Was there a beginning?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by quantum_wave, May 14, 2022.

  1. I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Even though big bang model is too geocentric, our current representation of particle horizon looks exactly like an image a monk drew in 1245 AD, which some say is the original multiverse theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There's nothing new under the sun.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,305
    No. There IS no outside.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,305
    Nature does care if you can make sense of it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,305
    LOL.
     
  8. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,114
    There is no outside regarding the Big Bang Theory in that it doesn't address that. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say we don't know if it makes sense to talk about "outside" in the context of this theory. It's only describing "inside" and "inside" may be everything (or not).

    If there are multi-verses (and we don't know the answer to that one way or the other) then "outside" would have a meaning, right (not regarding what it is expanding into since, as you say, space itself is expanding, but there could be an "outside")?
     
  9. I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    Is that not what I said? That the universe is infinite...

    You seem to lack mathematical expression for dealing with infinity.

    If you are content with playing with the toys they give you so be it... don't ask questions just stay in your box.

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2014.0025
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2022
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,477
    This paper is quite entertaining. I only knew of Grosseteste as Bishop of Lincoln, theologian and head, in some capacity, of my old university.

    It reminds one of the "atoms" of Democritus, in that similar ideas sometimes recur in the history of philosophy and science after long time intervals.

    But I don't see why you need to be rude.
     
  11. I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E Registered Member

    Messages:
    11
    I will have a look.

    Rude? I am just responding in kind.

    Thanks.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,305
    As far as we understand it, the spatial dimensions and the time dimension were created by the expansion, of which the Big Bang was part.
    Before that, we think those dimensions didn't exist.
    So, the BB can't happen "inside" anything, if "inside" (and "outside") didn't exist.
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,858
    Would our Universe sphere be enlarged when suns began to emit light?

    The stars we see from the outer limit of our ability, greatly enhanced now with the James Webb telescope, obviously sent their light out in an expanding balloon format

    The other side of the expanding format we are unable to see would be expanding into the outside (now that our Universe has created a outside)

    So a ray of light calculated to be, say 13 billion light years distant, would have a twin light ray heading 180° in opposite direction

    That would give our Universe a coat of light waves 13 billion light years thick

    Do we count that coat of light waves as being part of our Universe? or because it is only electromagnetic radiation with no solid stuff in it, we don't count it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,553
    The definition is the thing here, isn't it?

    The word "universe" can be used to mean, loosely, "everything that exists or has ever existed". Or it can mean something like "the whole of space and time".

    The former definition might encompass a "multiverse", if such a thing exists. Possibly that has existed "in one form or other", always. But if the latter definition is used, then we know that our current spacetime has existed for only 13.6 billion years - i.e. since the big bang.
    Phase change?
    The term "another universe" implies that you are imagining something beyond what we can currently measure or perceive.
    The idea isn't nonsense. The problem is just that there's no good evidence for a Creator.
    Do you mean you think there aren't multiple versions of yourself, or are you just not convinced that there are? Those are two different positions. If you take the first position, I'd like to know your reasons.
    All this is speculation on your part, though. Agree?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,553
    Sphere?

    Are you talking about the visible universe, or the universe?
    Yes, but we can't see the light that is headed the "wrong" way. We only see light that reaches us.
    I think that, possibly, you're making the mistake of imagining the universe as a sphere that expanded out from a single point in space. It isn't like that. The expansion of space is not an expansion in space. It is quite possible that the universe was infinitely large from the start. Of course, that doesn't stop it expanding.
    Photons are counted as being part of the universe.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,114
    Everything from before the Big Bang is just speculation.
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,858
    You pick
    Nooooooo, is that not what I said?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,553
    Then we are in agreement, I take it.
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,114
    Yes.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818
    Or perhaps meaningless, depending on one's view of time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,067
    Are you taking the micky345 out of someone There?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,858
    Neat, even if he is I don't care

    Speculation along with meaningless - both amount to nothing

    Hey look both agree, no time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page