Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> what was before the universe?
rainbowbrat
post Mar 13 2008, 02:34 PM
Post #41



I dunno what I just saw.........
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4295
Joined: 19-February 07
From: USA...NW corner even
Member No.: 6298



no, I am sure it was an accident....steiner was just joking....assumingly xD


--------------------
Loving whipping e-wife to the sexy sexy ShymanDawn!!<3

IPB Image

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Mar 13 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #42



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



It's hard to tell, sometimes, especially with a goof like steiner tongue.gif


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Stealth
post Mar 14 2008, 05:50 AM
Post #43



A Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 9-January 04
From: Osea
Member No.: 60



QUOTE(Fox @ Mar 13 2008, 04:42 AM) *
Precisely. Its not my job to hunt down evidence to support YOUR argument. It isn't difficult.

And to clarify, I was arguing against the evidence YOU provided me at the time. You see in a debate, it's your job to supply the information to persudae the person you're debating against. Which you succeeded at!

Unfortunatly that was only after you got all childish with the name-calling.


Except it's not my argument. It's special fucking relativity. In fact, I even told you the names of the theories I was explaining.

But hey, why the hell would I need to do research before I debate anything, when I can waltz in with pre-concieved bullshit theories that have no basis in fact, but I just heard somewhere, probably from another similar thread; then proceed to demand someone prove me wrong. rolleyes.gif

QUOTE

^Notice how I repeated my post again to emphasise my point?

rolleyes.gif


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Mar 14 2008, 09:42 AM
Post #44



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



"Special fucking relativity" is special in name only. It doesnt inherently hold any status that makes it "better" than any other theory that might be brought up. If you come in with an argument that you say is pretty much fact that your opponent in the debate isn't clued up on, its down to you to provide any information for it.

And don't say "You were arguing against the theory therefore you should do your research", because I was only arguing against the evidence that I was aware of. Which was unsatisfactory. I never said anything like "This theory is bullshit", all I did was pointing out logical flaws in taking what I had to work with as fact. If Res called me a retard everytime I did that in one of our religious debates my self esteem would be very low by now, unjustified or not. And when I asked for links to the evidence that would persuade me, all I got were assertions that I was an idiot and that it was all there somewhere.

I wasn't asking that you prove my ideas wrong, just that you give me the data that proves your idea right. Yes I know its not YOUR idea but you know what I mean. The idea you came into the debate thread armed with.

I never said your theory was wrong, just that the evidence I was being shown and the evidence I had stumbled across wasn't experimental. You notice when you actually DID link me to it I didn't have a problem with special relativity anymore?

The only problem that still remains is that you're too stubborn to say "sorry" for insulting me. Saying "I can't see any experimental data, if there is some please provide it" is not grounds to call someone "wifully ignorant" and "retarded". Because saying "I cam't see it, please provide it" is spmewaht different to saying "The theory is utter bullshit and I don't care what you say to the contrary".

Dammnit, I so prefer debates with Steiner and Resurection etc who provide links without people having to ask for them and who don't seem to wake up on the wrong side of the bed every morning.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AkamaruFoxHound
post Mar 17 2008, 07:46 PM
Post #45



Royal Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 10-June 07
From: Where the Phoenix rises from the Ashes, AZ
Member No.: 8721



anything before the beginning? well, I've had an Idea which can from a old theory a buddy of mine said...

QUOTE
if there was something before the universe, there is an odd possibility of another universe before us
'

basically my guess is that there is cycles of the universe, though of course no one is sure.


--------------------
IPB ImagePutrid Rot Fills Gaping Maws

IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Mar 17 2008, 08:13 PM
Post #46



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



Yeah you're talking about the oscillating universe theory, a series of bing bangs and big crunches each casuing the next.

Again, we have two problems with that. 1) I hear the evidence isn't that great fir that theory. Something about the speed matter is travelling away would mean there would be insufficient energy for a big crunch. Or too much. Not the right amount of energy anway.

2) What was there before the first universe that started the oscillation? The trouble with that theory is that all it really does it postpone the question without answering it.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Mar 17 2008, 08:41 PM
Post #47



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



As Fox said in his first point, the evidence points towards the Universe expanding away at an increasing rate. So the Big Crunch, at the moment, seems to be an unlikely theory.


--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AkamaruFoxHound
post Mar 17 2008, 08:52 PM
Post #48



Royal Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 10-June 07
From: Where the Phoenix rises from the Ashes, AZ
Member No.: 8721



there are many ideas, but quite much they can't really be proved, but indeed Steiner is right, though the concept of end the big crunch is unlikely


--------------------
IPB ImagePutrid Rot Fills Gaping Maws

IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
N2Y
post Mar 17 2008, 09:03 PM
Post #49



Wiiii Love PS3... and Jessica Alba! And Penelope Cruz!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5610
Joined: 13-November 04
From: Far far away...
Member No.: 734



What was before the universe is a pure subjective matter.

Everyone can state their opinion about how it started, but it all comes together to the same thing.

To get a big bang, there must have been some sort of trigger that started it all. For the scientists under us, that could be a coincidental thing that happens once every trillions (does that even exist?) of years, for the religious ones, God must have started it.

Either way, for a universe to exist, vibrations could have been that trigger. Vibrations are the cause of various things, but one thing that cause a vibration is sound. Although it is not my belief, I find it very interesting to think that scientists and religious could embrace one another by giving the same answer, though just calling it differently.

Where scientists can see the vibration as whatever they can think of (I'm not that scientifically updated atm), religious can see it as the word of the God that started the vibration, which led to the start of the universe and with it the start of light, darkness, the earth, the moon, the sun, water, fire, etc.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Mar 17 2008, 09:21 PM
Post #50



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



^That sort of reminds me of the ideas in String theory. Its very complex and I dont know much about it, but the idea of branes sort of causing the Universe and stuff like that isnt unheard of.


Another idea (which I made myself) is that the Universe created itself. While that originally sounds impossible, if you study physics you'll soon realise that the weird becomes normality. Take for example the idea of the conservation of mass-energy. First, what you must realise though that matter and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing. Thats shown me e=mc^2. What the conservation of mass-energy says is that the amount of mass-energy is constant, it can neither be created nor destroyed. That makes sense on an intuitive level because it seems only natural that you cannot create something out of nothing.

In fact, it turns out that that conservation law isnt strictly true. Take for example Beta minus decay (radiation where electrons are given off). When that happens, a neutron turns into a proton and an electron and an antineutrino are given off. Thats all fine and dandy because if you do the calculations, you find that mass-energy is completely conserved. However, in reality what happens is that a neutron turns into a proton and W minus boson is given off. This W minus boson decays in a fraction of a second into an electron and an antineutrino. But the strange thing is that the W minus boson has a mass that is 100 times heavier than a proton. So mass-energy has been created out of nothing. A fraction of a second later and the W minus boson decays into the electron and antineutrino, which both have tiny amounts of mass. So, over time, mass-energy is conserved. But for a split second, loads of extra mass-energy is created and then all of that extra mass-energy is then destroyed. It comes from nothingness and goes back into nothingness.



God, Im such a geek.


--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fox
post Mar 17 2008, 09:31 PM
Post #51



Ninja Fox - The Silent Menace
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 2616
Joined: 6-May 06
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 2280



Yeah man, you seriously are! tongue.gif

I totally don't understand that so I'l umm....come back to you!

Oh, on a scientificy related topic though, I got a new Dawkins book through the post today. The Blind Watchmaker. That should be interesting.


--------------------
PSN: "corneliusfingers"
twitter: @corneliusfinger
Blog: Games Under the Knife
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Mar 17 2008, 09:34 PM
Post #52



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



^That book was alright from what I remember. I prefered selfish gene though.


And damn, I tried to make that accessible. But failed.


Oh well.


--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Burrgle
post Mar 17 2008, 10:16 PM
Post #53



Ultimate Member
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1880
Joined: 9-June 04
Member No.: 444



Before the universe? Um...that is a very difficult question. But to answer what seems to be the general conundrum. I think that there was some sort of Big Bang, but I do not think it was some end all be all bangs that set life into motion. I think it was a whole bunch of smaller ones that happend at random times and are still happening. Kind of like how supernovas make stars. A star will collapse after it has burned all its fuel....and boom....really big. This, I believe happens multiple times to create the world we live in.

But then you have the possiblity of black holes. I feel like these things also play a big part in our universe. I think black holes have those tail things that throw out the matter that it has sucked in. That matter that is thrown out could just as easily be rereplicated into something else: planets...stars...ect. But if my tail theory is wrong about them....then my opinion is wrong.

Well...to try and answer your question.....I think it was generally the same before the universe...it was still the universe, but maybe with different things in different places and more or less dark matter.

Thinking about how all of this works gives me vertigo...sad.gif


--------------------
IPB Image
Thank you so much Auro!!!!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Mar 17 2008, 10:26 PM
Post #54



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



QUOTE
Before the universe? Um...that is a very difficult question. But to answer what seems to be the general conundrum. I think that there was some sort of Big Bang, but I do not think it was some end all be all bangs that set life into motion. I think it was a whole bunch of smaller ones that happend at random times and are still happening. Kind of like how supernovas make stars. A star will collapse after it has burned all its fuel....and boom....really big. This, I believe happens multiple times to create the world we live in.

Do you think that all the matter automatically existed then? Thats what some people think. Because your supernova explanation doesnt really explain how the matter was created in the first place, it just explains why its spread out.

QUOTE
But then you have the possiblity of black holes. I feel like these things also play a big part in our universe. I think black holes have those tail things that throw out the matter that it has sucked in. That matter that is thrown out could just as easily be rereplicated into something else: planets...stars...ect. But if my tail theory is wrong about them....then my opinion is wrong.

Im pretty sure that no matter is chucked out from black holes. All of it is sucked in until it's past the event horizon - the place of no return.



--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Mar 17 2008, 10:46 PM
Post #55



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



No matter what your theory is, you have to accept that something was created out of nothing. There had to be SOMETHING that had no cause. This is what I call God.


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
steiner
post Mar 17 2008, 10:55 PM
Post #56



It's been too long...
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3477
Joined: 20-November 05
From: Vivi
Member No.: 1745



^I disagree. Sure, you can accept that something did come out of nothing (which can and does happen) but alternately you could instead believe that somethingness is a natural state. Its like the Steady State theory which argues that the existence of matter is natural and that it does not have to have been created. It might seem counter-intuitive but its not necessarily illogical.


Having said that, I do agree with you that matter probably did come from nothing at some point and that the other theory is wrong. Although the concept of nothingness and these sorts of ideas are far from simple in reality.



About the causer being God, I find it more reasonable to believe that the whatever caused the Universe to exist was impersonal. I would think of it as some kind of effect. But its possible that at this stage we're reaching the bounds of science, so any belief system can fit in instead. Then again, maybe science will someday solve it.


--------------------
IPB Image
"Foolish. Picking fights with strangers in a place like this... I used to know someone like that. He was a loser... He refused to find beneficial ways to use his power. Instead, he'd seek out people to fight..." -Amarant Coral, FFIX
Mmmmm....Married to Garlz, Mel and KittenLittle.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Resurrection
post Mar 18 2008, 12:21 AM
Post #57



Love...the most powerful force on Earth
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 1212
Joined: 24-March 05
From: United States
Member No.: 1047



QUOTE(steiner @ Mar 17 2008, 06:55 PM) *

About the causer being God, I find it more reasonable to believe that the whatever caused the Universe to exist was impersonal. I would think of it as some kind of effect. But its possible that at this stage we're reaching the bounds of science, so any belief system can fit in instead. Then again, maybe science will someday solve it.

I find it interesting that you automatically associate the concept of Deity with a personality. Not all religions teach this. I believe that Hinduism is a religion that holds to an impersonal god. It is possible that there was just some spiritual Force that set the universe into motion, not necessarily a god who had some plan for his creation and a set of personal attributes.

QUOTE(steiner @ Mar 17 2008, 06:55 PM) *

^I disagree. Sure, you can accept that something did come out of nothing (which can and does happen) but alternately you could instead believe that somethingness is a natural state. Its like the Steady State theory which argues that the existence of matter is natural and that it does not have to have been created. It might seem counter-intuitive but its not necessarily illogical.

I suppose so. You know more about this than I do, so I'll take your word on it. Isn't there also an argument whether or not an object's natural state is being at rest vs. no natural state at all (it could be either at rest or in motion)? It reminds me of that.


--------------------
Make the 99 become 100
LIES PROTRUDE FROM THE MOUTH OF MAN, BUT EVERY WORD THAT COMES FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD IS LIFE.
I AM A LIAR
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AkamaruFoxHound
post Mar 18 2008, 04:03 AM
Post #58



Royal Member


Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 10-June 07
From: Where the Phoenix rises from the Ashes, AZ
Member No.: 8721



well, there is this, I've heard it before but I think it's a load of bullshit

Basically it's a cycle, a beginning and end that repeats itself

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4889/universe3fq2.jpg

Its a little hard to understand, I can just barely get it.


--------------------
IPB ImagePutrid Rot Fills Gaping Maws

IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Stealth
post Mar 18 2008, 04:31 AM
Post #59



A Patriot


Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 9-January 04
From: Osea
Member No.: 60



QUOTE(Resurrection @ Mar 17 2008, 04:46 PM) *
No matter what your theory is, you have to accept that something was created out of nothing. There had to be SOMETHING that had no cause. This is what I call God.


Isn't it curious how we keep depending on God less and less with each scientific discovery? It's something that shouldn't be shrugged off I think.

The fact is, we have ZERO knowledge on what really happened before time = 0 of the big bang.

QUOTE

But then you have the possiblity of black holes. I feel like these things also play a big part in our universe. I think black holes have those tail things that throw out the matter that it has sucked in. That matter that is thrown out could just as easily be rereplicated into something else: planets...stars...ect. But if my tail theory is wrong about them....then my opinion is wrong.

Your problem is you're thinking of those 2D black hole diagram, when black holes are in fact 3D, and end in a singularity. They don't really have those "tail" things



--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
N2Y
post Mar 18 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #60



Wiiii Love PS3... and Jessica Alba! And Penelope Cruz!
Group Icon


Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5610
Joined: 13-November 04
From: Far far away...
Member No.: 734



QUOTE
Your problem is you're thinking of those 2D black hole diagram, when black holes are in fact 3D, and end in a singularity. They don't really have those "tail" things

Exactly.

A black hole is the result of a dead star.

What I find intrigueing is a recent theory by scientists that says that there is not one universe but many many more. Our universe is just one of the billions.

A twist on that theory is that the many universes are all parallel to each other, and that black holes are the connection between them.

Unfortunately I find that black hole thing all a bit too human-wishful-thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I just don't understand how people see black holes as some sort of goal for us to reach. Black holes suck everything in its reach, even light. That doesnt sound like a nice place to go to, at all... Apparently as it sucks everything in, everything inside implodes, right? Meaning, everything dies, disappears, ends...

I dont understand the connection between black holes and other dimensions...

QUOTE
About the causer being God, I find it more reasonable to believe that the whatever caused the Universe to exist was impersonal. I would think of it as some kind of effect. But its possible that at this stage we're reaching the bounds of science, so any belief system can fit in instead. Then again, maybe science will someday solve it.

And that depends on what people see as God.

I do believe that there's some kind of energy around us that tries to keep everything in balance. Some call it nature, God, etc.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th September 2018 - 04:39 AM


Copyright 2003-2007 FFXII.Net - All Rights Reserved - Disclaimer
Final Fantasy XII, FFXII & FF12 are registered trademarks of Square Enix Co., Ltd.