Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)
Dave Gaban errancy@infidels.org
Sat, 29 May 1999 19:37:10 -0700 (00928049830, 3750A456.4B04@slip.net)
Derek Pomery wrote:
>
> > Terry wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > TERRY
> > > Try to understand this Derek, "your" own Scientist have resonably
> > > established that the Universe DOES have a beginning, <snip>
>
> DEREK
> "Your" Scientists eh?
> At any rate, all that has been established is that between18 and 20
> billion years ago, all matter in the universe was together. Beyond that,
> nothing has been established. Nice try though. Certainly, if you refer
> to our universe as that current configuration than that has been an
> established fact. As Dave explains below, the question is what is behind
> that event of 20 billion years ago. And that cannot be established.
> Saying, "a god" is a non-answer.
>
> > Dave G.
> > Lets try to put this into perspective. The Universe includes both the
> > vacuum of space and the interspersed matter found in various forms.
> >
> > If you separate the matter from the vacuum of space, and collect all the
> > matter
> > in one area (a collapsed universe), you no longer have "a Universe." I
> > don't even
> > know if a specific name exists for this mass of matter, but for the
> > purpose of this post I'll call it a protouniverse.
> > If the matter contained in this protouniverse has been reduced to its
> > most minute
> > subatomic form, then after a "big bang" (or big band, depending on who
> > sends the post :>) these subatomic particles eventually merge to form
> > the matter contained within an atom. These atoms attract together to
> > form specific types molecules. Based on the rate of radiometric decay
> > of these elements, one could determine an approximate age of the now
> > existing universe.
>
> DEREK
> Actually, the Hubble constant determines the age of the Universe.
> Currently estimated at 100Km/s/megaparsec of distance from the Earth.
>
> > Therefore, if matter in its most minute subatomic form has always
> > existed, and the void of space has always existed, then it would be
> > reasonable to state that matter
> > has always existed, but the universe has a beginning and an end.
>
> DEREK
> No, if matter has always existed, then space, which is given shape by
> matter has always existed, and the Universe, which is the sum of all this,
> has always existed. However, the term universe is one of those vague
> ones, as any dictionary shows.
Dave G.
I agree. The definition of universe is way too vague. As per my
response
to DF, would it be reasonable to theorize that space as we know it, the
vacuum
and relatively matter void area of space between congregations of matter
(planets/suns/asteroids,etc) only exists in its present form after an
expansion
of matter, but that it then collapses with the universe in the end?
>
> > I believe this universe will eventually collapse, detonate again and a
> > new universe will form from that big bang. I also believe this has
> > likely been occurring from infinity and will continue to occur into
> > infinity.
> >
> > This is a very simplified example of the "matter has always existed but
> > universes have a beginning theory". For those who are up on this stuff
> > I realize my example is crude, but do I have the gist of the theory?
>
> DEREK
> Yes. And it is hardly the only alternative as one of "Our Scientists"
> Stephen Hawking, has proposed many others.