The creation of the Universe.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I can't argue with you about the God model because it can't be tested. There is no evidence for or against that I can validate through scientific method, and I can't replicate your observations. Thus the God model belongs to the world of faith, not to the world of science. Comparing scientific theories with faith is fruitless. Neither is necessarily 'The Truth' but they are utterly different paradigms.

First of all I'm not supporting God theory just because I don't support the Big bang theory. Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God. But as I explained earlier in the thread, that God concept isn't necessarily the same concept as the concept religious people normally call God. For example, if the big bang theory would be true, then the Big Bang would be called God, and the word God would refer to Big Bang, but it wouldn't simulatenously imply that you can pray to Big Bang, and expect a response. It could also mean that the word God is defined as a classifying concept containing many concept, much like "primates" refer to all individual apes and humans. So God would then, in this example, mean "Big Bang AND some being you can pray to", without Big Bang being the same as the being you could pray to. And you wouldn't either have any proof of the being you can pray to exists, you might even have a situation where Big Bang exists and the being you can pray to doesn't, while you can still define the word "God" as both of them together. And because much religion define God as the creator of the universe, this circular proof isn't as bad as it might sound, the problem is that the religious seldom understand that God concept, and use it in a different meaning in other cases, without knowing it's a different concept in reality they are referring to. Apart from that I won't discuss the God model, except explain what I mean by this text above if it was unclear.

No, because there is nothing there. You're still trying to work with a linear model.

So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.

Time is a dimensional property of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist then neither does time. We need to agree on our language - you are taking my use of the word 'assumption' as if am using it as a bad thing.

But the Big Bang theory isn't about the birth of the universe, is it? It's supposed to explain why matter is moving like it does today, split up the way it is today, and why exergy exists and we don't live in a thermal death-scenario. If you can show that the Big Bang theory explains the birth of dimensions too, then I could maybe believe in it. But as it is now the concept of matter and exergy is called universe when you try to prove the theory, and when you use it, the concept of matter, exergy, energy and dimensions are also involved in the concept. I'm not trying to be cheeky, just want to know if there, within the big bang theory, is really any explanation for these things too?

Assumptions, alongside observations, are the basis of science. One makes an assumption to test a theory and if the assumption can be validated, it helps bolster the theory. The problem with the God model is that there are no ways to test the assumptions integral to the theory. This does not mean the God model is wrong, just that it can't be validated except through faith, and therefore it is not science.

A theory derived theoretically by logic etc. is based on assumptions, like all logic. The problem is, if those assumptions are incorrect, the entire theory isn't necessarily true any more. That's why every statement about reality should rely as little as possible on as few assumptions as possible.


@mystic brew: Yes, I can support the statemetn that time can be a dimension, but I can't support that time wouldn't have existed always, or that the room dimensions wouldn't have existed always, unless there's some motivation for it. Which "universe" was created by big bang? Time and space and energy and exergy, or just exergy and some movement of matter? There's still no proof that those parts of the universe (time and space) hasn't existed always, and that it would have been created. Actually there's still no proof that both matter, energy, exergy, time and space hasn't existed always.

[BDC]

So what would the photographic lenses, on telescopes, if zoomed in far enough, record on them? Blackness? Can the non-existance have a color? If you could see the non-existance, it would be a paradox.

Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Zoomed back far enough you just see what the universe looked like the first moment it became transparent. It's not in visible light anymore though due to shifts caused by the universe expanding (think red-shift). It's radiowave length. I could probably find dozens of images of it given a bit of searching on Google.

So if space and time didn't exist before this big boom, what sent out this light that was infrared or has become infrared when travelling through space? This infrared stuff however explains my own private 1 minute thought up theory hehe

Edit: and supposing you'd travel to the edge, would you "fall off the edge"?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Plus regarding the God model, you can indeed prove it's existence through a circular proof - define God as "the creator of the universe", then the universe must have been created by God.

Erm... you lost me right there.

I surrender.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Erm... you lost me right there.

I surrender.

Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ok, let me explain it more simply: you can make something that is formally possible to consider a correct proof (even despite that it's a circular proof, yes I know it sounds odd), but that proof in fact isn't a proof in the sense you normally mean a proof should be (just something that formally looks like a proof), so nobody has any use for that "proof" in practise. So the paragraph I wrote above really says nothing at all, but it does so in a very deep way

Prove it.

Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".

As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Prove it.

Which of the things did you mean? Or was it just teasing ?

Seriously, if you want to learn more about the Big Bang and how there is no before, try Paul Davies "The Last Three Minutes". It's quite short and well written. Of course there is always Stephen Hawkin's "A Short History of Time".

As for proving how the creation of dimensions such as time and space happened, well, you're gonna have to learn super string theory.

I would have checked it out, if I wasn't already forced to read some 2000 pages per month
Anyway I think these super strings and so on might just be a complicated and unintuitive way of saying something simple. Some examples of such situations:
- Einstein's theory of relativity says certain waves move straight through space, but space is bent. You could also say (easier to understand I think) that space is straight, but those certain waves bend off.
- Before Kepler it was said that the earth was the center of the solar system. Kepler stated the sun was the center. Both starting points could give pretty accurate models, but putting the sun in the middle made it easier to describe and understand the planet movements in few words.

So I think these super strings are just an overly complicated way of describing the universe. Some parts of it seem to just be assumptions - for example that not all dimensions have existed always...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Which of the things did you mean? Or was it just teasing ?

Just teasing

- Before Kepler it was said that the earth was the center of the solar system. Kepler stated the sun was the center. Both starting points could give pretty accurate models, but putting the sun in the middle made it easier to describe and understand the planet movements in few words.

Absolutely. I'm all for simplicity in explanations, but not at the expense of accuracy. It might be easier to accept the earth as the centre of the solar system for those of us who live on it - it seems intuitive - but it's WRONG. It also means you don't understand the planet's orbits because their observed movements don't match the calculations. So science gets even more bent out of shape.

The same as using the billiard balls/little solar system model to illustrate how electrons orbit atomic nuclei. Simple to understand, but ultimately wrong - and so all your scientific advances based on quantum mechanics are lost.

Once you have a better model, you discard the older less accurate one. That's progress.

By the way, it was Copernicus that postulated the heliocentric theory (earth orbits the sun) and it was confirmed observationally by Galileo. Assumption, Theory, Observation, Validation. Beautiful, ain't it?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Assumption, Theory, Observation, Validation. Beautiful, ain't it?

Yes beautiful (but how do the flowers fit into the picture? )

[Papewaio]

- Einstein's theory of relativity says certain waves move straight through space, but space is bent. You could also say (easier to understand I think) that space is straight, but those certain waves bend off.

It is easier to understand relativity without the effects of gravity (bent space).

That is why the easier version is refered to as special relativity... special because it refers to a flat spacetime (no gravity)... a restricted subset of the more general set of solutions.

While general relativity being the more difficult version to understand includes the effects of gravity. And by definition treats gravity as a geometric effect... in other words space is bent by gravity.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It is easier to understand relativity without the effects of gravity (bent space).

That is why the easier version is refered to as special relativity... special because it refers to a flat spacetime (no gravity)... a restricted subset of the more general set of solutions.

While general relativity being the more difficult version to understand includes the effects of gravity. And by definition treats gravity as a geometric effect... in other words space is bent by gravity.

Yes, but maybe you've heard this:
Passenger: Does this train stop at Princeton?
Einstein: One might as well say - does Princeton stop at this train?

What's the difference between that and this:
- Space is bent and things move straightly through it
- Space is straight and things move through bent paths through it