Why does the Universe need a beginning


Poilu Membre 47 messages
Forumeur balbutiant‚ 45ans
Posté(e)

Alright, I know some specific theories like the Big Bang base themselves largely in evidence like the Hubble Redshift, but there's a sense that there's more to the decision than just taking evidence and following it to an inevitable conclusion.

People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning.

My question is why? Why can't it be enough to just accept that it always existed?

Is it sort of an application of the concept of scale? We know the Earth didn't always exist, nor the Sun, and so ..... maybe some people just like to take that logic all the way to the universe itself?

I ask because I just don't share this feeling. I'm trying to understand it, so maybe if I can get inside the heads of people who feel this way... maybe I might even come to agree. Who knows?

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Annonces
Maintenant

Messages recommandés

Blablateur Membre+ 7 069 messages
Chronophage boulimique‚ 45ans
Posté(e)

Et nous ne sommes même pas un Quanta de lumière, relativement parlant nous ne sommes q'une chose parmi le reste et ce qui nous dépasse... Et bien plus encore.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
I_Love_Myself Membre+ 7 363 messages
Vendeur de rêve‚ 28ans
Posté(e)

Because human beeing can't accept to don't know everything

Oh pitin c'est un anglais :snif:

L'Homme cherche à savoir le "commencement" car il ne pas pas imaginer (ou accepter) qu'il y est quelque chose qui le dépasse, qu'il ne peut pas comprendre, une question à laquelle il n'aura jamais réponse.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Poilu Membre 47 messages
Forumeur balbutiant‚ 45ans
Posté(e)

:snif:

Si nous nous mettions à l'echelle par rapport à notre planète: même notre galaxie serait invisible

Because human beeing can't accept to don't know everything

Oh pitin c'est un anglais :snif:

L'Homme cherche à savoir le "commencement" car il ne pas pas imaginer (ou accepter) qu'il y est quelque chose qui le dépasse, qu'il ne peut pas comprendre, une question à laquelle il n'aura jamais réponse.

Sure: but I just don't fully trust people to look at the concept of "entropy" objectively sometimes. Suppose you put a system in the most disordered state you can imagine. Left to itself, I suspect that system might begin to become more orderly instead of less. For me, the third law is replaced by a belief that all systems seek a certain amount of order/disorder. A balance.

Look at the way nuclear physics work. You can split an atom and get energy if it's larger than Nickel or Iron. You can fuse it if it's smaller. We have this arbitrary size of atom that doesn't yield energy no matter what you do to it. So, it's not always about splitting or fusing. I think nature is full of such situations.

Basically, if you believe the 3rd law adamantly, then you have no choice but to utterly reject the theory of evolution as being a contradiction of the laws of nature, because it would represent an example of a situation where lesser order moved spontaneously toward greater order.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Invité seth rotten
Invité seth rotten Invités 0 message
Posté(e)

I believe that there is no end and no beginning. Things just exist. Because if you say : "there is a 0 point, where everything began" (the big bang, the creation), I ask : "and before, there was what ?"

I suppose that the big bang existed.. But what before ? I think that the thing that existed before existed for an infinite time.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Blablateur Membre+ 7 069 messages
Chronophage boulimique‚ 45ans
Posté(e)

Ce n'est qu'un pet! :snif:

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Invité seth rotten
Invité seth rotten Invités 0 message
Posté(e)

Que j'aime cette idée de comparer l'univers à une flatulence :snif:

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
DivideByZero Membre 5 messages
Baby Forumeur‚ 37ans
Posté(e)
Alright, I know some specific theories like the Big Bang base themselves largely in evidence like the Hubble Redshift, but there's a sense that there's more to the decision than just taking evidence and following it to an inevitable conclusion.

People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning.

My question is why? Why can't it be enough to just accept that it always existed?

Is it sort of an application of the concept of scale? We know the Earth didn't always exist, nor the Sun, and so ..... maybe some people just like to take that logic all the way to the universe itself?

I ask because I just don't share this feeling. I'm trying to understand it, so maybe if I can get inside the heads of people who feel this way... maybe I might even come to agree. Who knows?

Man sees everthing as having a begining and an end, he tries to make everything black and white, he cannot understand that these are only words he makes and thus when questions like "when does life begin" come up he has no answer because it does not conform to his belief that everything has a begining and an end, whereas in reality there is no begining and no end merely transitional stages. An embryo is a transitional stage between a pile of scattered materials and a life, same for aeroplanes ships etc.

In the same way, I believe the universe had no begining it will have no end, the big bang was a transitional phase which led to what we have now, but what it came from or how it came from it we do not know

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Blablateur Membre+ 7 069 messages
Chronophage boulimique‚ 45ans
Posté(e)

Effectivement Seth! :snif: D'autant plus que derrière et au delà de cette flatulence, l'image est d'autant plus agréable et intéressante! Si on considère que le Big Bang est une flatulence, moi je pause la question pour faire chier le monde : Vi mais c'est qui ka péter!? :snif:

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Invité seth rotten
Invité seth rotten Invités 0 message
Posté(e)

C'est moi :snif:

@DivideByZero :

I'm ok with that. "Beginning" and "End" only take fear away from our hearts (or it is supposed to...) but in the real life they only exists as "concept". As I believe that life is the couscious transitional phase of the whole concept of "being" and "non-being", big bang is the beginning of the transitionnal phase of the universe where it has the physical existence we can see. What was before is certainly out of our possibilities of understanding (and even of our capacity of conception), and does not have a real interest anyway.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Flo69390 Membre 27 messages
Forumeur balbutiant‚
Posté(e)

You say "People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning." and I agree with you.

It's funny, I am reading a book in which the author pretend that there's no such things as Past/Present/Future. These are just "illusions", "false perception" or I would say : "human perception of things in general".

Why? Simply because we are born, we live, and we know that we are going to die. We are always thinking about Begining and End, whatever happens.

So, we try understand the Universe by applying this false assumption : Time is absolute (which is false and Einstein proved it). Ergo, we think that, like us, the Universe was once born, is living right now, and cosmologist are trying to foresee the fate of our Universe.

So I would say that the Universe is omnitemporal.

In matter of space, the same reasoning applies as well : the Universe is omnispatial.

Modifié par Flo69390

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Neutrino Membre 24 messages
Forumeur balbutiant‚
Posté(e)
Alright, I know some specific theories like the Big Bang base themselves largely in evidence like the Hubble Redshift, but there's a sense that there's more to the decision than just taking evidence and following it to an inevitable conclusion.

People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning.

My question is why? Why can't it be enough to just accept that it always existed?

Is it sort of an application of the concept of scale? We know the Earth didn't always exist, nor the Sun, and so ..... maybe some people just like to take that logic all the way to the universe itself?

I ask because I just don't share this feeling. I'm trying to understand it, so maybe if I can get inside the heads of people who feel this way... maybe I might even come to agree. Who knows?

Je pense que le problème que vous rencontrez des s'agit de la deuxième loi de la thermodynamique. L'univers ne peut pas juste avoir toujours existé, car il aurait vétustes et arriver à un équilibre thermique. Je suis sûr que cela a été mis en place auparavant. Pour une raison quelconque, vous ne l'aimez pas.

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
kyrilluk Membre 7 507 messages
Anarchiste épistémologique‚ 43ans
Posté(e)
Alright, I know some specific theories like the Big Bang base themselves largely in evidence like the Hubble Redshift, but there's a sense that there's more to the decision than just taking evidence and following it to an inevitable conclusion.

People seem to feel, on some level, that there must be a first event, or that the universe must have a beginning.

My question is why? Why can't it be enough to just accept that it always existed?

Is it sort of an application of the concept of scale? We know the Earth didn't always exist, nor the Sun, and so ..... maybe some people just like to take that logic all the way to the universe itself?

I ask because I just don't share this feeling. I'm trying to understand it, so maybe if I can get inside the heads of people who feel this way... maybe I might even come to agree. Who knows?

The issue that you have is that you assume that scientists which are actually working in the field of cosmology base their conclusion on their "feeling" the way you do. This is so far from the truth!

Actually, for many years, there have been a proper "battle" between those who believed in a static universe, the way you believe ("always been there..always will be"), and those who believed in the Big-Bang theory. If now all mainstream scientist have discarded any static models such as the steady state universe, this is not because it suit them, but because the Big-Bang theory have been able to predict a lot of phenomena which disprove any steady state universe theory.

Among them, not only the redshift, but also the cosmic microwave background radiation, the isotropy of the universe, the observed helium and deuterium abundances, the age of the universe, etc...

The Big-Bang theory grew out of the accumulation of successful predictions and evidencs gathered from both theorical and observational research. Not from "feeling" as does your belief in a static "always been there" universe... :snif:

Modifié par kyrilluk

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Eileen68 Membre 65 messages
Forumeur en herbe‚
Posté(e)

Voyons. On en sait rien et on en saura jamais rien. Faisons comme tous nos ancêtres : "c'est Dieu".

RRhhoo non je rigole 'me fusillez pas :snif::snif:

Partager ce message


Lien à poster
Partager sur d’autres sites
Annonces
Maintenant

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant