Where Did It All Come From?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

It is interesting to guess where the beliefs will go, but all of this leaves us with the BIG question.  Where did all of the stuff in the universe come from?  I understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so perhaps it has always existed??  Very confusing!!  So, where did the matter come from that made the big bang possible??  My pea brain tells me that you have to have matter and energy before you can have an explosion (big bang).  Has matter also always existed??  Am I missing something??  It seems to me, we have a HUGE mystery on our hands.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Ignore me, or move this elsewhere if I am sidetracking the thread. 

(slightly edited after my original post.)

It is interesting to guess where the beliefs will go, but all of this leaves us with the BIG question.  Where did all of the stuff in the universe come from?  I understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so perhaps it has always existed??  Very confusing!!  So, where did the matter come from that made the big bang possible??  My pea brain tells me that you have to have matter and energy before you can have an explosion (big bang).  Has matter also always existed??  Am I missing something??  It seems to me, we have a HUGE mystery on our hands.

 

The standard Big Bang theory begins with the universe in a hot and dense state (like the song intro of the tv series) Weezer.

 

And an explosion radiating outwards from a central point requires a pre-existing space into which it can expand, so that's not part of the theory either.

 

Nor is the universe's expansion from total nothingness a part of the theory.

 

If you like, seeing as you don't want to sidetrack things) I could explain things to you in a different thread?

 

If so, be prepared for Pantheory to chip in with his own unorthodox and alternative opinions.

 

Please let me know.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TABA]

Moderator Note:  The two earlier posts have been moved to this new topic.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

9 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The standard Big Bang theory begins with the universe in a hot and dense state (like the song intro of the tv series) Weezer.

 

And an explosion radiating outwards from a central point requires a pre-existing space into which it can expand, so that's not part of the theory either.

 

Nor is the universe's expansion from total nothingness a part of the theory.

 

If you like, seeing as you don't want to sidetrack things) I could explain things to you in a different thread?

 

If so, be prepared for Pantheory to chip in with his own unorthodox and alternative opinions.

 

Please let me know.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and whoever else wants to, can discuss it all you want.   But please answer this question with a yes or no. Does anyone at this point in time know where it all came from?

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

You and whoever else wants to, can discuss it all you want.   But please answer this question with a yes or no. Does anyone at this point in time know where it all came from?

 

The answer is no, Weezer.

 

 

Having answered your question, please answer mine.

 

 

18 hours ago you asked five questions about what you called the BIG question and I offered to help you.  Now you don't want my help.  Why?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Thanks for your "no" answer.   HA!  I was testing to see if I could get a one word answer from you.   I didn't say I didnt want you to answer the other questions.  Go for it.

[pantheory]

On 2/27/2024 at 7:23 PM, Weezer said:

It is interesting to guess where the beliefs will go, but all of this leaves us with the BIG question.  Where did all of the stuff in the universe come from?  I understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so perhaps it has always existed??  Very confusing!!  So, where did the matter come from that made the big bang possible??  My pea brain tells me that you have to have matter and energy before you can have an explosion (big bang).  Has matter also always existed??  Am I missing something??  It seems to me, we have a HUGE mystery on our hands.

 

Hi Weez,

 

The answer to your question depends on the theory that you might believe is correct. The original Big Bang theory traced the beginning of the universe to a beginning entity which they called a "Singularity." Although this is no longer part of most versions of mainstream theory, there are some very logical aspects to this original BB theory IMO.

 

According to the original version there was no such thing as time and space before the beginning entity, since the word "before" has no meaning in this context. It was simply time zero before any changes to this entity occurred. Time can be equated with change, so the first change in this entity was the beginning of time, and the first change in the volume that it occupied was the beginning of space, a vacuous volume within this entity.

 

So what caused this entity to change in the first place? Accordingly it had to have something driving this change which we call potential energy, which is an internal energy which perpetuates change which we call time. So where did everything come from? If one goes to multiverse theory there is no answer to this question. Each universe came from another universe before it but there was no first universe so it would be an infinity of universes. If there was a first universe then where did that universe come from? If you go back to a Big Bang like beginning as described above, then time and space began with changes in the beginning entity, matter came from the substance of the beginning entity, and energy comes from the potential energy that caused the beginning energy to change in the first place. With a beginning of the universe somewhat like described above, all is logical and not difficult to understand IMHO. Questions?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

15 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

With a beginning of the universe somewhat like described above, all is logical and not difficult to understand IMHO.

 

 

Honestly, it makes absolutly no sense to me.  Thanks for giving it a shot.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, now for my shot.

 

 

I think we need to start historically, Weezer.  And we'll do it in easy steps.  I'll post something, you read it and if you're happy, we'll move on. Ok?

 

Almost a hundred years ago astronomers made two key discoveries - that there are other galaxies in the universe besides the Milky Way and that they appear to be receding from us.  So they thought about what this means.  The Earth isn't at the centre of the solar system, our Sun isn't at the centre of the Milky Way, the Milky Way isn't at the centre of our Local Group of galaxies, our Local Group of galaxies isn't at the centre of the Virgo cluster of galaxies and the Virgo cluster of galaxies isn't at the centre of the Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies. (Do you see what I did there?  Pulling out the focus wider and wider, from small to big?)

 

So, if we know we're not at the centre of any of these things, why should we assume that we are at the physical centre of the universe?

 

Yes, it looks as if we are because all those other galaxies appear to be receding from us, but this must be the effect caused by them ALL moving away from each other.   If we lived in another galaxy we'd still see the same thing - other galaxies appearing to move away from us.  And we might naively conclude that we are at the centre of the universe in that galaxy.  But we wouldn't be any more than we are, here in the Milky Way.  And the same would apply to anyone in any galaxy, anywhere in the universe.  Everyone would see the same thing - other galaxies appearing to recede from them.

 

Now there's no reason (see first paragraph, going small to big) for us to claim that we live at the exact centre of the universe.  Nor would anyone else in any other galaxy have any reason to say the same thing.  Like us they would see that they're not at the centre of anything and so other galaxies appearing to recede from them must be due to some other factor, something different from being at the centre of everything.

 

The logical answer that solves this problem is to conclude that every galaxy (or galaxy cluster) is receding from every other galaxy or cluster of galaxies.  Doing this equalizes the status of anyone in any galaxy claiming that they are at the centre of everything and nobody else is.  Now everyone has equal status.  This is important because the equality of status of the observer is fundamental to the scientific method. 

 

If a scientist claims to have discovered a new element or a new planet but no other scientist can replicate their results then their claims are treated with suspicion.  It is a basic assumption in every discipline of science that no particular scientist has a special or privileged status.  The same applies in astronomy and cosmology.  No observer, located anywhere in the universe, has a special or privileged status and so no observer can claim that they are located at the exact centre of the universe. 

 

Going back to receding galaxies, we therefore conclude that when we, here in the Milky Way galaxy, see other galaxies receding from us this is an OBSERVER EFFECT of all the galaxies receding from each other.  We further conclude that the very same observer effect applies to any observer located anywhere else in the universe.  They also seem to see what we see - other galaxies receding.  In reality no observer is at the centre of the universe.  Because of the recession of the galaxies it only appears that they are.

 

I'll leave it there, Weezer.  Are you happy with that?  If not or if you have any questions, please let me know.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ain't none of y'all ever heard of "42"?

[TABA]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ain't none of y'all ever heard of "42"?

This - this clarity - this insight - this sublime ability to bring simplicity to the most obscure matter - this is why the Prof is a Super Moderator and the rest of us are not.  It’s not just the big “S” on his chest, you know.  

 

[walterpthefirst]

What the blazes?

 

Don't you damn colonials start taking the credit!

 

"42" was a British invention... and a damn good one at that.

 

Like the Panjandrum.

 

 Panjandrum - Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

55 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

What the blazes?

 

Don't you damn colonials start taking the credit!

 

"42" was a British invention... and a damn good one at that.

 

Like the Panjandrum.

 

 Panjandrum - Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

Too bad y'all didn't have one of those contraptions at Gallipoli.  Y'all could have turned that into a real fiasco if you had.

[walterpthefirst]

Maybe they should have used these splendid weapons?

 

Boys anti-tank rifle - Wikipedia

A shortened version was deployed in 1942 for issue to airborne forces and saw use in Tunisia, where it proved completely ineffective because of the reduced velocity caused by the shortened barrel.

 

Sticky bomb - Wikipedia

The grenade had several faults in its design. The Ordnance Board of the War Department did not approve the grenade for use by the British Army, but intervention by the prime minister, Winston Churchill, led to production of the grenade.

 

Trials were disappointing, it was not possible to get the bomb to adhere to any surface that was wet or covered with even the thinnest film of dried mud "a customary condition of tanks" as Major-General Ismay, on 27 June, pointed out.

 

Macrae credits the Australian Army with developing the technique of applying a sticky bomb directly onto a tank instead of throwing it from a relatively safe distance.  Since the bomb used a blast effect, it was safe to do this and walk away provided only that the bomb's handle was pointing away from the bomber – the handle would be shot away from the explosion "like a bullet."

 

Killing or injuring the thrower!

 

[TABA]

 

As an IRISH American, no less, I am happy to cement Transatlantic solidarity by paying a brief tribute to three of my favorite thinkers, sons of Britannia all...

 

 

   

 

 

Interesting how Wikipedia calls Russell and Hitchens "British", while Hume is "Scottish". 

 

 

[pantheory]

13 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

Honestly, it makes absolutly no sense to me.  Thanks for giving it a shot.

 

It's not just a "shot" Weez, It's an entire book and theory that's 367 pages long and involves 7 published scientific papers, involving 7 citations where others have used it in their own scientific papers. It's my own 6 decades old scientific theory that many have quoted, called the Pan Theory.

 

Let's forget the Big Bang part of it for now. Let's Just consider a tiny beginning entity of some kind.

 

Your question was simply "where did everything come from"  in the universe, right?  Now put on your thinking cap. Not the big one, but a smaller one

 

The matter in the universe came from the substance of the beginning entity. The energy came from that entity's potential energy which it had to have to be able to change. Potential energy means that that something will do something different than just sit there. To have this characteristic, let's say this entity is wound up somehow so that it has the potential to unwind. As this unwinding begins, change occurs. Change can be equated with time. At that time we have the beginnings of matter via the beginning entity's substance, We have energy via that entities relative motion and change, we have time via its changing, and we have space via a tiny vacuous void within this entity that was the result of its tiny unwinding change.

 

There are no other primary elements within the universe than : matter, energy, time, and space. Everything else can accordingly be made by the interaction of these primary elements. Please Weez, if you don't think you understand it all, ask questions. I have taught this stuff to Junior high school students who always asked additional questions if they wanted to learn more about it. Nearly all could explain it back on a test of their learning of "Elementary Science."

 

 

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, TABA said:

This - this clarity - this insight - this sublime ability to bring simplicity to the most obscure matter - this is why the Prof is a Super Moderator and the rest of us are not.  It’s not just the big “S” on his chest, you know.  

 

 

Poor George Reeves,

 

He supposedly committed suicide later on in his life.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

 

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'll leave it there, Weezer.  Are you happy with that?  If not or if you have any questions, please let me know.

.

Happy must have a slightly different meaning in England.  I wouldn't say I am happy with what you said, but I understand it.  Proceed, and I will just ignore the "42", whatever the heck that is.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

8 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

It's not just a shot Weez, It's an entire book and theory that's 367 pages long

 

I cannot handle 2 discussions at once.  Walter and I are on a roll, so wait until we finish.

[pantheory]

1 minute ago, Weezer said:

I cannot handle 2 discussions at once.  Walter and I are on a roll, so wait until we finish.

 

OK Weez, will do. And of course you don't have to continue the conversation unless you want to

[pantheory]

8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ain't none of y'all ever heard of "42"?

 

Nope, didn't recall it. Had to look it up, but now I vaguely remember '42.'

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+42&sca_esv=4fe896d42225783c&sxsrf=ACQVn09G-uT1m1fZ14NzFrvzTJwmrC2nIg%3A1709236136529&source=hp&ei=qN_gZarQHczOkPIP_5OFwAw&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZeDtuJ1yJjmwA-wgLP9tx5hhaJQECE0g&oq=meaning+of+42&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

Happy must have a slightly different meaning in England.  I wouldn't say I am happy with what you said, but I understand it.  Proceed, and I will just ignore the "42", whatever the heck that is.

 

 

Ok, thanks Weezer.

 

 

Right, so astronomers saw other galaxies receding from us and then had another thought.  'If these galaxies are further away from us today than they were yesterday then it logically follows that on the day before yesterday they must have been closer to us.'  Then they ran with this thought and extrapolated further and further back in time.  Back past the dinosaurs, back before the first life on Earth, back further than the formation of the solar system and so on as far as they could go. 

 

All the time the galaxies appear to be getting closer and closer to us.  But as we saw in my earlier post, that's just an observer effect.  In reality the galaxies would be getting closer and closer to any observer, located anywhere in the universe.  So the nett effect of this is that the galaxies are getting closer and closer together everywhere in the universe.  This means that the average density of the universe increases the further you go back in time.  If things get denser and you keep on increasing that density they also get hotter and hotter.  So the entire universe is heating up as you go back in time.

 

Can you see where this is going, Weezer?

 

Yep.  As the galaxies are squeezed more and more tightly together the density, energy and temperature of the universe shoots up and up, thousands and then millions and then billions of degrees.  Eventually things get so hot and dense and energetic that molecules and atoms and even the stuff inside atoms can't hold together.  It all becomes a uniform sea of fantastically hot and dense energy.  Just like the song.

 

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,

Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started — Wait...

The Earth began to cool,

The autotrophs began to drool,

Neanderthals developed tools,

We built a wall (we built the pyramids).

Math, science, history, unravelling the mystery

That all started with the Big Bang!

(Bang!)

 

This, in a very simplified way, was how scientists came up with the Big Bang theory.  By running the clock backwards and seeing what would happen.  Catch is, there eventually comes a time when energy levels are so high and densities are so high that science can't say what really is happening any more.  Math can't deal with it and all of our scientific models and theories break down.  The moment in time when this happens, the moment when we've run the clock back as far as our science will take us, when nothing makes sense any more is known as the Singularity. 

 

Now there's a LOT of confusion about what this singularity is. (More on that later.)

 

The Big Bang is usually shown as some kind of explosion where the singularity blows up and all the energy radiates out from a central point, just like a grenade or an H-bomb.  That would be true if the universe were a kind of sphere, with a centre and an edge.  This is what we usually see on tv, even in science documentaries.  But this exploding spherical universe is, in fact, not part of the Big Bang theory at all. 

 

There are reason why this is so Weezer, but I won't deal with those today.  Enough.  Again, please let me know if anything doesn't make sense here.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

I cannot handle 2 discussions at once.  Walter and I are on a roll, so wait until we finish.

 

This was put in the "Evolution Theory" thread following Weezer's posting there but thought it more precisely belonged here since the main point of it and question does not involve Biological Evolution:

 

Howdy again Weez,

 

"But, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without loosing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there."ut, couldn't the changes in the highlighted statement happen without losing the reproductive ability??  I don't see the connection there.

 

It depends on the theory we are discussing, In my own cosmological theory the unwinding ability is an integral part of all matter; it unwinds and rewinds. The meaning of this is simply that our world right now is in essence the same as it was in the beginning. There is this additional characteristic within it (presently unknown as being essential) that causes it to change; in matter they call it particle spin but presently cannot explain it. And yes, as far as reproduction goes, one small particle via unwinding becomes two smaller particles, becomes three even smaller particles etc. until there are long stings of these particles (with no more substance than the original particle had. This coiled spring-lke entity breaks after a certain number of unwindings, becoming two coils, then three coils etc. With this substance and its energy, matter is eventually created, having the continuous energy of its unwinding spin.

 

"And if these evolutional changes do happen, in millions of years we might look like extraterrestrial "grays"!!  Maybe there are some beings out there that are millions of years more advanced than us."

 

Here we are talking about billions and probably trillions of years for all of this to happen in my own theory. My own theory is a theory in physics however so it does not address life or its source or cause.

 

Maybe a statement is needed here to clarify that the scientific theory of Evolution where there is a mountain of evidence to support it. is a theory in biology totally unrelated to the evolution of the universe proposed by the Big Bang model of cosmology.

 

That is a different hypothesis. The logical problem can be explained by the Fermi Paradox. Why haven't we seen and have proof of extraterrestrial aliens as yet. Of course some, like yourself, may believe that we have already encountered them here on Earth. If we haven't however, then why not if there is so much time involved and so many countless billions of habitable planets in our galaxy? If we haven't encountered them, it could be because intelligent life to our extent may be an extremely improbable event. With the hundreds of billions of planets in this galaxy that could have produced life, if it has only happened on Earth and its vicinity, then that could explain why we have never seen other intelligent life in our galaxy, if in fact there isn't any other.

 

But our little galaxy is only one of quadrillions of other galaxies, with almost countless other habitable planets. So it seems to me that it would be impossible if intelligent life of some kind did not exist at least in another  galaxy. But since the distances to other galaxies is so great, maybe even the closest life would have almost impossible odds to contact us if they are not within our own galaxy.

 

Right now it is known that human intelligence has been going down since the 1960's and birth control. The smart have a better chance of breeding smarter kids, and those less intelligent have a better chance of producing less intelligent children. The not-so-smart are winning the breading contest on Earth.

 

As to evolution of life, it is not necessarily a forward progression of intelligence. It's the survival of the fittest involving the most proliferate and healthy breeders. So for the distant future we could not predict whether we will look different of not. With our present technology we could look the same  if we wanted to IMO. Roughly 1.5 million years ago Homo Erectus may not have looked that much different than we do today.

 

 

Turkana Boy, about 1.6M BC.

 

 

[pantheory]

My mistake Weez.

 

I was answering your questions about "where did it all come from" and my highlights here. But you were referring to your biological question and my highlights there, which did belong in the Evolution thread.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I am still with you Walter, so keep on going.