Something from Nothing, our Universe? (Page 4) XFixYourBrainX: Meaning God was before there was anything else, he has always existed, hes been around before time existed, hes infinite that explains it all.  LiptonCambell: What created God? I mean, lets be honest here- your major complaint against the Big Bang Theory, aside from the fact that it contradicts your religious dogma, is that it states that something is made from nothing. But if thats the case, then where did God come from? I mean, even if I take the loose "God Created Himself" story, that too would be something from nothing- not only that, but a far greater, more complex, and infinately more powerful something.  Naboo_the_Enigma: So, let me get this straight...god was existing before he existed? A complete rotation of the earth upon its axis is one day, god created everything in 6 days. Before the creation of the earth how did he know how long a day was? easyeyes: I think the problem all boils down to the usage of the word "nothing" pokerman. Within any vacumm or pocket of so called nothingness, there IS something, photons of light are passing through every "pocket" of nothingness in the universe, but not only that, time and space is also present. To have true nothingness, one needs to step outside the confines of the universe to observe this hypothetical prediction, or wait the few trillion years needed for the universe to stretch and flatten itself out, "destroying" everything, even time/space itself. XFixYourBrainX: easyeyes your only mentioning a way that the universe might end, but your wrong the universe will not end that way, but here are 3 ways that it might end.... First is the Closed Univers:In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch," by analogy with Big Bang. However, if the universe has a large amount of dark energy (as suggested by recent findings),[citation needed] then the expansion of the universe can continue forever – even if Ω > 1. Open universe:Even without dark energy, a negatively curved universe expands forever, with gravity barely slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either universal heat death, the "Big Freeze", or the "Big Rip," where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and weak binding forces. Flat universe:Absent of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching a fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as an open universe. easyeyes: I apologize for my simplistic description of the end of the universe, as i am a proponent of the "big rip" as part of the cyclic model, which much of the latest scientific data seems to be "getting ready to point to", although it always comes down to perception and what we would like to believe. The closed universe theory seems to be highly unlikely, much to the chagrin of many (ie Einstein). It's a lovely theory for a human mind to want to believe for obvious reasons. Flat universe with dark energy or open universe with dark energy, either way, as you stated, we reach the same endpoint, as dark energy dominates (stored energy density exceeds matter density) as you alluded to and "tears" matter apart, leaving only a smoothed out universe, waiting for the next cycle, all of which taking about 1 trillion years to complete (which in my opinion is truly speculation to be quite honest on the time frame of this system). But we all get to sit back for now, watch the data come in from the Planck mission and see exactly what the distribution of temperature variations is and whether they do in fact tightly follow a bell-curve distribution or if there is a larger deviation...time will tell XFixYourBrainX: Estimated time of the start of our universe is between 15-13 billion years ago. Estimated time of how much time we have left is about 15 billion years till the universe ends. We are somewhere in the middle, but these are just estimated guesses. Who knows the next information about the universe might change this current information about the universe completely around. Is science always changing or are we changing science and how we look at our world and the universe? Im sure many proponents could argue both ways to a certain degree. XFixYourBrainX: I didnt learn this knowledge from going to the library. T.V. and school are good sources too ya know easyeyes: It seems that most of the scientific community is starting to settle on 13.7 billion, but yes, the 13-15 billion years of existence has been used for quite some time now. Although I highly doubt the universe will only be around for another 15 billion years, this is far too short a time span for a big freeze or big rip to take place. May I ask where you heard this number, I'm curious.. XFixYourBrainX: Your right 13.7, but ive heard as far back as 15 billion years ago. Here is a graph showing what I was talking about. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe I rarely get my information from wiki, but it has alot of information and is a quick read.
john1576: Best Reference source I know of is The Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. It only costs $70 a year membership and you get up to the minute reference sources on most subjects. I used to collect encyclopedias but no longer have the room. Also, after about 3 years they are out of date. That's a lot of money to spend for just 3 years study aid. Whereas the Online encyclopedias are always there at an economical price. XFixYourBrainX: I do my own studying from dozens of sources on any and every topic that I come across, and Im never just studying one topic that is just boring, I like to keep my brain thinking. easyeyes: I'm with poker on wiki and CNN reliability. I will admit, Wiki had progressed by leaps and bounds within the last few years. It is becoming a fairly good place to read up on many basic to semi-complex matters and issues. I think given another 5-10 years and the right circumstances, wiki could become a general encyclopedia for the human race. As for CNN, lets just say over the last few years, it is NOT heading in the right direction, but makes for good entertainment! XFixYourBrainX: I agree with you easy eyes it does look like wiki might become a good future source for many topics, but as for now many professors at many universities dont even accept wiki as a good reliable source for information, and CNN should just die lol. XFixYourBrainX: Mojo recently brought up the topic about the big bang theory so I thought I would bring this read back.  StuckInTheSixties: Pokerman, I read the opening post you made for this thread. Where did it come from? StuckInTheSixties: Nope. Not unless it's in one of the several posts you deleted, so I ask you again: The opening post you made for this thread - where did it come from? | Science Chat Room 2 People Chatting Similar Conversations |