Rikkitic:

 

Typos. The scourge of Geekzone.

 

 

 

I know!  There was a "cold one" impact as well!

Rikkitic:

Typos. The scourge of Geekzone.

 

@Brendan:

 

 

 

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

 

:-)

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

The "supposed concept" of creating something from nothing goes against the universal law of cause and effect.

Mathematics - 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= ?

Please give me one example, something that pops out accidentally in front of you today?

nakedmolerat:

 

@Brendan:

 

 

 

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

 

 

:-)

 

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

 

The "supposed concept" of creating something from nothing goes against the universal law of cause and effect.

 

Mathematics - 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= ?

 

 

 

Please give me one example, something that pops out accidentally in front of you today?

 

1 + (-1) = 0

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/02/can-you-get-something-for-noth/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/hawkingpres2.html

nakedmolerat:

 

@Brendan:

 

 

 

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

 

 

:-)

 

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

 

The "supposed concept" of creating something from nothing goes against the universal law of cause and effect.

 

Mathematics - 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= ?

 

 

 

Please give me one example, something that pops out accidentally in front of you today?

 

While he digs for the answer let me point you to what science is, and isn't, see 1:19:55

Seakiwi:

 

Ok so if you subscribe to the big bang argument then all time/matter started from a singularity and has expanded "out" from there.

 

 

 

We also propound that nothing can travel faster than light so the light created from the big bang has travelled away from the singularity faster than anything else. Given we are matter travelling slower than light how can we possibly "see" light from an earlier "time" than our own as by the speed of light theory it has travelled faster than us and therefore we cannot look back at it? Are we in fact looking at it speeding away from us and therfore that gives us the impression that the universe is expanding. How can we see light that is older than us that should have already passed us????

 

 

 

Riddle me that.......

 

Light and matter are the same thing, so when the singularity expanded the energy which was effectivley mostly all light was travelling at maximum speed. As the engergy cooled, particles were created - you could think of matter as being frozen light.

We cant see the light that has passed us by, so it would be impossible to see back to the big bang which I think is what you are implying. We can currently see about 13.8 billion years back in time 'from the earth'  but that is not back to the big bang. It is only the observable (sphere) bit of the current universe around our planet - the center of the universe is more likely 41 billion years away, which would make the universe about 92 billion years across. 

Photons dont travel in a straight line, they have a wavelength, so red light which has a smaller wavelength will get somewhere faster than green light that must travel futher.  So we can see things are moving away because of the red-shift that occurs as light travels over a large distance.

As pointed out, we cant and dont see light that has already passed us, we only see the stuff that has not yet arrived.  Most of this light (if not all of it) did not eminate from the big bang, but from other events that occured after it, for example galaxies and stars.

Ok re Neil DGT, I can't find anywhere where his behaviour was overtly snobbish/arrogant. Must be his rock star persona ... 

TwoSeven:

 

Seakiwi:

 

Ok so if you subscribe to the big bang argument then all time/matter started from a singularity and has expanded "out" from there.

 

 

 

We also propound that nothing can travel faster than light so the light created from the big bang has travelled away from the singularity faster than anything else. Given we are matter travelling slower than light how can we possibly "see" light from an earlier "time" than our own as by the speed of light theory it has travelled faster than us and therefore we cannot look back at it? Are we in fact looking at it speeding away from us and therfore that gives us the impression that the universe is expanding. How can we see light that is older than us that should have already passed us????

 

 

 

Riddle me that.......

 

 

Light and matter are the same thing, so when the singularity expanded the energy which was effectivley mostly all light was travelling at maximum speed. As the engergy cooled, particles were created - you could think of matter as being frozen light.

 

We cant see the light that has passed us by, so it would be impossible to see back to the big bang which I think is what you are implying. We can currently see about 13.8 billion years back in time 'from the earth'  but that is not back to the big bang. It is only the observable (sphere) bit of the current universe around our planet - the center of the universe is more likely 41 billion years away, which would make the universe about 92 billion years across. 

 

Photons dont travel in a straight line, they have a wavelength, so red light which has a smaller wavelength will get somewhere faster than green light that must travel futher.  So we can see things are moving away because of the red-shift that occurs as light travels over a large distance.

 

As pointed out, we cant and dont see light that has already passed us, we only see the stuff that has not yet arrived.  Most of this light (if not all of it) did not eminate from the big bang, but from other events that occured after it, for example galaxies and stars.

 

 

 

 

 

Um, pardon me, I thought the religion of the big bang says (acc to googling) it took place exactly 13.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx billion years ago (down to some crazily small number of accurate-ness)

And I thought those people also say the boundary of the universe is infinite, not even bounded by the 92 billion years (i think you mean light years) across

TwoSeven:

 

 

 

Photons dont travel in a straight line, they have a wavelength, so red light which has a smaller wavelength will get somewhere faster than green light that must travel futher.  So we can see things are moving away because of the red-shift that occurs as light travels over a large distance. 

 

Oh no - please do a little study, get that right - and try again.

MikeB4:

 

joker97:

 

 

 

I'm just wondering - how is this discussion/thread different from talking about religion - say reincarnation ... after reading about all these things I believe a lay person have a much higher chance in believing in reincarnation than I do a multiverse of sorts ... which it seems to all boil down to (right? besides computer simulation ie there is a God - has to be, by definition)

 

 

 

 

Not a lot, one is based on theory of the unseen or unknown the other is based on faith in the unknown or unseen. It's probably down to a decimal point. Who knows there could be some omnipotent being out there laughing his/her

 

pants off at us trying to figure it out

 

Looks like one of my favourite believes in God (or so I am led to believe by his blogs) - which to me is not a biggie. I see atheism (or at least the brand that Dawkins preach) as a religion in itself.

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/we-physicists-are-the-only-scientists-who-can-say-the-word-god-and-not-blush

http://bigthink.com/videos/tuning-in-to-creation

Let me know if anyone reads them different

JWR:

 

nakedmolerat:

 

@Brendan:

 

 

 

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

 

 

:-)

 

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

 

The "supposed concept" of creating something from nothing goes against the universal law of cause and effect.

 

Mathematics - 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= ?

 

 

 

Please give me one example, something that pops out accidentally in front of you today?

 

 

 

 

1 + (-1) = 0

 

Yes - possibly the sum total of everything in the universe, where the 1 represents all the energy/mass, the -1 represents all the "negative energy" in the form of gravity.

(That "negative energy" explained by mass/energy equivalence - there's potential energy "stored" by separating two objects exerting a gravitational force on each other, which means that the mass of those objects increases as they are separated.  That has been experimentally proven.)

Thus, there's a hypothesis of a "zero energy universe" - that the sum total of all the mass and energy is equivalent to the total negative energy, so if the universe collapsed back on itself, what would be left may be precisely nothing (and of course it could have come from nothing).  Maths supports this - creepy in that we may think we're stardust, but in reality we may have come from nothing at all.

Fred99:

 

TwoSeven:

 

 

 

Photons dont travel in a straight line, they have a wavelength, so red light which has a smaller wavelength will get somewhere faster than green light that must travel futher.  So we can see things are moving away because of the red-shift that occurs as light travels over a large distance. 

 

 

Oh no - please do a little study, get that right - and try again.

 

Oh dear yes how did I miss that - TwoSeven make sure you study from the right sources, not people like Pete Evans for example.

Fred99:

 

JWR:

 

nakedmolerat:

 

@Brendan:

 

 

 

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

 

 

:-)

 

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

 

The "supposed concept" of creating something from nothing goes against the universal law of cause and effect.

 

Mathematics - 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0= ?

 

 

 

Please give me one example, something that pops out accidentally in front of you today?

 

 

 

 

1 + (-1) = 0

 

 

 

 

Yes - possibly the sum total of everything in the universe, where the 1 represents all the energy/mass, the -1 represents all the "negative energy" in the form of gravity.

 

(That "negative energy" explained by mass/energy equivalence - there's potential energy "stored" by separating two objects exerting a gravitational force on each other, which means that the mass of those objects increases as they are separated.  That has been experimentally proven.)

 

Thus, there's a hypothesis of a "zero energy universe" - that the sum total of all the mass and energy is equivalent to the total negative energy, so if the universe collapsed back on itself, what would be left may be precisely nothing (and of course it could have come from nothing).  Maths supports this - creepy in that we may think we're stardust, but in reality we may have come from nothing at all.

 

I have to say this is the first I've heard of how we (whatever/whoever/ifever) can create a universe from nothing! How interesting!

But it rings of a very familiar tone - Lao Tzu must be screaming from his grave 'common we knew this yin yang business for centuries and it took you westerners that long to come to that conclusion!'

joker97:

 

 

 

I have to say this is the first I've heard of how we (whatever/whoever/ifever) can create a universe from nothing! How interesting!

 

But it rings of a very familiar tone - Lao Tzu must be screaming from his grave 'common we knew this yin yang business for centuries and it took you westerners that long to come to that conclusion!'

 

Some reading...

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

 

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

 

It allows for a god.