How did the Universe come to be?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, you see, the universe is in constant repetition. At some point in the near future, there will be a paradox, for Stalin and Hitler will come back from the dead as zombies and lead a zombie apocalypse which Bruce Campbell, Chuck Norris, and Bill Nighy will lead the attack against. However, not even a silly spinning kick, a chainsaw arm, a boomstick, and a kickass filmography will be able to stop that many zombies. And since Earth, as we all know, is the center of the universe, this will mean that the entire universe will be affected by this. And because Earth cannot sustain itself when it's filled with zombies, it will suddenly blow up, thus causing a chain reaction that will destroy all the other planets, for planetary explosions are contagious. So the entire universe will blow up. But the thing is, there HAS to be a universe, for without a universe, there is nothing. And since there can be no universe without a universe, there is a paradox, and the entire thing restarts. So everything horrible you read about in history will probably happen again sometime, except maybe slightly different.

Actually, I'm bullshitting. I follow the big BOOM theory, which is like the big bang theory except it's title is "Big BOOM" instead of "Big Bang" because "BOOM" is more a explosive word (especially in capitals), wheres "bang" sounds more like a puny gunshot.

Anthropomorphising a "why" onto the universe is strictly a human cognitive construct. When most people think "why", they usually mean "how". And "how" science can always answer, even if scientists can't.

It's all semantics anyways. Which is also a human construct, riddled with endless symbolism. The universe is not symbolic. The brain is.

Go back and read my post. You missed everything that I had to say, or conveniently sidestepped it.



Exactly what I was trying to say, in about a tenth of the words I used. However, this does not make it untrue, just not absolutely true.

have you been reading the iluminatus trilogy?

jonathan79-
In all honesty, I don't have the energy or will do go toe to toe with you. I firmly believe the first step towards new understanding is to accept the possibility that your preconcieved notions are just plain wrong. You are quite good at quoting from a textbook, but are you actually listening to what you're saying?

I would like to clarify two points:
>>And no, I would not agree that "God picks up the slack", because he does not pick up the slack at all. To say that God is an answer is no answer at all. I say that the Diety "§§§§" answers all my unanswered questions, everything stops with him. Have I answered anything at all? No.<<

You missed my point, I apologize for my bad writing.

10,000 years ago, men worshipped the bear-god. The bear god provided everything they didn't understand about their world- thanks to the bear god, we have the sun, fresh water, animals to eat etc.

500 years ago, the universe rotated around the Earth. Why didn't the crops grow? Because of a malicious god.

200 years ago, underscoring our world was the mysterious, etherial world. This is where ghosts and werewolves come from.

Today we pretty much know everything about the physical universe except where it all came from.

You see- where man's limitations leave off, God picks up the slack. Noah was a valid story until it was conclusively proven impossible and even today we still struggle to come to terms with it- on one hand, we don't want to erase 5,000 years of belief. On the other hand, it is still possible, but on a smaller scale.

What underlies all of this is thought and the ability for us monkeys to think is a gift from God. And so generous is your God that he allows you to go on denying his existence without lightning bolts from the heavens striking you where you stand.

Currently, we stand on the threshold of knowledge- when you know 99% of what there is to know, it's time to change the rules. This is what makes "2001" such a great movie because that's the point of the film... and it's correct.

Secondly, you have some Heisenbergian problems with my "moon rope pull experiment":

I originally wrote:
>You're standing on the moon in your spacesuit. You grab one end of a really long rope then fire your thrusters shooting you straight off into space. You get to the end of the rope- some 93 million miles away and pick up the slack. In other words, you're floating in space holding a rope that's attached to the moon.
You pull on the rope. That pull-energy travels down the rope at light speed, reaches the moon and comes back in reverse. In other words, you try pulling on the moon and the moon ends up pulling you.
If the rope is 93 million miles long, and the pull-energy moves at light speed (93 million miles per second), what actually happens is:
-You pull the rope
-Nothing happens for two seconds
-Two seconds later you're pulled back
How do you explain this obvious breach of conservation?<

To which you replied:
>>What breach of conservation? Your argument makes no sense. If I pull on the rope, it will not pull back. Try tying a rope to a brick wall and see if it pulls you forward. Yes the wall will "pull back" (science 101), but not in the sense that you claim. It will not pull me to the ground.
Your example does not take into the account if the rope has slack or not. If it has not slack, it will not take anytime for the energy to move down the rope. If there is slack, there will be at least a few hundred miles of slack in a rope 93 million miles long!! !!<<

Okay then. If this is your problem, then you make the rope a million times shorter and use atomic clocks that are a million times more accurate. The question is still valid- how can you explain it?

If I expend energy is space, will that energy come back to me or not? If I pull a firmly secured rope, will it pull back on me? If I tie one end around a tree and pull, will I be pulled towards the tree or not?

The point of the experiment is that it is very easy to cheat time. This means that time, the fourth dimension, is a thin veil we all exist within.

My original intention was simply to point out that science alone cannot explain the entire universe simply because the creation of the universe is beyond numbers on paper. And any quantified field you cannot write as a formula is God. And if you had to put a number to it, that number would be 3.14 plus change.

Psh, the Nazis weren't zombies in Illuminatus, they were in some sort of supernatural homeostasis, and also Stalin wasn't there.

But that was the first thing I thought of when I read that post, too.

God, I love that book.

Are you listening to what I am saying? I believe that you should take your own advice, and understand that your preconcieved notions are "just plain wrong". Did you even read my link about how you attribute "why" questions where there are none? Show me where I have quoted any textbook. Yes, my ideas are based on philosphers, but their combination is my own. This is the second misquote you have contributed to me.




No, we hardly know anything about the physical universe. Einstein believed that his formulas were wrong and would be overturned. If we know "pretty much everything about the physical universe", then almost all of the current scientific investigations are wrong, which is absurd. You are speaking from a point which claims absolute knowledge, which is not possible. Your writing is perfectly understandable. Clarifiying incoherent logic does not make it coherent.



Where did I say that thinking is a "gift from God"? In fact I said the exact opposite. Are you reading my posts?

God gives children cancer. God allows people to be born without limbs. God allows good people to be murdered. God allows good people to be paralyzed. God allows good people to lose loved ones. God allows murderers to live while the innocent die. God allows wars and starvation. God allows people to not have a chance. These are people who believe in God, why are they struck down and I am allowed to continue? Your position makes no sense. Are these not the lightning bolts you speak about?



your claim that we know 99% has to be based on the claim that you know what is absolutely true. We don't. So this claim is mute. You cannot put a percent on our knowledge unless you know what a 100% is. We don't.





This is not cheating time. Not our sense of time. Again, you are speaking from a point of view that you have absolute knowledge, which is impossible.

The rope will "pull back", but not as you say. Science 101 again. No one engaged with a tug of rope against a tree will ever fall forward. If there is no slack in the rope, then the there is no feedback, which is what you claim. Read my post.


\

Are you reading my posts?



Yes, we allow God to pick up the slack, but, as I said in my last post, this is not an answer at all. Of course pi is 3.14 plus change, where did I ever deny that? Any "quantified field you cannot write a formula is God"? Then, God is not an answer, but a convenient pseudo explanation.

"How does opium put people to sleep?" Well, "God gives it its sleeping power". Have I answered anything here? No.

My Diety says something different. Again, am I right? Are we both right? Your answers are no answers at all.

Are you reading my posts?

Last edited by jonathan79 on 01 Aug 2006, 11:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jeez, are you guys STILL arguing?

>>Einstein believed that his formulas were wrong and would be overturned.<<

Yes- this was because Einstein was willing to admit he was wrong, provided scientists are willing to prove the same. "The path to knowledge begins with admitting you're ignorant. Only that opens the doorway to new knowledge." 101 years later, I don't see any scientists doubting Einstein these days. Hmmm...

>>Clarifiying incoherent logic does not make it coherent.<<

Perhaps, but it does make it logical, and reality as we know it is based upon assumptions which in turn are based on logic itself.

>>God gives children cancer. God allows people to be born without limbs. God allows good people to be murdered. God allows good people to be paralyzed. God allows good people to lose loved ones. God allows murderers to live while the innocent die. God allows wars and starvation. God allows people to not have a chance. These are people who believe in God, why are they struck down and I am allowed to continue? Your position makes no sense. Are these not the lightning bolts you speak about?<<

You just simply do not get it. I pity your ignorance.

>>This is not cheating time. Not our sense of time. Again, you are speaking from a point of view that you have absolute knowledge, which is impossible.<<

Hmmm... let me see... I have presented a way to move faster than light speed and still you're arguing the point. Hmmm... The word "ignorant" keeps popping to my mind...

>>My Diety says something different. Again, am I right? Are we both right? Your answers are no answers at all.<<

Yes, however your deity is based upon sitting back in judgement of others. My deity simply exists; my deity does not sit back in silence waiting to strike upon the first person who dares to challenge preconcieved notions, my deity dares make assumptions, which only draws "your kind" out of the dark depths of otherwise "knowledge". You simply do not get it and for that I pity and forgive you. You poor soul.

PopeJaimie writes:
>>Jeez, are you guys STILL arguing?<<

You're right. Jonathan79- have a wonderful non-existence.

The major goal of physics nowdays is to find a new formula which combines Einsteins with Heisenbergs, which would render both their formulas obsolete. All physicists who work on finding this new formula doubt Einstein and Heisenberg. Newtons laws stood for a long time before Einstein overturned them. 100 years is not a long time. Hmmm....

Remember, "The path to knowledge begins with admitting you're ignorant. Only that opens the doorway to new knowledge." "You simply do not get it, I pity your ignorance." "My posts only draws "your kind" out of the dark depths of otherwise "knowledge". You simply do not get it and for that I pity and forgive you. You poor soul."

As for all of your pity, thats nice, too bad its not a logical argument. You have resorted to illogical attacks which means you have no thoughts left, only personal attacks. This pond of "knowledge" was very shallow. See how I just paste them right back?

I think you need to stop, because apparently you have a real pity problem. Pity for others and especially for yourself. I actually feel sorry for you because you sit here and post on an internet forum when you have real problems to work on, perhaps thats why you have problems in the first place. Hmmm......



Same to you!

No, actually! But I'm gonna have to read that....

to: ladakh

Remember one thing is everything We know that explainable?

You must remember We are imperfect people. I mean it this way We have theories here and there about everthing WE KNOW but what do WE KNOW? We can yet find faults here or there for some theories that man has made have been proven false in the end even with scientific processes that We use today even some have been proven false years ago.