Am I a creationist or ID believer?

[Magnetic]

I think the reasoning is that time is a function of the universe, therefore it can only have begun at the same time (ignore the pun) as the universe did.

That's where my problem lies. The Big Bang can't be the beginning of the universe (thus time) because there had to be a catalyst to cause the reactions that eventually ended up with this Big Bang incident. So, perhaps, as I said, that incident may have started a 'calendar' time, but there had to be time before it.

[The Guid]

I think the reasoning is that time is a function of the universe, therefore it can only have begun at the same time (ignore the pun) as the universe did.

Thank god for Physicists (and spell checkers).

[Mange]

Your stance reminds me of the stance of most (?) of the priests in the Swedish Lutheran Church (the former state church), namely that science is correct, but that everything was initiated by God (the Genesis story etc. are only symbolic in other words).

[Edi]

I think the reasoning is that time is a function of the universe, therefore it can only have begun at the same time (ignore the pun) as the universe did.

That's where my problem lies. The Big Bang can't be the beginning of the universe (thus time) because there had to be a catalyst to cause the reactions that eventually ended up with this Big Bang incident. So, perhaps, as I said, that incident may have started a 'calendar' time, but there had to be time before it.

No, there did not. At T=0, when the universe was a singularity, the distance of everything to everything else was 0, hence 0 time was required for any interaction between 'objects' A and B.

When the Big Bang happened, the matter that comprises the universe was speewed outward from this singularity, causing there to be distance between different objects, and distance requires time to cross. It isn't called space-time for nothing.

We can't observe back beyond t = 0 + 1e-43 seconds (Planck Time), so what exactly caused the singularity to explode is not known and cannot be known because it cannot be observed. Read through Durandal's old site, he does a very good job of explaining it all in a very nuts and bolts fashion.

Edi

[Magnetic]

Thanks for the link, Edi. I've read what he stated about the orgin of the universe, that there was nothing beyond the singularity which resided the mass of the universe we now see. To state that all the matter of the universe was packed into one singularity smaller than an electron is hard to grasp/believe.

How did that idea come about, the idea that this single singularity, with basically the size of zero (thus no space time) hold the vasteness of what we see today? It is really hard to look at it logically. In effect, the universe was no bigger than the space between my two fingers that I've grasped together.

[mr friendly guy]

Don't take my word for it, but if we can observe the universe expanding in all directions (sort of like how a bang / explosion would force matter out in all directions), can we not back track the direction? In which case eventually the matter would have to meet and compressed in a single point.

[The Guid]

There was some flaw in the theory of how we couldn't work out "where" it all started. This was the part of physics where the teacher (who, rather intersetingly also ran the Bible group) sort of talked and I wasn't sure if he had passed into a higher plane of existence. We can know what happened we just can't find out where - if indeed there was a where for some bizarre unknown reason.

[Magnetic]

Why did it have to start with a single point? It just seems like a "cop out" to decide that it all started within some singularity the size of a single point, or 1 dimensional beginning. Again, as I stated, it's a hard concept to understand/accept as it is laid out.

[wolveraptor]

How is it a cop out? We observe the universe expanding in all directions. Therefore, if played the Cosmic DVD in reverse, one would see the universe contracting. If you go back far enough, it must have all been compressed into a one dimentional point-a singularity.

[Zero]

No, there did not. At T=0, when the universe was a singularity, the distance of everything to everything else was 0, hence 0 time was required for any interaction between 'objects' A and B.

When the Big Bang happened, the matter that comprises the universe was speewed outward from this singularity, causing there to be distance between different objects, and distance requires time to cross. It isn't called space-time for nothing.

We can't observe back beyond t = 0 + 1e-43 seconds (Planck Time), so what exactly caused the singularity to explode is not known and cannot be known because it cannot be observed. Read through Durandal's old site, he does a very good job of explaining it all in a very nuts and bolts fashion.

Edi

Wait a minute.. how can the big bang have happened if, before it, there was no such thing as time? Events can only occur within time, but if you believe that, then it's a logical impossibility for the universe to have begun at all. I guess the best that I can figure is that there is no T=0, and that the expansion has always been happening.. but the universe still must have actually begun at some point in time, because it's incredibly obvious that it isn't infinitely old.

Or perhaps I should simply admit that I completely don't understand, and leave it to others...

[18-Till-I-Die]

Hmmm...

Ok, just a thought but, maybe time always existed and space came into existance within it. Maybe time just existed, like a force of nature like gravity or magnetism. And matter and space, and thus teh Big Bang singularity, sprang randomly from it.

Perhaps there are other 'universes' floating around in this sea of time, like galaxies they're inconcievably distant from each other, so far we cant even begin to estimate it. Other Big Bangs that happened in time?

Of course this is all just some thoughts off the top of my head.

[wolveraptor]

Nope. Gravity didn't always exist. It's only a property of the universe. As is time.

The big bang isn't an event. It just is.

Okay, that's a shitty explanation, but I know it isn't considered an event for the reasons Zero stated.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Has anyone ever heard the theory of the 'serial' universe or 'baby' universe? I was reading somewhere once...it was in an old book about space and i'd have tp go fidn it for the exact quote, but he's the long and short of it:

A Big Bang creates a universe, the universe expands, eventually collapsing into a Big Crunch.

The Big Crunch creates a Zero-Singularity, which eventually explodes out again into a new Big bang and thus a new universe.

Rinse, repeat.

Now then, and the book said this, the only question is who started this (theoretically) infinitely renewing process...?

[18-Till-I-Die]

Ghetto edit: that should read "who or what..."

[Zero]

Well, the purpose of the oscillating universe theory was to have no real beginning, but IIRC, there would still be a net increase in entropy each universe, so a new universe would contain less energy then the one before it. Besides this, the universe now appears to be expanding faster, instead of slowing down, so it appears that this theory is wrong.

[Surlethe]

Actually, that was on if there was any logical inconsistancy in claiming that God was outside of space and time. I still don't understand just how this whole bloody mess got started.

Let me lay it out for you in a list:

• You claimed God started the universe.
• This implies God must be outside of space and time, because at the big bang, space and time started.
• This is where you need to review the old thread: the concept of God being outside space and time is nonsensical.

[Zero]

I never claimed that God started the universe. I did say that it was supernatural, but only in that whatever beginning this universe had will always be a mystery to us. I didn't mean it in the sense that it was related to a diety.

[Surlethe]

Wait a minute.. how can the big bang have happened if, before it, there was no such thing as time? Events can only occur within time, but if you believe that, then it's a logical impossibility for the universe to have begun at all. I guess the best that I can figure is that there is no T=0, and that the expansion has always been happening.. but the universe still must have actually begun at some point in time, because it's incredibly obvious that it isn't infinitely old.

Or perhaps I should simply admit that I completely don't understand, and leave it to others...

Look at the graph of ln(x): does it ever reach negative infinity?


No, it doesn't. However, that doesn't mean the graph of ln(x) has a domain of R (real numbers); the domain of ln(x) is x > 0. This is analagous to your claim regarding the nature of the universe's expansion: the further back we walk, the closer together everything gets, and the less time events take to occur. Thinking "events only take place in time" is like saying "numbers only exist in the Reals" (which, for the purposes of this example, is true). 'Infinity' is not a number; thus, to say ln(x) ever equals 0 is impossible. However, this does not mean ln(x) exists over all R -- in the same way, the universe does not exist over infinite time.

[Magnetic]

How is it a cop out? We observe the universe expanding in all directions. Therefore, if played the Cosmic DVD in reverse, one would see the universe contracting. If you go back far enough, it must have all been compressed into a one dimentional point-a singularity.

It's a 'cop out' (and I say this with all due respect to everyone, BTW ) because it 'answers' the question of the initial beginning in too simple of terms in that it's easy to place all matter within some 1 dimensional singularity. Why/How was the singularity there? Why not multiple singularites in an infinate space, in various locations?

My problem, and why I say 'cop out' is that I can concede that all matter was conglomerated into a "pangea" of sorts, cosmically, then began expanding (due to some reaction), and continues to expand as we see it today. But for all this matter to fit within a zero distance singularity, such as to have some beginning point for time, . . . . . . . it just seems too fantastic.

[SirNitram]

How is it a cop out? We observe the universe expanding in all directions. Therefore, if played the Cosmic DVD in reverse, one would see the universe contracting. If you go back far enough, it must have all been compressed into a one dimentional point-a singularity.

It's a 'cop out' (and I say this with all due respect to everyone, BTW ) because it 'answers' the question of the initial beginning in too simple of terms in that it's easy to place all matter within some 1 dimensional singularity. Why/How was the singularity there? Why not multiple singularites in an infinate space, in various locations?

Because the universe's internal space isn't infinite. Look, the best way to think of it is to inflate a balloon, with the exterior surface being the Universe. It didn't come from multiple points: It's the single point inflating.

My problem, and why I say 'cop out' is that I can concede that all matter was conglomerated into a "pangea" of sorts, cosmically, then began expanding (due to some reaction), and continues to expand as we see it today. But for all this matter to fit within a zero distance singularity, such as to have some beginning point for time, . . . . . . . it just seems too fantastic.

Unfortunately, making it multiple points just means you have many fantasiticals.

Is this stuff hard to comprehend? You bet. Much of how we understand how the universe works breaks down under those conditions. T=0 is a mystery and we don't know why or how. We just know it did, because that's the only sensible choice from all points expanding outwards.

[Surlethe]

It's a 'cop out' (and I say this with all due respect to everyone, BTW ) because it 'answers' the question of the initial beginning in too simple of terms in that it's easy to place all matter within some 1 dimensional singularity. Why/How was the singularity there?

That's a nonsensical question. You might as well ask "how long did the singularity there last before the big bang?", which is equally ridiculous. You need to remember the universe, going back towards t = 0, gets smaller, not just all the matter in the universe. The universe itself. Thus, there is really no reason in asking "how was the singularity there?", because the singularity was nowhere in particular: it encompassed the entire universe. Asking "how was the singularity there?" is like asking "where is the universe?"

Why not multiple singularites in an infinate space, in various locations?

For that matter, why not have the universe as God's wet dream? Because that's not what we observe!

My problem, and why I say 'cop out' is that I can concede that all matter was conglomerated into a "pangea" of sorts, cosmically, then began expanding (due to some reaction), and continues to expand as we see it today.

Not just all matter: the entire universe.

But for all this matter to fit within a zero distance singularity, such as to have some beginning point for time, . . . . . . . it just seems too fantastic.

Welcome to the big world of science, Magnetic, where reality doesn't fit itself to your notions of realism.

[Magnetic]

My problem, and why I say 'cop out' is that I can concede that all matter was conglomerated into a "pangea" of sorts, cosmically, then began expanding (due to some reaction), and continues to expand as we see it today.

Not just all matter: the entire universe.

But for all this matter to fit within a zero distance singularity, such as to have some beginning point for time, . . . . . . . it just seems too fantastic.

Welcome to the big world of science, Magnetic, where reality doesn't fit itself to your notions of realism.

But to me, it makes more sense, more of a reality, to see the universe (and all the matter in it) being in some sort of "pangea" state then expanding from there, rather than a 1 dimensional singularity, something that seem less of a reality to me. It still would eminate from one place and travel outwards in all directions.

[brianeyci]

This thread to me seems a good reminder why creationist arguments work on the majority of people. Most people don't know that sometimes, science is counter-intuitive. That means when people hear arguments that appeal to their intuition, for example "Where did the singularity come from, there had to be a time before that", it makes sense to them, and they can't even concieve of the idea that time at one point didn't even exist.

The world would be a lot better off if people trusted trained experts rather than using their intuition for science, or rather than that, learned how to think critically and not trust their first instinct.

Brian

[Magnetic]

I appreciate your post, Brian, but unless I'm wrong, the experts don't know for certain that there was ever an initial singularity. Quite frankly, I don't see how the singularity idea could be the 'best idea' coming from these experts.

FWIW, I'm not a creationist.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well i admit it upfront i just cant wrap my mind around "well the universe didnt exist, but then the singularity expanded...cause the singularity was the universe' bit.

But i DO believe in the basic idea of the Big Bang, and hell what do i know, i suck at science. I wont pretend to understand it though, it's all a bit metaphysical sounding to me. But if that's where the evidence points, i cant argue, i dont know enough about science to even begin to get it though.