[itistoday]

Hello my silly MacNN people, I have a silly question for you:

Was there a start to this universe? Will there therefore be an end to it?

I know the answer to it, I'm just curious as to what y'all think.

Please, this is not a trick question, and any answer you give must be backed up with reasoning.

[- - e r i k - -]

Yes. There was definitely some "start" to the universe the way we are thinking. Time started with the Big Bang. The "end" will not be as dramatic, the universe will (likely) continue to expand for all eternity until it becomes to cold to sustain any sort of life. After this time will become meaningless (again?).

Anyway, that is the most likely theory. It all depends on the shape of the universe anyhow.

[forkies]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

It all depends on the shape of the universe anyhow.

does it? i heard our current universe looks a lot like

[Railroader]

No. God has always existed.

[scaught]

no, thats the funny thing about eternity.

[rickey939]

Yes.

It all started back in the 1976 amateur draft and then ended...not on anybody's own terms, in 2003 in Los Angeles.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

No. God has always existed.

Wouldn't have when God created the universe be considered that start then?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Wouldn't have when God created the universe be considered that start then?

No, the universe was always there!

...and for a very very very loooooooong time God was pretty bored!

That's why he created earth and some stupid primates (6000 years or so ago).

These primates (called humans) were so stupid that in the beginning they believed in nothing.

Then they got enlightened and started to believe in God (God was slightly pleased).

But some met God's son and also started to believe in this guy they called Jesus.

Others heard a different story and had a different name for God's son - they and the Christians don't like each other since then and from time to time they kill each other!

Not long ago some also discovered that earth was not everything God created and that heaven is not in the sky...

...since then God's popularity is going down!!

Many even stopped believing and now say that everything we know is just nature (physics and chemistry)...



If you ask me, space has always been there and the universe is pulsating - it has no start and no end!

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Wouldn't have when God created the universe be considered that start then?

The universe is everything isn't it? God is everything. God has always existed.

Anyone who says God gets bored has a very limited way of thinking.

[forkies]

Originally Posted by badidea

...since then God's popularity is going down!!

it's getting harder to make people believe in things they can't personally observe

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Railroader

The universe is everything isn't it? God is everything. God has always existed.

Anyone who says God gets bored has a very limited way of thinking.

I thought existence was everything. The universe is merely where we live.

[brassplayersrock²]

since god is a concept thought of by man, if there was no universe and no humans inhabitng whatever was there, than how did god (a man made concept) make the universe??

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by forkies

it's getting harder to make people believe in things they can't personally observe

You mean like black holes, radiation and wisconsin?

[BlueSky]

The universe was created this morning, 7:44 BC (Before Coffee) and will end tonight, likely sometime between 10:30 & 11:45.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You mean like black holes, radiation and wisconsin?

My big block of cheddar says otherwise!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by forkies

it's getting harder to make people believe in absurd mythologies.

Fixed™

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by itistoday

I know the answer to it...

Yeah, sure you do.

On this very subject: http://arstechnica.com/journals/scie...2006/4/15/3602

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ReggieX

My big block of cheddar says otherwise!

Don't believe everything you read
You get a parking violation and a maggot on your sleeve

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by badidea

No, the universe was always there!

...and for a very very very loooooooong time God was pretty bored!

That's why he created earth and some stupid primates (6000 years or so ago).

These primates (called humans) were so stupid that in the beginning they believed in nothing.

Then they got enlightened and started to believe in God (God was slightly pleased).

But some met God's son and also started to believe in this guy they called Jesus.

Others heard a different story and had a different name for God's son - they and the Christians don't like each other since then and from time to time they kill each other!

Not long ago some also discovered that earth was not everything God created and that heaven is not in the sky...

...since then God's popularity is going down!!

Many even stopped believing and now say that everything we know is just nature (physics and chemistry)...



If you ask me, space has always been there and the universe is pulsating - it has no start and no end!

Not bad, so far I'm surprised to say that you are the closest, but unfortunately your post is filled with a whole lot of religious nonsense as well (like the 6000 years bit). I assure you the answer is very well grounded in physics and nature... nature and the universe are one and the same anyway.

I'm still waiting for someone to mention the "obvious" explanation; it's based on one of the most fundamental laws of physics, and doesn't require knowledge of any sort of "loop-quantum gravity" theories.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by rickey939

Yes.

It all started back in the 1976 amateur draft and then ended...not on anybody's own terms, in 2003 in Los Angeles.

Wasn't The Universe wheeled out of storage for a week during Spring Training?

[V]

First law of thermodynamics.

Energy can be converted but cannot be created or destroyed.

That doesn't mean there will be no end to the universe as we know (and need!) it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock

since god is a concept thought of by man, if there was no universe and no humans inhabitng whatever was there, than how did god (a man made concept) make the universe??

According to Judas, he didn't.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by V

First law of thermodynamics.

Energy can be converted but cannot be created or destroyed.

As Feynman said, it's one thing to "know" something, it's quite something else to actually understand what it means, and this poll demonstrates that. It's about 50-50 as of this post.

Originally Posted by V

That doesn't mean there will be no end to the universe as we know (and need!) it.

I'll let the "as we know it" statement slide, especially when "as we know it" really only applies to this Earth--the planet that supports a variety of life, including humanity (and the Solar System that supports it). We have to first worry about surviving in our little section of the universe before worrying about all of it.

[wataru]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You mean like black holes, radiation and wisconsin?

lol, I can personally assure you that Wisconsin does not exist. It is a fabrication of the liberal media.

[smacintush]

Anyone who thinks that they know how the universe started or if it started is deluding themselves. Any, and I mean ANY answer to this, whether it be theological or scientific will be a matter of faith in the veracity of it.

There is nothing wrong with believing in something, I have my own belief in how this all started, but only a fool presumes to know.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by forkies

it's getting harder to make people believe in things they can't personally observe

Really ? So they only believe in things they can personally observe ?

No way. Everyone believes in things that he weas told were true. He either accepts or refuses to believe it. But for many things, there is NO way we can personally and independently verify the existance and truth of it w/o having to rely on somebody else's testimony or help.

-t

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by smacintush

There is nothing wrong with believing in something

Yes there is, if your belief is a bad/wrong one, don't make me give you obvious examples.

I have my own belief in how this all started, but only a fool presumes to know.

We cannot prove we know *anything* when you get down to it, but once you make the basic assumption in mathematics and accept the laws of physics you can certainly claim to know such a thing, just as you can claim to know 1+1=2. This isn't a matter of philosophy or religion, it's a scientific matter no matter how much "believe" it's not. The laws of physics are called laws because they are true for all situations, and the first law of thermodynamics is the most tested, tried and true law of them all. You would not only be a fool but a damned fool if you were to argue with that.

Edit: Please don't go off on how Newton's "Laws" don't apply in all situations, I'm aware of this, and because of that they are not actual scientific laws (just called so), rather they are very good approximations because the quantum effects are so minute that they are not measurable on our everyday scale of existence.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by itistoday

...but unfortunately your post is filled with a whole lot of religious nonsense as well (like the 6000 years bit)

Well, I think you got me there!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itistoday

We cannot prove we know *anything* when you get down to it, but once you make the basic assumption in mathematics and accept the laws of physics you can certainly claim to know such a thing, just as you can claim to know 1+1=2. This isn't a matter of philosophy or religion, it's a scientific matter no matter how much "believe" it's not. The laws of physics are called laws because they are true for all situations, and the first law of thermodynamics is the most tested, tried and true law of them all. You would not only be a fool but a damned fool if you were to argue with that.

I'm certainly not going to argue against "laws" of physics, except to say that the word "law" is a very poor one. The "laws" of physics are not really laws but observed patterns that are, at times, defied. Bumble Bees defy the "laws" of physics for example.

But it is one thing to calculate or predict via calculations the relationship between particles or masses in space.

It is another to calculate how this all started. Such a thing will never be known IMO because the incredible span of time that has passed and the unbelievable complexity of it all. Just as Physicists say that we will NEVER be able to actually see the constituents of matter (even if they are proven), we will never be able to see beyond a certain distance in space and beyond a certain length of time. They will only be able to create an approximate and ever changing theory.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It is another to calculate how this all started.

See, that's exactly the thing. I'm saying something completely different, I'm saying there's no such concept, as a "start" to it all. It has always been, and always will be.

Such a thing will never be known IMO because the incredible span of time that has passed and the unbelievable complexity of it all. Just as Physicists say that we will NEVER be able to actually see the constituents of matter (even if they are proven), we will never be able to see beyond a certain distance in space and beyond a certain length of time. They will only be able to create an approximate and ever changing theory.

I understand perfectly well that there's a high probability that we will never be able to get definitive proof of my statements, because perhaps such *proof* is impossible to come by its very nature. What I'm offering, however, is a highly probable and logical conclusion. I'm simply saying our western way of thought is flawed. There was no start.

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by Dork.

Wasn't The Universe wheeled out of storage for a week during Spring Training?

Indeed. The news caused absolute panic all over New York...even Jose Reyes was scared.

[JoshuaZ]

I often wonder when people will STOP wondering about silly questions like this and START doing something productive. This from the guy who will spend 4 hours of his work day surfing.

[jamil5454]

If you agree that time started with the Big Bang, then it's hard to argue that wasn't the start of the Universe.

[Aquataris]

These are always scary threads because you find out how stupid some people really are.

Those who bash the religious for having faith in something, they were told to believe or can't prove, are idiots for having faith in their theory that religion is not the cause of whatever we might approximate as a beginning, as they themselves have just as little proof as the religious man, while still working on faith alone from his stance.

The religious are bashed because most do not realize that there faith is not evident in their writing and often write a sermon with little more than what they claim to be doctrinal truth as backup when in fact those they are preaching to care little of what they call a holy scripture.

I prefer to state only that I believe that any man who is adamant on the answer to this question is a fool. I am a Christian, however I have varied beliefs and do not adhere to one form of religious thought. I believe we were made and that our universe was made, not by science and nature, but by God.

Don't dare say I didn't provide proof as to my thoughts on why or how he made it, because I am no more privy to that answer than anybody else, and would sound like an idiot stating otherwise.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

I often wonder when people will STOP wondering about silly questions like this and START doing something productive. This from the guy who will spend 4 hours of his work day surfing.

Honestly, you have the correct answer to this crap discussion. Go surfing.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itistoday

See, that's exactly the thing. I'm saying something completely different, I'm saying there's no such concept, as a "start" to it all. It has always been, and always will be.

I understand perfectly well that there's a high probability that we will never be able to get definitive proof of my statements, because perhaps such *proof* is impossible to come by its very nature. What I'm offering, however, is a highly probable and logical conclusion. I'm simply saying our western way of thought is flawed. There was no start.

Well, I think you and I are in total agreement.

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Honestly, you have the correct answer to this crap discussion. Go surfing.

Does this mean the thread is over? I`ve beaten the final boss? Time to roll the credits?

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Does this mean the thread is over? I`ve beaten the final boss? Time to roll the credits?

Congratulaton, JoshuaZ... You are beat of the master boss and save the word form udder analation and restore peace at last to all realm of earth... BEHOLD!

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by Aquataris

Congratulaton, JoshuaZ... You are beat of the master boss and save the word form udder analation and restore peace at last to all realm of earth... BEHOLD!

Nice! What was my high score?

[wataru]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Bumble Bees defy the "laws" of physics for example.

No they don't.

[Aquataris]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

Nice! What was my high score?

HIGH SCORE

JoshuaZ: π

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by wataru

No they don't.

OK I looked it up. I stand corrected.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Anyone who says God gets bored has a very limited way of thinking.

That's funny because I would say that anyone who says that God wouldn't get bored has a very limited way of thinking.

[macaddict0001]

According to the theory of schrodinger's cat the universe didn't exist until it was observed, sort of like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? This fits in well with quantum theory which states that matter behaves differently when not observed, specifically that the line between matter and waves is far blurrier than traditional physics would have us believe. These theory's were spawned because of the gaps in the more traditional theory's needed to be explained.

As for the universe, assuming it existed before it was observed, I believe that it although currently expanding will one day be slowed and be pulled back in to make some kind of massive black hole and eventually it would be so dense that some subatomic particle-or rather something smaller than even a gluon or quark-would react in some way similar way to nuclear fusion, causing massive pressure to push back against the pressure gravity would be putting on them causing a big bang.

Also have you ever noticed that the smaller we go the closer the particles look to each other, do you ever wonder if eventually they are all the same, if everything is just different because probability dictates it?

If you are interested in this you should watch "what the *bleep* do we know" and read "Gods Debris".

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by macaddict0001

Also have you ever noticed that the smaller we go the closer the particles look to each other, do you ever wonder if eventually they are all the same, if everything is just different because probability dictates it?

String theorists think that it's tiny strings of energy. It'll be interesting to see if they're right.

If you are interested in this you should watch "what the *bleep* do we know" and read "Gods Debris".

I heard that was a good movie, and hope to see it soon.

[- - e r i k - -]

"What the bleep do we know" was a propaganda film for the Ramtha Cult more than anything. Richard Dawkins has this to say about the movie:

This film is even more pretentious than it is boring. And it is stupefyingly boring - unless, of course, you are fooled by its New Age fakery, in which case it might indeed be - as many innocent dupes have stated - "life-changing". The one redeeming feature is the enigmatic charm of the deaf heroine, whose depressive journey down the rabbit hole of life is punctuated by gobbets of bogus sagacity from a dozen talking heads. But no amount of charm could redeem the unforgivable phoniness of the script.

He and loads of other scientists chime out in this Guardian Article.

God's Debris, written by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, is a thought experiment which challenges the reader to separate the scientifically accepted theories from "creative baloney" or as most would call it pure bullshit. You can read it for free here.

[Gamoe]

I will talk about "reality" rather than the "universe", because the universe may or may not be the whole of reality, however I think this question really concerns reality as a whole, not merely limited to the universe, which may not encompass all reality, but rather be part of a greater reality.

So... In our experience, everything has a beginning and end. If we apply this to reality as a whole, we would say that it had a beginning and eventually must have an end. However, in our experience something cannot come from nothing, and since reality is everything, nothing could have created it, because everything that is is inside it, and something cannot come from nothing.

If you say "God created it", then you must deal with the question of who/what created God. If you reason that God is not bound by such rules of logic, then this ceases to be a logical and scientific discussion, but becomes one more suited to ontology.

The other obvious possibility is that reality has always existed and will always exist, or will end at some point. But, again our human experience tells us that everything has a beginning, and nothing can exist without having been created.

Time is part of the universe, but how could the universe have begun without time existing, unless it was born with a greater reality... but then the question merely changes to "How could reality have existed before time, without time and yet within time?"

And so we arrive where we started-- nowhere. Anyone who has a real answer, please let me know!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Time is part of the universe, but how could the universe have begun without time existing, unless it was born with a greater reality... but then the question merely changes to "How could reality have existed before time, without time and yet within time?"

And so we arrive where we started-- nowhere. Anyone who has a real answer, please let me know!

Right, so as I've explained loosely above, the answer is most likely (I'm around 99.99% positive on this one) that the universe, and time included, has always existed. It's merely an illusion that you "feel" that everything must have a beginning. You see a chain of events and you can follow it back to a certain point. You say A causes B. What caused A? Go back all the way, and you will find, as you have, that such reasoning is ridiculous, and there cannot possibly be a start, not only because of the most verified law in all of physics, but simply logically speaking.

If the universe has always existed, you should be able to see that it simply, as badidea said, "pulsates". It has an innate energy that has always existed and this energy rearranges itself constantly. It's like trying to find the "start" of a mobius strip; it doesn't exist.

[macaddict0001]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

"What the bleep do we know" was a propaganda film for the Ramtha Cult more than anything. Richard Dawkins has this to say about the movie:

He and loads of other scientists chime out in this Guardian Article.

God's Debris, written by Dilbert creator Scott Adams, is a thought experiment which challenges the reader to separate the scientifically accepted theories from "creative baloney" or as most would call it pure bullshit. You can read it for free here.

To be honest I haven't seen the film, I just heard it was good, and as for the book the entire point of this thread is to evoke thought.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush

That's funny because I would say that anyone who says that God wouldn't get bored has a very limited way of thinking.

Anyone who attributes human characteristics to God has a limited way of thinking. Better?