Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Your Theory of How the Universe Began

Options
  • 01-02-2009 6:26pm
    #1
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭


    I'm only getting into a degree so don't proclaim to know too much!

    I myself thought that the universe could have started from a massive blackhole, just checked on the net there and obviously it isn't the first time it has been suggested but want to know other people's theories, that's mine!!


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    A7X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭A7X


    I just find tht all the suggestions imply that there was stuff before hand. you know what i mean? Like how could the universe begin with a massive black whole? surely to make that black hole there would of had to be matter present and activity before hand you know?


  • Options
    #3
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Yeah it would have to have kept happening, expanding and contracting into a black hole, then shooting out the universe again, except looks like we're going to keep expanding so not sure what will happen then!

    I just can't accept that there is nothing outside the universe, that we're all that there is. I do believe God has a place, and that doesn't conflict with my interest in science at all.


  • Options
    #4
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    A7X wrote: »
    I just find tht all the suggestions imply that there was stuff before hand. you know what i mean? Like how could the universe begin with a massive black whole? surely to make that black hole there would of had to be matter present and activity before hand you know?

    is it possible there was nothing in our universe at all, but another one punched through into the nothing via a point of infinite density somehow and started the big bang?


  • Options
    #5
    A7X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭A7X


    Helix wrote: »
    is it possible there was nothing in our universe at all, but another one punched through into the nothing via a point of infinite density somehow and started the big bang?
    I havent a clue lol But if another universe can "punch" through the nothing and another universe is formed, then what is our universe expanding into? If you get me. lol


  • Options
    #6
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭ronbyrne2005


    I like the theory it has always existed but gone through constant expansions ,contractions etc. Penroses theory I think.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    mukki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,669 ✭✭✭mukki


    god made it

    pity there is no smiley with eyes pointing different directions


  • Options
    #8
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Well i believe in God too!:)

    Science and God don't conflict at all for me!


  • Options
    #9
    A7X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭A7X


    Linguo wrote: »
    Well i believe in God too!:)

    Science and God don't conflict at all for me!

    hmmmm..


  • Options
    #10
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    hmmm?

    You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D


  • Options
    #11
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Linguo wrote: »
    hmmm?

    You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D

    No, not at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    I believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. I live in perpetual fear of the time I call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief". The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside of my brain.


  • Options
    #13
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!


  • Options
    #14
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Linguo wrote: »
    Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!

    Then I think you might be learning it wrong...


  • Options
    #15
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    nope...even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."


  • Options
    #16
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Linguo wrote: »
    Well i believe in God too!:)

    Science and God don't conflict at all for me!

    Then why the hell are you asking about the origins of the universe? Didn't God create it in 7 days?


  • Options
    #17
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Most people nowadays know that the bible doesn't need to be interpreted literally and that you shouldn't close your eyes to science.

    I can believe in God and not follow word for word what the bible says ya know! And i didn't say what religion or explain my beliefs.

    If you want to only believe in one or the other that's fine! No need to get peeved!


  • Options
    #18
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    How can you pick & choose from the bible? It's the word of God isn't it?

    "Ok that bit is literal, don't mind that other bit, oh we used to believe in that bit but I'd say it's actually a fable or something. Yeah I like that bit. Ignore the bit over here where god kills everybody."


  • Options
    #19
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    I don't pick and choose from the bible I actually make up my own mind about God not follow other peoples.

    You have no idea what my beliefs are I only mentioned the bible because you brought it up not me!

    I can believe there is something greater and still not want to follow mainstream religion.


  • Options
    #20
    ronbyrne2005
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,494 ✭✭✭ronbyrne2005


    Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.


  • Options
    #21
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Linguo wrote: »
    Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!

    Well then you're not learning about it very well. You may be learning about science, but, if you believe that science and religion are absolutely compatible, then you know very little about the foundations of science and the scientific method.
    Linguo wrote: »
    nope...even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

    I can't believe how often this comes up.

    Einstein was talking about a pantheistic type of religion. He was an atheist.
    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.

    Einstein was an atheist:

    "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

    "I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Linguo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭Linguo


    Listen I don't understand why you have a problem about this.

    I believe there is a God and I have a huge interest in science, I work in science and the other people around me have varied views and we all respect eachothers views.

    I'm leaving this thread now because this is getting stupid!


  • Options
    #23
    Pollythene Pam
    Registered Users Posts: 258 ✭✭Pollythene Pam


    The universe is contantly expanding at a rate of 4,000,000,000,000,000 mph.
    But there's a 2 for 1 on in Boot's so I guess everthing cancels out.


  • Options
    #24
    keane2097
    Registered Users Posts: 17,770 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    Linguo wrote: »
    Listen I don't understand why you have a problem about this.

    I believe there is a God and I have a huge interest in science, I work in science and the other people around me have varied views and we all respect eachothers views.

    I'm leaving this thread now because this is getting stupid!

    Stop misquoting Einstein imo.


  • Options
    #25
    Redshift
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,486 ✭✭✭Redshift


    Moved from Astronomy.

    Mod please bounce it back if you dont want it here.


  • Options
    #26
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    My hypothesis of how the universe began was that God decided to create it, and did so.
    Linguo wrote: »
    hmmm?

    You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D
    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    No, not at all.

    As far as I can tell atheists aren't allowed to think that they can co-exist happily. I don't know what authority mandates this. Richard Dawkins' ideological influence, perhaps?


  • Options
    #27
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    -JammyDodger- wrote: »
    Well then you're not learning about it very well. You may be learning about science, but, if you believe that science and religion are absolutely compatible, then you know very little about the foundations of science and the scientific method.
    The foundations of the scientific method were laid by Christians.
    I can't believe how often this comes up.

    Einstein was talking about a pantheistic type of religion.
    Source? Religion is religion. It's an ethical worldview based on supernatural beliefs.
    ronbyrne2005 wrote: »
    Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.

    Yes, because Einstein was a guy who didn't think about things much. :rolleyes:

    In fact he was an atheist and a pantheist at different points in his life. AFAIK he never adhered to his ancestral Judaism.
    Overblood wrote: »
    How can you pick & choose from the bible? It's the word of God isn't it?

    "Ok that bit is literal, don't mind that other bit, oh we used to believe in that bit but I'd say it's actually a fable or something. Yeah I like that bit. Ignore the bit over here where god kills everybody."
    Contrary to popular belief, the creation story was not universally taken as literal before modern advances in geology and biology. Even 1600 years ago St. Augustine was arguing against those who took it literally.

    The poster you are replying to didn't say that he believed the Bible to be the word of God anyway.


  • Options
    #28
    Offalycool
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    Our world is a computer simulation running in the real world. Our world started when the 'earth' program was run, and the calculation (which is probably the answer to the meaning of life) will be complete when the 'earth' program stops.

    I think this was Douglas Adams idea.


  • Options
    #29
    Queen-Mise
    Registered Users Posts: 7,461 ✭✭✭Queen-Mise


    I think the sentence 'How do you think the universe began' shows the fundamental limitation of human thinking.

    It is because there is a beginning and an ending to human existence that we presume there is one to the universe also.

    For me, i believe the universe always was, there was no beginning for it - and for humans we can't accept that.


    Finito :D


  • Options
    #30
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    The universe didn't begin for time is a property of our universe and outside of our universe time has no relation. Einstein revealed that space and time are one and the same with four dimensions (height, width, depth and time) he called it spacetime. Spacetime is the fabric of our universe.

    To better understand what spacetime is it's best to use an analogy. Consider energy (including matter as matter is just highly concentrated energy) as ink on a piece of paper and spacetime as the surface of the paper. This paper floats in an infinite vacuum. The universe would be the entire sheet including both paper and ink. You can place ink anywhere on the surface of the paper representing energies position in both space and time or 'spacetime' but it is impossible to place ink anywhere off of the sheet of paper. Similarly you can't mark or measure time outside of our universe because just as there is no surface to place the ink outside of the sheet of paper there is no spacetime to mark the position of time outside of our universe. So in essence the universe never began as time does not exist outside of our universe.

    What is really freaky is that when scientists talk about the expanding universe they are not talking about the energy of the universe spreading out across an infinite amount of space. What they are talking about is space itself expanding. It's as if new space is created in between the galaxies pushing the galaxies further apart. It's best to use another analogy when trying to understand. Think of the universe as a balloon and space as the surface of the balloon and the galaxies as dots placed by a marker on the surface of the balloon. The balloon starts deflated and the dots are very close together. We can measure the total surface of the balloon, lets say it's 10cm². As the balloon inflates the surface of it expands. The dot's spread farther and farther apart without themselves getting a whole lot bigger and without them moving from their position on the surface. Now if we measure the surface again we get 100cm², where did it come from?. It is as if a new surface of the balloon was created in between the dot's. Similarly when the universe expands it's as if new space is created in between the galaxies and the galaxies themselves do not move.

    Just like the surface of the balloon has no edge neither does space. You can never travel to the edge of the universe because the universe is expanding faster than light and nothing can travel faster than light. When you try to travel the distance between your current position and the hypothetical 'edge' of the universe more space is created between you and the edge faster than you can travel it. The universe has been worked out to be roughly 93 billion light years across and yet it is only 13.7 billion years old and started from a single point. If the galaxies were themselves travelling apart the universe could only possible be 27.4 billion years across. Expanding space rather than moving galaxies is how a diameter of 93 billion light years is possible without breaking the speed of light.

    My own postulation is that just as space is expanding so is time and we perceive this as the forward passage of time.

    This begs the question if the universe was never created, how is it here? Unfortunately I have no answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Húrin wrote: »

    Contrary to popular belief, the creation story was not universally taken as literal before modern advances in geology and biology.

    Do you think it was taken as literal at the time of writing?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement