.

this is true, many have trouble believing the evidence that doesnt suit their point of view though...it seems to be a trouble facing truth...

[Lannister]

"Maybe the universe originating from a single point is a subject where "the science is settled". "

I've not seen anything backing this up.  If you have some infomration showing this I'm happy to look at it.

[Jackson Holly]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041001quasar-galaxy.htm




Quasar in Front of Galaxy

October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114.

Why does this prove the big bang wrong? One of the two major foundations of the big bang is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be. The other major foundation of the big bang is that all redshift is a measure of velocity. Again, the larger the redshift of an object, the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which can be traced backwards to the big bang.

Look at the picture again. By the big bang principles, this quasar must be billions of light years farther from us than the galaxy, because its redshift is so much larger. And yet the galaxy is opaque, so the quasar must be near the surface of the dust clouds or even in front of them.

Pasquale Galianni, Margaret Burbidge, Halton Arp, V. Junkkarinen, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti, the astronomers who wrote the paper describing this discovery, also studied the dust clouds surrounding the quasar. There's a bright triangular jet (see insert above) with its fat end on the galaxy nucleus and thin end pointing at the quasar. Radio, x-ray and spectra observations show that this area is disturbed. These gasses are more turbulent than the gasses in other regions of the galaxy. That seems to indicate that something big and powerful has passed through, moving outward from the nucleus. In addition to the jet, the region of the galaxy near the quasar is glowing with an excess of low-density emission lines from ionized gasses. But nothing is "there" to light them up except the impossible quasar.

This is not the first definitive disproof of the redshift = distance principle, although it may be the best to date. Halton Arp has been accumulating discordant redshift evidence since the late 1960's.  His most recent tactic has been to look at the objects called ULX's (the quasar above is one of them). ULX stands for Ultra Luminous X-ray sources, which are tiny concentrations of x-rays in or very near an active galaxy. The x-ray concentration is stronger than any known astronomical object, even a supernova, can produce. Over the last two years, Arp has shown that at least 20 of these objects are quasars, with redshifts much higher than the galaxy they are associated with. The example seen above is the closest pair of the 20.

About the new observations, one cosmologist said, "If astronomy were a science, this paper would mean the end of the big bang." Instead, the paper was scarcely noted when it was presented to the American Astronomical Society meeting in January 2004. When submitted to an astronomical journal, heavy editing was recommended by the peer review committee. And now it sits with the editor, awaiting permission for publication. And waiting. And waiting.

It's time for set-in-their-way astronomers (of any age) to pack away their big bang assumptions and retire. And it's time for pioneering astronomers to discover new relationships between galaxies and quasars. This will mean a whole new universe to explore, with all the excitement and uncertainty of "cosmos incognito". The shape, the size, and the age of the universe must be discovered anew. The new observations are filled with clues about how galaxies are born; how they grow; even how they die. It's a great opportunity for those who view astronomy as an adventure in discovery rather than as a competition for funding.

[See Arp's lecture video, "Intrinsic Redshift," for more details of this new picture of the universe.]  Available from Mikamar Publishing



SEEING RED
Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science

Author: Halton Arp, 6"x9" paperback, 314 pages, ISBN:0-9683689-0-5
A wonderful book, Seeing Red is a must read since it is both educational and hard-hitting while being readable and entertaining. Arp dismantles conventional astrophysics, based on redshift being proportional to distance, by sharing his observations on quasars, some of which are highly redshifted yet connected to low redshifted galaxies by material bridges.   Writing eye-opening material in more than one arena, Arp takes on the corruption of good science in academia, government and publishing after giving us great material concerning red shift, the Big Bang, and cosmology.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NINE MINUTE VIDEO ~ The Big Bang from a Plasma Perspective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo&feature=fvw

EXCELLENT WEBSITE ~ Big Bang Never Happened

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Futurist]

"Maybe the universe originating from a single point is a subject where "the science is settled". "

I've not seen anything backing this up.  If you have some infomration showing this I'm happy to look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Discoveries

Hubble (the astronomer) discovered that the universe is expanding back in the 30's. Therefore in the distant past the universe was a lot smaller. There's charts of the big bang that show estimates of what was going on when the universe was so old and so big.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang


 Description: According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat Universe.

[Lannister]

Jackson Holly - I'm no astronomer but as these objects(galaxy and quasar) are moving at sublight speeds then the Doppler Redshift applies.  That being so, then all the following quote proves(in my opinion) is that the quasar is moving away from us faster than the galaxy.  Hence the quasar having a higher Redshift.  I am unsure why you chose to include distance in your explanation as I understand it makes no difference in Doppler Red Shift.  Only relative velocities apply.

"October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114."

______

Fururist - Considering your responce to the quoted material below.  I grant you that observations may conclude that the Universe was smaller in the past.  Perhaps quite small and dense.  But I don't think assuming it expanded from a single point is warranted without further evidence.

"Maybe the universe originating from a single point is a subject where "the science is settled". "

I've not seen anything backing this up.  If you have some infomration showing this I'm happy to look at it.

[GhostofTsenzei]

neither of you have shown me your not.

 

Or, on the off chance that you're not being sarcastic: 

That you don't know I think we've established as fact

On the contrary, it's entirely possible I DO know but just don't realize it 

In any event, I agree we do need some basic "common" terms, or at least a good starting point.  Something less vague than: "Universe: Whatcha think?"

[Lannister]

Lol I believe this thread is a work in progress.  Red Shift and Expansion Theory is I believe a good starting point to branch out from.

[Novus Ordo]

History has shown us that a surprisingly high percentage of top mathematicians and cosmologists end up going mad and topping themselves! So just be careful you guys………..

[Futurist]

History has shown us that a surprisingly high percentage of top mathematicians and cosmologists end up going mad and topping themselves! So just be careful you guys………..

We'd better not ask the question of why anything exists at all then.

[Nailer]

Beginning of the Universe anyone?  Creation(by a creator), Laws of Physics, Is it all in our minds ect?

Theories anyone?

I don't believe in evolution. ( darwinism)

Maybe  a race of ET  put the human species on earth as a experiment and  some men  made the bible to hide the truth.

Its the universe and man can only guess at its vastness, nobody knows for sure how far it reaches.

I know That it is nice to look up at the stars in the night sky  and once in a while I think somewhere maybe another form of life is doing the same on a planet in another galaxy.

remember  life has no boundaries and is not easily contained.

[Jackson Holly]

Lannister :

I'm no astronomer but as these objects(galaxy and quasar) are moving at sublight speeds then the Doppler Redshift applies.

Why do you support the notion of red shift at all? All of our "knowledge" about distance and velocity
hinge on this idea put forth by Hubble and et al a century ago and frankly is the entry point
for the ridiculous rabbit hole laughingly called '20th century theoretical physics'. It is an Alice in Wonderland
of chimeras, ghosts, loop-de-loops and grinning cheshire cats.

Lannister :

I am unsure why you chose to include distance in your explanation as I understand it makes no difference in Doppler Red Shift.  Only relative velocities apply.

JH:

One of the two major foundations of the big bang is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be.

From the HUBBLE wikipedia link posted above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Discoveries

Redshift increases with distance

The 100-inch (2.5 m) Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson Observatory that Hubble used to measure galaxy distances and a value for the rate of expansion of the universe.

Hubble is generally credited with discovering[5] the redshift of galaxies. However, these measurements and their significance were understood before 1918 by James Edward Keeler (Lick & Allegheny), Vesto Melvin Slipher (Lowell), and Professor William Wallace Campbell (Lick) at other observatories. Combining his own measurements of galaxy distances based on Henrietta Swan Leavitt's period-luminosity relationship for Cepheids with Vesto Slipher's measurements of the redshifts associated with the galaxies, Hubble and Milton L. Humason discovered a rough proportionality of the objects' distances with their redshifts. Though there was considerable scatter (now known to be due to peculiar velocities), Hubble and Humason were able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies they studied and obtained a value for the Hubble-Humason constant of 500 km/s/Mpc, which is much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in their distance calibrations.[6]

In 1929 Hubble and Humason formulated the empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies, nowadays termed simply Hubble's law, which, if the redshift is interpreted as a measure of recession speed, is consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space. Although concepts underlying an expanding universe were well understood earlier, this statement by Hubble and Humason led to wider scale acceptance for this view. The law states that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation.

This discovery was the first observational support for the Big Bang theory which had been proposed by Georges Lemaître in 1927. The observed velocities of distant galaxies, taken together with the cosmological principle appeared to show that the Universe was expanding in a manner consistent with the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. In 1931 Hubble wrote a letter to the Dutch cosmologist Willem De Sitter expressing his opinion on the theoretical interpretation of the redshift-distance relation:[7]

    "... we use the term 'apparent velocities' in order to emphasize the empirical feature of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority."

Today, the 'apparent velocities' in question are understood as an increase in proper distance that occurs due to the expansion of space. Light traveling through stretching space will experience a Hubble-type redshift, a mechanism different from the Doppler effect (although the two mechanisms become equivalent descriptions related by a coordinate transformation for nearby galaxies).

In the 1930s Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and spatial curvature. These data seemed to indicate that the universe was flat and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to Allan Sandage,

    "Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[8]

There were methodological problems with Hubble's survey technique that showed a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. In particular the technique did not account for changes in luminosity of galaxies due to galaxy evolution.

Earlier, in 1917, Albert Einstein had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a cosmological constant (a "fudge factor") to the equations to avoid this "problem". When Einstein heard of Hubble's discovery, he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life".[9]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> LOOP-DE-LOOPS 

[Novus Ordo]

We'd better not ask the question of why anything exists at all then.

It is fascinating that atoms should come together in a way that can contemplate their own existence.
Which indeed they have!
Maybe it’s that illusive particle that contains all the necessary building blocks to create a universe is telling them to?

I still think its all-accidental like.

[Neco]

We'd better not ask the question of why anything exists at all then.

I think we already have.  =-)

And my answer is: I don't know that you or any of you exist at all.  You could just be a figment of my imagination.  I could be in a coma and dreaming all of this on my death bed.

The only thing I know for sure is that I exist because if I didn't, who would be asking that question?

We could debate who "I" is as well but it is not provable that anything exists at all, as far fetched as that seems.

BUT!

"I think, therefore I am."

[Jackson Holly]

The best analogy
for my notion
of the nature
of the universe
is the human brain.

[NWO2012]

-n x n = 0/n + 0/-n
-0/n / 0/-n = n x-n / 0 x-0
n/0

If everything came from nothing then nothing = the anti-something

Therefore nothing = something and something = nothing


 

That gets my vote!

[HEBGB]

When man can measure "now" with accuracy and percieve all dimensions mathmatically, we will know.

[Neco]

When man can measure "now" with accuracy and percieve all dimensions mathmatically, we will know.

How so?

[HEBGB]

Think of the mathematical precision it would take to measure, "now". Imagine how small that is. Then we have to understand  that the nothing we percieve in the vacuum of space is actually something. Example: "Dark Matter".

What makes up a quark? What makes up what makes a quark etc?

When we can percieve what all of the dimensions look like mathematically and have a firm understanding of how all the dimensions work together (or agianst each other) then we will MAYBE begin to understand how everything, was created from "nothing"

First human kind will have to get past the disease of religion to even begin to have an understanding.

Here is why I say this. If a being created everything, where did this being come from? We have no "true concept" of what causes gravity yet and even less of an idea of how to control it or use it as a tool. We are to caught up in misinterpreted stories and lies about devils and gods etc...


We must understand all of the pieces of the puzzle before we can piossibly understand it's beginning.

[Neco]

Think of the mathematical precision it would take to measure, "now". Imagine how small that is. Then we have to understand  that the nothing we percieve in the vacuum of space is actually something. Example: "Dark Matter".

I think it would be a mathematical impossibility to measure "now" because the term is relative to begin with.

Now, implies time and time can be bent, slowed, and sped up relative to our own "normal time."

Furthermore, as soon as you measure "now" it will already be "then" and "now" will be in the past.