Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2011, 10:31 AM   #11 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skaligojurah View Post
It's not unfeasible, at all. There's a good reason it's the dominant theory. Regardless, I think it's far outside of humanities scope of provability or unprovability.
There's certainly more we can learn, for example in quantum physics about how really small particles of matter behave under different circumstances. Because the universe was so small at the very start of time, knowledge about really small things might make the big bang hypothesis more or less feasible.
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 10:39 AM   #12 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
crukster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 180
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
It looks as though you're trying to keep religion out of this thread Jackhammer, and I respect that, however I feel obligated to respond to crukster at least once.

I believe Carl Sagan has put it most eloquently:

"If the general picture, however, of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter somehow, suddenly created? How did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"


Well this is really a matter of reassessing the question of what God is.

Set aside Bible definition and all mainstream religious definition of God for a moment, and all the agenda that comes with it. Look at God as an unbiased, uncaring, unloving force of creation - the point of origin. Whatever that may be.

It's a very interesting and very valid question to say, well - what is the point of origin's, point of origin? How did it come to be?

Either it always existed, in some very basic form, and it set into motion all later events i.e. the act of creation and the act of creating the Universe etc. could be considerd "the hand of God" which have spun outward from one point of origin that always was and always shall exist.

OR, the point of origin of our Universe, comes from another "universe", which is not bound by our rules and laws of physics and is essentially unable to interact with our Universe save for that first act of creation

I.e. same as how, sperm fertilizes an egg, baby is conceived and the baby grows. The baby can never go back to being a sperm or an egg.

If it is the second, if, we come from some other realm, then of course you still have the question - where did THAT realm come from? And so on and so on and so forth.

Which again in my belief leads back to the first answer.

No matter how many multitude layers of answer you have, no matter how long the chain is, it still started from nothing/something.

There's a big difference between that and the Universe just springing up out of nothing.

But for me this is where my mind hits a wall. At it's very basic level...all existence... either conclusion is almost impossible to comprehend - either there was nothing, and something just came out of nowhere. Or something just always was.

That's why I think these two forces are two forces that always have been, I think the Universe, (or our Universe anyway) works in duality. And we exist, simply because it is plausible for us to exist.

This is of course a very crude definition and is influenced by my own dumb ape mind being unable to comprehend the ideas. But that's something I'll work on.

It is ignorant to "save a step" and call that the Universe. It ignores the possibility of what's beyond it.

Thus the idea of God, in my belief. Eternal growth, eternal question. etc

Quote:
Should add that the existence of big bang background radiation was predicted/hypothesized first as a conclusion based on the big bang theory, then observed and measured after.
There is another theory about that.

There are two theories about gravity. One is that it's a static "consequential" force, a result of objects trying to keep a straight line of momentum across the curvature of space time.

The second is that it's dynamic, and a force in and of itself. And there are these things called gravitons, I wouldnt wanna misinform, but basically the theory here is gravity works because of gravitons and lack of gravitons, something like that; like a push and pull. These gravitons pass on a lot of heat and energy to masses. Masses are drawn to one another to shield from graviton flow. And the background microwave radiation of the Universe is basically a result of all this graviton activity.

Last edited by crukster; 05-20-2011 at 10:44 AM.
crukster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 10:05 PM   #13 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,824
Default

I am a believer in certain versions of the "Multiverse Theory". As far as how it all began, that's where it all starts to go to shit. I believe that viewing space and time in unison as "Spacetime" is a step in the right direction. Here in this universe, we have 3 dimension of space: length, height and depth (comparable to the X, Y and Z axes of a Cartesian coordinate plane). We also have 1 dimension of time, which has been shown to be relative (the faster you go, the more time slows down) and linear (as far as we have seen, it can only go in one direction). These are the boundaries that we work within in this universe.

In the future, I believe that achieving speeds close to and possibly at or above the speed of light will be possible. What will happen if this occurs? Who knows, but many have speculated. Per Einstein's Theory of Relativity, time slows down as you get closer toward the speed of light. If this is true, does exceeding the speed of light actually REVERSE time? Again, who knows. And then you should factor in the spacetime in place of time. If time can be non-linear, can space, and thusly spacetime? This is where the "Wormhole" or the "Einstein-Rosen Bridge" should come into play.

If time can be non-linear, then by definition so could spacetime. The Einstein-Rosen Bridge is basically a place in spacetime where space is bent, making two distant places in Spacetime connect (so that the shortest distance between the 2 points is no longer a linear straight line, but instead zero, or no distance at all). Bending space would inturn bend spacetime.

The mastery or creation of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge would allow for the specific fine-tuning of space, and therefor spacetime, and therefor time travel itself. In theory, one would be able to travel to any place and to any time. With such travel possible, one could go as far ahead into the future or as far back in time as they wanted. (Cue up the "Grandfather Paradox" right about now). Since time would now be non-linear, does it actually have a beginning or an end? Think about a clock. Does it start at 12:00:00am and then turn off at 11:59:59pm? No, it rolls around and keeps on ticking. I believe that this is how time works. It can have no beginning and no end (only reference points). The "Big Bang" is just a reference point, possibly caused by the implosion of another universe within the multiverse, which was itself caused by the explosion of another universe (and so on, and so forth). It is a never ending cycle. With energy being constant, it behoves us to believe that the never-ending cycle never began in the first place. With so much energy in the universe, and the energy being constant, it could not have grown from nothing (or zero energy) into the massive amount that it is now. With the energy being constant, and the speed of light being constant, the following is how I see it going down:

e = m * (c^2) (where e=energy, m=mass, c=speed of light), therefor:
m = e / (c^2)
With the energy of the universe being virtually infinite, we get:
m = infinity / (c^2) = infinity
Therefor, the mass of the universe is infinite.
d = (m / v) (where d=density, m=mass, v=volume)
The volume of the multiverse is finite, it has an exact and unchanging volume.
With mass being infinite, we get:
m = (d * v) = infinity
Since (d * v) is infinite, and v is finite, then that makes d infinite.

In summation:
Mass is infinite and constant.
Volume is finite, but not constant.
Density is infinite, but not constant.
Energy is infinite and constant.


It's just a constant cycle that has always been, and always will be. This is a hard theory to wrap your head around, but no harder than religion or "God." I doubt that this will do much to prove or even get us any closer to getting the answer that we are looking for, as I'm probably just talking out of my ass, but that's my shot at it.

It can never end, thus, it never began. It just "is." Makes no sense, but just as much sense as everything else.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 10:43 PM   #14 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Mr November's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
Default

Carl Sagan was the first one who I heard use the concept of three dimensional objects being observed by a universe of a flat plane when he illustrated the concept of dimensions and intersects.

My only problem is that if there are other dimensions that things are coming from into our reality, than that doesn't solve the problem of "where did we come from", because the question then becomes, where did that which we came from come from.

The only thing that has ever made sense to me, is that the universe is infinite, cyclical, and meaningless.
Mr November is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 10:58 PM   #15 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozinbloozin View Post
This is off topic but I think I know why I like your avatar so much now jackhammer. Do you see a slight resemblence?

Sigmund Freud is the most interesting man in the world?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by P A N View Post
i'm not gonna spend my life on music banter trying to convince people the earth is flat.
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die


last.fm
Janszoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 03:32 AM   #16 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oojay View Post
With the energy of the universe being virtually infinite, we get:
m = infinity / (c^2) = infinity
Therefor, the mass of the universe is infinite.
What kind of logic is this? How is matter in the universe in any way infinite?
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 08:19 AM   #17 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,039
Default

i actually do have a working knowledge of the theory behind all this (or did have)

i think the quantum mechanical theory of things just appearing out of nowhere feasible for me (I can't exactly remember the quantum physical mechanics behind this)
__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Virgin View Post
what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 09:41 AM   #18 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crukster View Post
Set aside Bible definition and all mainstream religious definition of God for a moment, and all the agenda that comes with it. Look at God as an unbiased, uncaring, unloving force of creation - the point of origin. Whatever that may be.
The Hindu concept of Brahman is fascinating. It's the concept that God does exist, but is also what everything in life is comprised of.

Take out the mystical crap plus God Hierarchy, and it sounds a lot like 'existence = God' which, to my knowledge, is a point Carl Sagan has argued for, and pretty much conforms to the concept that the laws of nature ARE God.

Quote:
The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.
Of course Hindus still worship, and revere existence, as many other deities. In essence 'pray' to gravity. However, it's a bit more feasible than the magic man in space that Judaism, and religions born from it present.

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That's why I think it's a tad pretentious to concrete the Big Bang as a fact. It doesn't mean throw it away, or throw away the discoveries from it. Just means, it's out of our grasp for the moment, but should remain in place as it's the leading theory, and really sort of benefits us to have.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 11:35 AM   #19 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
tore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 5,935
Default

I wouldn't call laws like gravity God because they behave in a predictable way and as far as we know do not have a will that allows them to do anything differently - which is why we call them laws in the first place. Gravity affects all matter, f.ex it doesn't allow a select few of us to fly. God to me implies a will, an intention and a power to non-predictably change stuff (f.ex defy laws like gravity).
__________________
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
tore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2011, 12:00 PM   #20 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,161
Default

Well, what you have to realize is that gravity is one dimension in a million that constitutes life. I think basically what Carl Sagan was trying to say is the fact that if you take way the mystical, loving, consciousness of God, you have nature which forms on it's own, and constitutes what God is in every other way.

Whether or not you consider that 'God' or not comes entirely to a debate of semantics.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.