Printable View
I personally believe that unveiling the mystery behind the creation of the universe is completely beyond my process of thought.
Therefore any explanation is just as valid as the next. Whether it involves a God(s) or complex mathatmatical equation.
My favourite, however, is the concept that the Universe was created by a God who made the whole of the Universe from the very snot of his nose.
Woo hoo! Sesspool!
Quoting a passage:
"The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness - the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. As far as can be observed, infants and savages do not grasp it (they may, perhaps, have some rudimentary glimmer of it). Very few men ever choose to grasp it and fully accept it. The majority keep swinging from side to side, implicitly recognizing the primacy of existence in some cases and denying it in others, adopting a kind of hit-or-miss, rule-of-thumb epistemological agnosticism, through ignorance and/or by intention - the result of which is the shrinking of their intellectual range, i.e., of their capacity to deal with abstractions. And although few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: "If there is no God, who created the universe?"
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity [which is the Aristotelian concept of "A is A"]. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe - from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life - are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given - i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition." - Ayn Rand
The theme centers more on the nature of existence, but it also happens to go through my idea of the "creation" of the universe. For the full essay, see "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.
I think I've come to accept Primus' theory on the universe.
It seems to be the most logical one i've heard and the most plausable.
Altready done :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow
Sorry, evil atheist here, I find many flaws with the theory of God and religion, it is based on that there can be no revision or refinement of what God is, also it does not provide any insight into how God iself was created. Now as I can't be bothered with a theological debate currently I'll leave it at that.Quote:
Genesis 1.1
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth
So what we have is:
T(0) - Creation of Matter - The Cycle of Implosion and Explosion - "Age x"
T (0) is Nothing thus the only missing link is the creation of matter, that proves a problem, I can give certain ideas as to how, but that brings me to a T (-1)
Say that empty space is itself matter, and that empty space can be changed to the matter we know now. Other theories would be about another form of matter that CAN be created or destroyed, but to created ANYTHING you must have something to start with.
Also: People have asked me questions about how the black holes explode in the first place, to do this I have to make the assumption that:
1. Gravity has no limits
This would mean that as the black holes grow larger all things in the universe would begin to feel a more significant gravitational force, this however is still weak as GM(1)M(2)/R^2 where R is the distance between the centres of mass, however as the planets move in any direction at such great speeds even an insignificant force, if no other is applied, would make the solar systems orbit the original black hole, spiralling into it until consumed. Say, once the black hole has consumed all, eventually it would be the only thing producing a gravitational force. But considering mass is always on the move, eventually the black hole would have a period of polarity where there are unequal masses on each side, now with this, I can make the assumption it would lead to an explosion of the black hole. And for matter to be once more expelled (ie. Big Bang)
...wtf dude, a bit late, I linked it as an example :D
Damn, I was hoping this would be a silly thread and I could respond with some spam like "OMG PIP YOU CREATED THE WORLD LOL". :\
I don't know if the following facts "rip your theory apart" per se, but they are facts to consider should you wish to revise your outlook on the origins of the universe. I would also highly recommend Jebus's thread.
Fgrav = GM1M2/R2 :D
Fact: Black holes are super-dense mass. The event horizon, which is the radius from the black hole from which no mass nor light can escape the gravitational field effects of the black hole, is visually determined and used to determine mass and volume.
Fact: "Anti-matter" is just a fancy term and is more of a misnomer than anything else. It is better to think of "anti-matter" as "conjugate-matter" or "complementary-matter". The process of mutual annihilation is simply a consequence of the existence of mass-energy.
Fact: Black holes can be of any size. It is the density that determines black hole formation. The Earth can be a black hole as well, it just needs to be reduced in diameter by about 4 x 1026.
And finally...
Fact: The Law of Conservation of Matter or whatever it is includes mass and energy. In fact, it is nothing more than the concept of mass-energy incorporated within the Conservation of Energy principle. Energy is always conserved, and if you see energy not conserved within a system you look for mass creation or destruction. Thus, the mass of a system can increase or decrease based on the energy input.
[q=Jebus]I had an idea about this awhile ago. It's still in EoEo somewhere for those who want to read it.
Until theoretical and quantum physics progresses a bit, I think we're a ways off from figuring this one out.[/q]Jebus's idea was fairly legit, and I brought it up for discussion with one of my professors who specializes in string theory. Except for violating the principle of causality (a big one :p) it was pretty good. Jebus soon switched from law to physics. :D
...
...
OMG I CREATED THE WORLD LOL
Yeah, you have a lot of good points there actually.
The universe was created when I decided to puke existance.
Oh snap, I didn't realize how old this thread was. :p
In theory, the universe was created when a really old thread was revived and there was a huge explosion.
We are all just mold on a piece of bread, everything is just so complicated.
I KNEW I should have tidied my room today! Damn moldy bread...
Black Holes aren't 'holes' at all. A black hole is what is left after a white dwarf star has died. A star starts as a burning gas ball. As it ages, it gets bigger and redder (depending on the colour I spose. A blue star would get bluer). Once it has reached its top size it begins to shrink. As it shrinks it cools off and becomes what is known as a White Dwarf. After a while the star dies out, becomes black and is known as a 'Black Hole'. A black hole has a huge gravitational pull and thats where all that stuff about things getting sucked into it come from and because even though a 'Black Hole' is much, much smaller than the original size it was when it was a star, it is still way bigger than the planets it engulfs. Hence the reason why it also sucks in planets and they crumble and die when they hit its surface.
I can't exactly remember where I read this but i've read it in several different places. Also, it was explained much better and worded better in the books I read it from than the way I've posted it here :greenie:
Hurray for revived threads!
lol erviving ur owns thredz. :p
I may as well get in again before the thread gets closed. Anyway, you are WAY off there. A low to moderate mass star, such as our sun, eventually becomes a white dwarf, but does NOT become a black hole. White dwarfs slowly cool into black dwarfs, and the only difference between a white dwarf and a black dwarf is the black dwarf has cooled enough that it no longer emits light. A much more massive star eventually becomes a neutron star, but an extremely massive star goes straight from red supergiant to black hole, through a supernova.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slade
It is possible for a neutron star that accrues enough matter, for example by being in close orbit with a companion star, to become a black hole. But a white dwarf can NOT become a black hole, not unless it somehow gains enough mass to first become a neutron star and then keeps gaining mass to become a black hole. But that's a *lot* of mass to gain, and so it's unlikely any such white dwarf has become a black hole.
On top of that, all stars become redder as they age. That's because as they begin burning other fuels than hydrogen, they cool off. Cooler objects emit redder light than hot objects - that's why the sun, which is yellow now, will eventually become a red giant. Now, I don't recall my stellar evolution precisely at the moment, but as I do recall after becoming a red giant moderately massive stars go nova, and blow off their outer layers - to observers, it would look like the star was actually getting bigger until the gas gets diffuse enough for light from the remaining cinder, the white dwarf, to show through.
Black holes are not larger than planets. In fact, according to our understanding of quantum physics, they aren't even larger than electrons - they are singularities. An event horizon can be larger than a planet, but even then it depends on what planet you're talking about, and which black hole you're talking about - microscopic event horizons have been predicted, and possibly observed. Size doesn't matter, even amount of mass doesn't matter - what matters is how dense you're making that mass. Furthermore, nothing "crumbles" when it hits an event horizon - it would be more accurate to say it "spaghettifies" - so close to an event horizon, anything approaching it would be ripped apart by gravitational tides as gravity acting upon the object increases exponentially, to the point that a person going in could be experiencing, say, 15 g's at his head, but 350 g's at his feet.
Black holes do not suck. If the sun were to be replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the only thing that would tip us off would be when it suddenly gets dark 8 minutes later. If you were to compress the earth to the diameter of a quarter, it would be a black hole - this far from the earth's center, however, you would still feel 1 g.
And finally, a last little tidbit on black holes. A number of scientists running an experiment with a particle accellerator think they, for a moment, had created a black hole in their lab. And with current predictions about Hawking radiation, black holes could, in the distant future, be utilized to create incredibly fast computers.