No big bang, no beginning, no end

[Matej]

www.physorg.com/news199591806.html

A new model proposes that the universe had no beginning. There was no big bang, there was no creator and there will be no end. It just was, is and will be. Forever.

It also links mass, time, space and length together

“We view the speed of light as simply a conversion factor between time and space in spacetime,” Shu writes. “It is simply one of the properties of the spacetime geometry. Since the universe is expanding, we speculate that the conversion factor somehow varies in accordance with the evolution of the universe, hence the speed of light varies with cosmic time.”

So what do you think? A viable theory? Does it fit with your view?

I personally think it's a very interesting concept, one that I might actually accept as it kind of makes sense to me.

[Kami]

-shrug- if that's a plausible explanation, scientifically (and i'm not saying it's not), then why can't the concept of a creator/higher power also be explained thusly?

as far as my personal belief, i'm not sure. i think there are some things that just can't be explained, and that's why life's cool. :3

[Robyn]

Wow, are we still trying to find every way to disprove that God did it all?

[daniel]

I'm always happy to learn about new aspects in science and new hypotheses. My viewpoint on the world isn't rocked one way or another by this. I'm just happy to have my knowledge of our world and universe ever expanded.

[Syko Nachoman]

Interesting stuff. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of converting time and space into one another, or converting mass and length. And I have no idea what a "3-sphere" is or why our universe is described as "flat" when we've clearly got 3 dimensions already. I don't know much about physics so I guess some of these things are kind of lost on me. But it should be interesting to see how these ideas pan out, and if they eventually overtake our current ideas about how the universe works.

As for the time thing, I get the impression that time in this model is still linear. I've always wondered though if it could be circular somehow, in the sense that the universe "repeats" itself every few eons or so. If it doesn't, then the "no beginning & no end" thing also confuses me.

[Artemis]

I'm interested by the 'no beginning' theory. As it is, human view anything based on its creation, because how can something be without first being created/evolving into its current state, etc.? We accept that in order for something to exist, it needs to have been created or have come from something. In reality, that's probably a very linear form of thought. Everything is measured, everything is organized, etc. [Like time - we've created hours, minutes, years, it's all based on a system we created to explain time.]

I don't know how plausible this seems, because it seems very easy to say that something 'always existed.' That could very well be the case, but speaking in linear terms, things usually start from somewhere. When you get something as vast and complex as the universe, however, it's impossible to say. I'm skeptical, but I can't really deny its possibility.

[Joy]

I think in time someone else will come up with a new explanation. In the end, no one will really get proof positive.

[Kami]

Jul 29, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -8 Robyn said:

Wow, are we still trying to find every way to disprove that God did it all?

You post as if God's existence has already been proven by means other than personal belief...

[Matej]

Jul 29, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -8 Robyn said:

Wow, are we still trying to find every way to disprove that God did it all?

No, noone is looking for that.
We're looking for an explanation of everything.
Just because you believe in one thing doesn't mean there aren't other possible choices.

"God" used to say all things revolve around Earth. Look how fast that was proved wrong.
Why does everything have to be seen as disproving God? How about simply thinking about it as discovering everything around us?

[Ara (Crow)]

This is the kind of tihng that makes me stay awake all night thinking.

[daniel]

Jul 29, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -8 Robyn said:

Wow, are we still trying to find every way to disprove that God did it all?

If it's wrong then one of two things can happen:

1- God can let us know

2- scientists at some time in the future will make new discoveries and let us know


If God doesn't let us know and we find more scientific validity for something then we're pretty safe to think that God doesn't find it a threat. I'm also pretty sure that a benevolent God cares more about how people treat each other and that we pursue the utmost of our potential.

[Konpaku~soul]

Saying that time has no beginning, and no end, then how did it come into existence?

Which came first the chicken or the egg? DNA came first because without it niether the egg nor the chicken can exist. So a cycle does have a beginning. So what is the beginning of time. plus he split time and space (see first quote)

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere , ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

He even seperated time and space, a big no no. Time and space cannot be viewed independetly, which is why the phrase "Space time" came into existence.

For instance, the flatness problem arises in the big bang model from the observation that a seemingly flat universe such as ours requires finely tuned initial conditions.

Every scientist agrees that the universe is not flat it is sphereical, so what flatness problem is he talking about?

Similarly, the horizon problem occurs in standard cosmology because it should not be possible for distant places in the universe to share the same physical properties (as they do), since it should require communication faster than the speed of light due to their great distances.

It is possible, look at how the earth was made: by a bunch of asteroids colliding into each other. So it is possible for distant places to have same physical properties, since it is possible for things to be made the same way. Has he ever heard the phrase: "History repeats itself"? With that phrase, another Earth could exist somewhere, with life on it, with the same technological advancements we do, or they could be infieror, or supieror in technology depending on which of us came first and second.

“Essentially, this work is a novel theory about how the magnitudes of the three basic physical dimensions, mass, time, and length..."

Once again he split space and time again, which cannot be done, until he explains how time is not relivent to space. But yes later, he does redeem the first spliting of space time in that same paragraph, now what about the second time (shown above)?

“The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.

Again what flatness, since when did scientists start saying the universe is flat? Seriously, I never read anything where it said scientists think the universe is flat.

He's a wack job. From his own words, I managed to find evidence that proves that he is a wack job. If you think you can prove every point I brought up, please pm me, because I would like to know.

Until then I have my own theory as to how the universe started, and if you care to hear about that, then please send me a pm.

[aether]

Jul 29, 2010 17:54:04 GMT -8 Kami said:

Jul 29, 2010 17:47:10 GMT -8 Robyn said:

Wow, are we still trying to find every way to disprove that God did it all?

You post as if God's existence has already been proven by means other than personal belief...

I was thinking the same thing.

[Former Member]

Konpaku~soul, "Analysis of data from WMAP implies that the universe is spatially flat with only a 2% margin of error."

[Matej]

Jul 29, 2010 18:39:27 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

Saying that time has no beginning, and no end, then how did it come into existence?

Which came first the chicken or the egg? DNA came first because without it niether the egg nor the chicken can exist. So a cycle does have a beginning. So what is the beginning of time. plus he split time and space (see first quote)

• The speed of light and the gravitational “constant” are not constant, but vary with the evolution of the universe.
• Time has no beginning and no end; i.e., there is neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity.
• The spatial section of the universe is a 3-sphere , ruling out the possibility of a flat or hyperboloid geometry.
• The universe experiences phases of both acceleration and deceleration.

He even seperated time and space, a big no no. Time and space cannot be viewed independetly, which is why the phrase "Space time" came into existence.



Every scientist agrees that the universe is not flat it is sphereical, so what flatness problem is he talking about?



It is possible, look at how the earth was made: by a bunch of asteroids colliding into each other. So it is possible for distant places to have same physical properties, since it is possible for things to be made the same way. Has he ever heard the phrase: "History repeats itself"? With that phrase, another Earth could exist somewhere, with life on it, with the same technological advancements we do, or they could be infieror, or supieror in technology depending on which of us came first and second.



Once again he split space and time again, which cannot be done, until he explains how time is not relivent to space. But yes later, he does redeem the first spliting of space time in that same paragraph, now what about the second time (shown above)?

“The theory resolves problems in cosmology, such as those of the big bang, dark energy, and flatness, in one fell stroke.

Again what flatness, since when did scientists start saying the universe is flat? Seriously, I never read anything where it said scientists think the universe is flat.

He's a wack job. From his own words, I managed to find evidence that proves that he is a wack job. If you think you can prove every point I brought up, please pm me, because I would like to know.

Until then I have my own theory as to how the universe started, and if you care to hear about that, then please send me a pm.

That's exactly what he is saying does not exist.
Time has no beginning. No end. It just is.
He isn't trying to prove it, from what I understand, he took that as a basis and trying to elaborate on it. Noone's saying he's wrong either, it's just an idea.

Also, I believe scientists agree that the universe is indeed flat. We're not talking 3d to 2d flat... I think you need to read some more about the universe being flat in reality, all documentaries I've seen refer to it as flat, as that's also what our current discoveries suggest.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

He's saying space-time does not exist. They're separate entities, that together make the universe (along with two other ingredients).
He's thinking outside the box. Noone is to say we didn't make the initial assumptions wrongly and if we did, every subsequent "discovery" is wrong. It's as simple as that.

Spacetime is another model, much like the person's idea.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

We don't have proof for either, so any theory is a good theory. More wrong theories bring us to one final result. If you only have one theory to work with, who's to say that one theory isn't wrong, if you hadn't had at least one other theory that was wrong?

He's far from a wack job.