Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Origin of the universe

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Whoops, your XX chromosomal makeup was not at all obvious over the internet.

Heh. And here I thought my avi was helping illustrate my nic.

Okay, as long as you understand time is not "infinite" either. It is eternal and unbounded in the same sense of the spatial dimensions, i.e., time does not apply to the universe as a whole just existents that lie within it.

No, I do not accept that definition. Time is infinite because it is unending. I hold that the nature of the Universe IS that it is infinite in time. The Universe is eternal, as in, it has existed and will exist "forever." The existents of which it is composed will change over time, but the fact of existence itself will always be there, hence it is infinite. That is why I reject the Big Bang as an explanation for how EXISTENCE came into being. It explains how this particular wodge of space was created but it wasn't created from nothing but rather from a huge explosion (Big Bang) which itself was the result of a black hole that was a star collapsing and drawing into itself as much as it could until it could hold no more.

I hold that that process of expanding and contracting is eternal, hence infinite.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

but the fact of existence itself will always be there, hence it is infinite. That is why I reject the Big Bang as an explanation for how EXISTENCE came into being. It explains how this particular wodge of space was created but it wasn't created from nothing but rather from a huge explosion (Big Bang) which itself was the result of a black hole that was a star collapsing and drawing into itself as much as it could until it could hold no more.

There is a wonderful book on this topic by the scientist currently developing a plasma fusion focus generator:

Eric J. Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened.

For all the gory details on the massive (sic) contradictions a "bingbang" universe implies, and the contextually valid observations that supports AMAI's more complete explanation, check this book out.

I can also recommend anyone interested in the massive fraud perpetrated by "government scientists" (by tenure or funding or vested interests or NIMBY), and how plasma and electrical effects do explain many of the "surprises" and "contradictions" these "scientists" continue to find with telescopes and space probes,

go to www.thunderbolts.info.

Stay Focused,

<*>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I do not accept that definition. Time is infinite because it is unending. I hold that the nature of the Universe IS that it is infinite in time. The Universe is eternal, as in, it has existed and will exist "forever." The existents of which it is composed will change over time, but the fact of existence itself will always be there, hence it is infinite. That is why I reject the Big Bang as an explanation for how EXISTENCE came into being. It explains how this particular wodge of space was created but it wasn't created from nothing but rather from a huge explosion (Big Bang) which itself was the result of a black hole that was a star collapsing and drawing into itself as much as it could until it could hold no more.

I hold that that process of expanding and contracting is eternal, hence infinite.

Please read this article by a former forum member here ~~> http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/U...nded_Finite.htm for a better explanation of what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting title, aristotlejones. What is Mr. Lerner's premise? Is he actually contending there was no Big Bang, or just saying as I do that the Big Bang isn't the commencement of "Everything"?

edited to add:

1. Okay, EC, I've begun reading that article and I could not get past the part where it is asserted that infinities are impossible. Says who? And why? I don't buy the concept - it makes less sense than the idea that there is no beginning or end to Existence itself. Sorry. Accept that the Universe IS infinite in the sense that there is no end to it, no beginning either.

That is not to say that discrete entities are not finite, for clearly they are.

2. I put this in another thread, but it was an old thread, so I'm putting my post here in the more up-to-date thread. It's on-topic, in discussing "infinity" aka "forever."

Forever is where the Universe lives. The matter itself, in different configurations, is recycled endlessly.

Matter changes forms, but cannot cease to be.

Scientists working on interpreting the data should not even think of answering the question "How did the Universe begin?" It is an improper question.

The proper questions are when did this entity come into existence - this planet, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy, etc. Even the amount of material exploded in a big bang, huge as it may be, is not ALL of existence.

If scientists were working on the premise that the Universe as a whole did not have a beginning, I think they'd find it easier to resolve the dilemmas that some of the data present. At the moment they are trying to include ALL data encountered into one umbrella, one "Big Bang." So of course they're finding it hard to do so. But it does mean they've finally reached a point where some data doesn't belong in "our" big bang, but in somebody else's big bang (or some other method of star/planet/galaxy creation.) It was only a matter of time & expanded space exploration that there would be data which seemed at odds with our wodge's Big Bang timeline.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Okay, EC, I've begun reading that article and I could not get past the part where it is asserted that infinities are impossible.

Infinity is an epistemological concept of method. Simply put, an actual "infinity" is a metaphysical monstrosity; it like saying that something exists, yet exists as nothing in particular, but A is A and everything that exists--and that includes the universe--exists as something in particular, i.e., finitely. Existence is identity, and a metaphysical infinity is a contradiction of that axiom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allmenareislands: you rightly identify that there is no beginning to universe, or end to it. Afterall, time is a relation between two events in space, and if you're going to claim the universe 'began', then you're claiming that there was a temporal event in another part of space, outside the universe, that preceded it.

But, you suffer from the same package deal I used to: that of equating 'infinity' with 'unbounded'. Infinity does NOT mean without beginning or end. It means possessing no identity whatsoever. It is a mathematical concept, denoting any number of things, whilst specifying no specific entity. It is refering to a hypothetical thing, with no actual identity. But we cannot apply such a concept to the universe and say it is 'infinite', because this means that everything in the universe possesses no actual identity, and there is no way we can quantify anything in any specific portion of it, without then making it 'finite'.

An Unbounded-Universe simply means that the universe is the definition of all boundaries. If something is bounded, it is bounded between two things, and to be things, those things must be part of existence, part of the universe. But the universe itself cannot be bounded, because if it is, then it is part of a larger universe, inside of which it is bounded.

If that clears things up for you, you can and should go ahead and re-read that essay.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allmenareislands: you rightly identify that there is no beginning to universe, or end to it. Afterall, time is a relation between two events in space, and if you're going to claim the universe 'began', then you're claiming that there was a temporal event in another part of space, outside the universe, that preceded it.

But, you suffer from the same package deal I used to: that of equating 'infinity' with 'unbounded'. Infinity does NOT mean without beginning or end. It means possessing no identity whatsoever. It is a mathematical concept, denoting any number of things, whilst specifying no specific entity. It is refering to a hypothetical thing, with no actual identity. But we cannot apply such a concept to the universe and say it is 'infinite', because this means that everything in the universe possesses no actual identity, and there is no way we can quantify anything in any specific portion of it, without then making it 'finite'.

An Unbounded-Universe simply means that the universe is the definition of all boundaries. If something is bounded, it is bounded between two things, and to be things, those things must be part of existence, part of the universe. But the universe itself cannot be bounded, because if it is, then it is part of a larger universe, inside of which it is bounded.

If that clears things up for you, you can and should go ahead and re-read that essay.

Thank you, Tenure. That does indeed clear up the confusion I had. I did not realize that infinity meant having no identity whatever. I've printed out the article and been reading it. It still seemed a little confusing; you did a great job explaining things. I can see that's it not a matter of synonymous terms (infinity, eternity, unbounded) but actually a matter of choosing the most precise term for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allmenareislands: you rightly identify that there is no beginning to universe, or end to it. Afterall, time is a relation between two events in space, and if you're going to claim the universe 'began', then you're claiming that there was a temporal event in another part of space, outside the universe, that preceded it.

But, you suffer from the same package deal I used to: that of equating 'infinity' with 'unbounded'. Infinity does NOT mean without beginning or end. It means possessing no identity whatsoever. It is a mathematical concept, denoting any number of things, whilst specifying no specific entity. It is refering to a hypothetical thing, with no actual identity. But we cannot apply such a concept to the universe and say it is 'infinite', because this means that everything in the universe possesses no actual identity, and there is no way we can quantify anything in any specific portion of it, without then making it 'finite'.

An Unbounded-Universe simply means that the universe is the definition of all boundaries. If something is bounded, it is bounded between two things, and to be things, those things must be part of existence, part of the universe. But the universe itself cannot be bounded, because if it is, then it is part of a larger universe, inside of which it is bounded.

If that clears things up for you, you can and should go ahead and re-read that essay.

Wow, great job at summing up, Tenure.

Also, this thread rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting title, aristotlejones. What is Mr. Lerner's premise? Is he actually contending there was no Big Bang, or just saying as I do that the Big Bang isn't the commencement of "Everything"?

....

If scientists were working on the premise that the Universe as a whole did not have a beginning, I think they'd find it easier to resolve the dilemmas that some of the data present. At the moment they are trying to include ALL data encountered into one umbrella, one "Big Bang." So of course they're finding it hard to do so. But it does mean they've finally reached a point where some data doesn't belong in "our" big bang, but in somebody else's big bang (or some other method of star/planet/galaxy creation.) It was only a matter of time & expanded space exploration that there would be data which seemed at odds with our wodge's Big Bang timeline.

The two issues are co-dependent: if there is no big bang, then the universe is unmeasurably old, as the data supports. Professor Lerner (who is an expert in this, and may become as respected as Faraday and Edison someday for his fusion work) rationally substantiates the theory that there is insufficient evidence for a big bang, by means of his book that I mentioned previously . He also offers a more complete contextual explanation of the observational evidence available to all scientists, namely that if you ignore electromagnetic effects in describing how the universe works, you are blind in both eyes. (BTW, EM is 10^47 more powerful over time than gravity, and is a much more plausible mechanism to explain how the sun, our planets, the galaxy and surrounding space is formed and interacts)

The establishment scientists are unable to account for the many anomalies in their theories, and for the continual surprises they find in the universe, which doesn't care to behave in the way their multidimensional quarky stringlike black holed contradictions demand.

This comes down to epistemology, and how basic science is done nowadays, and if you toss out the basic observations in favor of computer models in order to collect citations and gain tenure, then you are building a house of cards. Real science is currently done by outcasts like Eric Lerner, as it was by John Galt in Atlas. Below are links to his book site, and his research sites.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

http://www.focusfusion.org/

http://www.lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

Stay Focused,

<*>aj

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars fortell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history" - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts! RA Heinlein

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the links, aj.

The plasma idea - can you help me with the description in "layman's terms"?

Here's what I've got so far. I imagine the stuff that IS space consists of something with a property capable of keeping distinct entities apart, but not being so invasive that it infiltrates atmospheres like ours. Space is that which provides a medium for entities to move through. It doesn't pull apart things with enough gravitational pull to hold themselves together.

Does any evidence support explosions of any kind happening from time to time in space? Obviously it won't be the kind capable of creating the entire Universe, since no explosion or other cause is capable of doing that. But if explosions do occur, then they would be responsible for dispersing matter, causing galactic renovations and remodels, wouldn't you say?

On a more philosophical note, I conclude the reason the Big Bang has hung on for so long as a respected explanation of "the origin of the Universe" is that people desperately needed any kind of scientific support which permited the existence of God and why the question "how did the universe begin" still requires more of an answer than "It didn't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more philosophical note, I conclude the reason the Big Bang has hung on for so long as a respected explanation of "the origin of the Universe" is that people desperately needed any kind of scientific support which permited the existence of God and why the question "how did the universe begin" still requires more of an answer than "It didn't."

It's interesting that for all the chest thumping that Fundamentalist Xians do over the big bang theory (it must be wrong because it's more than 6-8 thousand years ago), the Catholic Church loved it. (In fact, one of its originators, LeMaitre, was I believe an ordained priest.) It posits a beginning to the universe and hence the implication that someone might have created it. The prevailing theory before that was the "Steady State" hypothesis, where the Universe has pretty much existed as is forever, no beginning. (The expansion we see today had allegedly been going on forever, and new matter was popping into existence to fill the gaps--which would explain why galaxies and the like that we observe seem a lot younger than "infinintely old.")

Interestingly there is a small group of fundamentalists that read the Bible loosely enough to claim that Genesis actually matches the modern picture of universe origin, so of course they *love* the Big Bang theory as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plasma idea - can you help me with the description in "layman's terms"?

I truly wish I had more time to unpack this for you, but party due to work overload, and prepping for an aikido seminar next week, I'm just too busy right now. But I'm also trying to understand all the implications and manifestations of a plasma universe myself.

From the way I understand it, space is filled with charged particles, electromagnetic fields, and ionized gases. These seem like pretty inconsequential stuff to take the place of gravity, but the idea behind a plasma pinch focus generator is the same principle that operates the center of our galaxy and possibly our sun. Plasma and EM effects do not replace gravity, they just compliment it, and they explain the universe more comprehensively with than without it.

One of the manifestations of a plasma universe is that rotating high energy z-pinches generate polar jets that are the brightest objects in our skies: i.e. quasars.

Another implication is that one may think of our sun as an anode, and the electrons from surrounding space as a distributed cathode, and the ensuing ion flow forms our "solar" wind. In other words, is the plasma energy from surrounding space that creates each star we see. (ask Coperincus)

But I'm just a part-time student of this, so I suggest you hunt around the thunderbolts site, and ask some questions on their forum.

Here's a soupdragon video to start you off:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo&...feature=related

<*>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prevailing theory before that was the "Steady State" hypothesis, where the Universe has pretty much existed as is forever, no beginning. (The expansion we see today had allegedly been going on forever, and new matter was popping into existence to fill the gaps--which would explain why galaxies and the like that we observe seem a lot younger than "infinintely old.")

I thought the idea with Steady State was it expanded and contracted on a regular basis. and in some respects seems closest to what I think is the proper form. I don't see it as expanding without end, since to me that implies there is un-travelled space into which the Universe hadn't previously traveled.

But on the other hand, if things are expanding and contracting, then how exactly does that work? It might be that objects in a more confined group like a solar system or even a galaxy (or bigger slice of space) may be moving apart from each other but that does not necessarily follow that all objects in space need to be moving away from each other.

I truly wish I had more time to unpack this for you, but party due to work overload, and prepping for an aikido seminar next week, I'm just too busy right now. But I'm also trying to understand all the implications and manifestations of a plasma universe myself.

From the way I understand it, space is filled with charged particles, electromagnetic fields, and ionized gases. These seem like pretty inconsequential stuff to take the place of gravity, but the idea behind a plasma pinch focus generator is the same principle that operates the center of our galaxy and possibly our sun. Plasma and EM effects do not replace gravity, they just compliment it, and they explain the universe more comprehensively with than without it.

One of the manifestations of a plasma universe is that rotating high energy z-pinches generate polar jets that are the brightest objects in our skies: i.e. quasars.

Another implication is that one may think of our sun as an anode, and the electrons from surrounding space as a distributed cathode, and the ensuing ion flow forms our "solar" wind. In other words, is the plasma energy from surrounding space that creates each star we see. (ask Coperincus)

But I'm just a part-time student of this, so I suggest you hunt around the thunderbolts site, and ask some questions on their forum.

Here's a soupdragon video to start you off:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RPYz3iWmyLo&...feature=related

<*>aj

Thanks, aj. That's actually a lot to take in, and very helpful. Whenever you do get a chance, I'll be happy to read more on the topic. I'll check out the link in the meantime, and go from there.

eta: Fabulous - I really enjoyed the video, aj.

Edited by AllMenAreIslands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soupdragons is good too. I'd heard of Tesla before, and enjoyed the one about him and his achievements.

Nikola Tesla YouTube

Thank you for this, however I'm still trying to answer your question of how plasma cosmology explains the universe, in light (sic) of the mainstream big bang hypothesis.

There is a set of five ten minute youtube clips from a show called Cosmology Quest2 - Plasma Cosmology that takes a pretty good stab at answering not only what is wrong with big bang theory, but details what is more comprehensive* and scientifically credible about plasma cosmology.

(*when comparing any two theories, assuming they are actually trying to explain the same set of observations, the prize goes to that theory that rationally explains the greatest number of observations)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE&...feature=related

In the fifth clip, the comment is made by Peratt that Plasma Cosmology is well beyond the Hypothesis stage and is well into the Analysis stage. Since Electric Universe effects have been proven to be scaleable from the lab to the galactic, the next step is to the Experimental stage. (OK, everyone get out their Levitrons...)

Stay Focused,

<*>aj

Wizards First Rule:

People believe the BS they want to believe, even if it kills them.

We have learned from much experience,

that all philosophical intuitions

about what nature is going to do,

fail.

R. P. Feynman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great set of videos, aj. Thanks! Nothing like some science early in the morning to kick-start the day. The Big Bang supporters remind me of the supporters of the Earth-centric Solar System.

Here's one on Alfven, have you seen it?

Plasma & Electromagnetism in Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Some creationist I argued with (who apparently was using google to argue for the existence of God, since he first said he couldn't prove anything, then ten minutes later, he comes back with proofs) said something about how the energy needed for work is depleting. So therefore, since it had to come from somewhere, it came from god.

Yet as far as I know, energy is never created or destroyed, it is merely converted to other forms. What's the rebuttal to this?

Then again, he claims that god can exist outside of time and existence in the universe, so I don't know if there's even really a point in trying to rebut that irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in his own clumsy way he is trying to allude to the second law of Thermodynamics (entropy always increasing). Basically once all of the energy in a system is evenly distributed, you can't make use of it, since work is done by energy moving from one place (where it is dense) to another (where it is sparse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in his own clumsy way he is trying to allude to the second law of Thermodynamics (entropy always increasing). Basically once all of the energy in a system is evenly distributed, you can't make use of it, since work is done by energy moving from one place (where it is dense) to another (where it is sparse).

When does that actually occur? Can you give an example of "all the energy in a system being evenly distributed" to the point that no further use can be made of energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When does that actually occur? Can you give an example of "all the energy in a system being evenly distributed" to the point that no further use can be made of energy?

Sounds like we're back to the "bingbang singularity".

BTW, thanks for providing the opening for my favorite retrogeek phrase:

Fighting Entropy with Integrity since 1959! :)

<*>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When does that actually occur? Can you give an example of "all the energy in a system being evenly distributed" to the point that no further use can be made of energy?

Hmmm... imagine a gas filling a chamber with uniform temperature and pressure. You cannot do any work in that system (gas in a chamber); you *might* be able to do work by letting the gas out of the chamber, but then it's not a closed system any longer, you are making it part of a larger system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, gas filling a chamber is a pretty small system.

I've another question. If we could one day ascertain that the Sun were losing energy, do you think we could re-energize it by sending spaceships loaded with nuclear waste (e.g. from atomic energy plants) towards it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...