If God created the physical universe,
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
Daylight63
Verified User
AWWwww, no one picked up Hume's snail-trail of dribble. Now Hume can't tell us how much they hate religion.
Gosh.
Gosh.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
he was watching porn.
tee heee heee
Yakuda
Verified User
Dumb and dumber^^^^^
bye jerkoff
Yakuda
Verified User
At least I'm not a useless evil piece of shit.
serenity
Verified User
when God created the universe in 6 days why do years have 52 weeks of same 7 days, 365 days for 3 years and 366 every 4th when living is a series parallel time adapting each rotation ancestors never are duplicated chromosomes in the same ancestors again in the 5 basic ancestral lineages native to this atmosphere so far having 5 generation gaps forward one great great grandchild at a a time replacing the 30 lifetimes of it's previous breeding 4 generation gaps?
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
With beer and a pizza, all of which God invented!
Scott
Verified User
There's a new theory that it wasn't so much a 'big bang' as a 'big bounce'. In other words, that the universe is a bit like a heart, expanding, contracting and then expanding again. A Scientific American article I was able to see after giving my email address:
Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth
Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects
Another article on the same subject that requires no email address:
Did the Universe Bounce, Not Bang? The Big Bounce Theory Explained!
Explore the Big Bounce: a mind-bending alternative to the Big Bang! Learn how a cyclic universe might solve cosmic mysteries. FreeAstroScience explain
Yakuda
Verified User
What was it bouncing off?There's a new theory that it wasn't so much a 'big bang' as a 'big bounce'. In other words, that the universe is a bit like a heart, expanding, contracting and then expanding again. A Scientific American article I was able to see after giving my email address:
Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth
Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effectswww.scientificamerican.com
Another article on the same subject that requires no email address:
Did the Universe Bounce, Not Bang? The Big Bounce Theory Explained!
Explore the Big Bounce: a mind-bending alternative to the Big Bang! Learn how a cyclic universe might solve cosmic mysteries. FreeAstroScience explainwww.freeastroscience.com
Scott
Verified User
Itself, it seems. I think of it a bit like a heartbeat, expanding and contracting.
Yakuda
Verified User
I see. So not at all like you bouncing
Scott
Verified User
Well, it's the definition cosmologists seem to have settled on, but I think it's good to hear them elaborate on what they mean. Apparently, they've recently been going for a lung metaphor rather than the heart, makes me think of breathing. Here's the introduction from an article published in 2018:
**
Humans have always entertained two basic theories about the origin of the universe. “In one of them, the universe emerges in a single instant of creation (as in the Jewish-Christian and the Brazilian Carajás cosmogonies),” the cosmologists Mario Novello and Santiago Perez-Bergliaffa noted in 2008(opens a new tab). In the other, “the universe is eternal, consisting of an infinite series of cycles (as in the cosmogonies of the Babylonians and Egyptians).” The division in modern cosmology “somehow parallels that of the cosmogonic myths,” Novello and Perez-Bergliaffa wrote.
In recent decades, it hasn’t seemed like much of a contest. The Big Bang theory, standard stuff of textbooks and television shows, enjoys strong support among today’s cosmologists. The rival eternal-universe picture had the edge a century ago, but it lost ground as astronomers observed that the cosmos is expanding and that it was small and simple about 14 billion years ago. In the most popular modern version of the theory, the Big Bang began with an episode called “cosmic inflation” — a burst of exponential expansion during which an infinitesimal speck of space-time ballooned into a smooth, flat, macroscopic cosmos, which expanded more gently thereafter.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Quanta-93-Big-Bounce.mp3
With a single initial ingredient (the “inflaton field”), inflationary models reproduce many broad-brush features of the cosmos today. But as an origin story, inflation is lacking; it raises questions about what preceded it and where that initial, inflaton-laden speck came from. Undeterred, many theorists think the inflaton field must fit naturally into a more complete, though still unknown, theory of time’s origin.
But in the past few years, a growing number of cosmologists have cautiously revisited the alternative. They say the Big Bang might instead have been a Big Bounce. Some cosmologists favor a picture in which the universe expands and contracts cyclically like a lung, bouncing each time it shrinks to a certain size, while others propose that the cosmos only bounced once — that it had been contracting, before the bounce, since the infinite past, and that it will expand forever after. In either model, time continues into the past and future without end.
With modern science, there’s hope of settling this ancient debate. In the years ahead, telescopes could find definitive evidence for cosmic inflation. During the primordial growth spurt — if it happened — quantum ripples in the fabric of space-time would have become stretched and later imprinted as subtle swirls in the polarization of ancient light called the cosmic microwave background. Current and future telescope experiments are hunting for these swirls. If they aren’t seen in the next couple of decades, this won’t entirely disprove inflation (the telltale swirls could simply be too faint to make out), but it will strengthen the case for bounce cosmology, which doesn’t predict the swirl pattern.
Already, several groups are making progress at once. Most significantly, in the last year, physicists have come up with two new ways that bounces could conceivably occur. One of the models(opens a new tab), described in a paper that will appear in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, comes from Anna Ijjas(opens a new tab) of Columbia University, extending earlier work with her former adviser, the Princeton professor and high-profile bounce cosmologist Paul Steinhardt(opens a new tab). More surprisingly, the other new bounce solution(opens a new tab), accepted for publication in Physical Review D, was proposed by Peter Graham(opens a new tab), David Kaplan(opens a new tab) and Surjeet Rajendran(opens a new tab), a well-known trio of collaborators who mainly focus on particle physics questions and have no previous connection to the bounce cosmology community. It’s a noteworthy development in a field that’s highly polarized on the bang vs. bounce question.
**
Full article:
How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back | Quanta Magazine
Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand. The new work resuscitates an old idea that directly challenges the Big Bang theory of cosmic…
www.quantamagazine.org
Yakuda
Verified User
It still leaves all the important questions unanswered though doesn't it? What makes it bounce? Or expand and contract? What made it first bounce or expand and contract? It's just another explanation for the same phenomenon but doesn't tell is much of anything.Well, it's the definition cosmologists seem to have settled on, but I think it's good to hear them elaborate on what they mean. Apparently, they've recently been going for a lung metaphor rather than the heart, makes me think of breathing. Here's the introduction from an article published in 2018:
**
Humans have always entertained two basic theories about the origin of the universe. “In one of them, the universe emerges in a single instant of creation (as in the Jewish-Christian and the Brazilian Carajás cosmogonies),” the cosmologists Mario Novello and Santiago Perez-Bergliaffa noted in 2008(opens a new tab). In the other, “the universe is eternal, consisting of an infinite series of cycles (as in the cosmogonies of the Babylonians and Egyptians).” The division in modern cosmology “somehow parallels that of the cosmogonic myths,” Novello and Perez-Bergliaffa wrote.
In recent decades, it hasn’t seemed like much of a contest. The Big Bang theory, standard stuff of textbooks and television shows, enjoys strong support among today’s cosmologists. The rival eternal-universe picture had the edge a century ago, but it lost ground as astronomers observed that the cosmos is expanding and that it was small and simple about 14 billion years ago. In the most popular modern version of the theory, the Big Bang began with an episode called “cosmic inflation” — a burst of exponential expansion during which an infinitesimal speck of space-time ballooned into a smooth, flat, macroscopic cosmos, which expanded more gently thereafter.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Quanta-93-Big-Bounce.mp3
With a single initial ingredient (the “inflaton field”), inflationary models reproduce many broad-brush features of the cosmos today. But as an origin story, inflation is lacking; it raises questions about what preceded it and where that initial, inflaton-laden speck came from. Undeterred, many theorists think the inflaton field must fit naturally into a more complete, though still unknown, theory of time’s origin.
But in the past few years, a growing number of cosmologists have cautiously revisited the alternative. They say the Big Bang might instead have been a Big Bounce. Some cosmologists favor a picture in which the universe expands and contracts cyclically like a lung, bouncing each time it shrinks to a certain size, while others propose that the cosmos only bounced once — that it had been contracting, before the bounce, since the infinite past, and that it will expand forever after. In either model, time continues into the past and future without end.
With modern science, there’s hope of settling this ancient debate. In the years ahead, telescopes could find definitive evidence for cosmic inflation. During the primordial growth spurt — if it happened — quantum ripples in the fabric of space-time would have become stretched and later imprinted as subtle swirls in the polarization of ancient light called the cosmic microwave background. Current and future telescope experiments are hunting for these swirls. If they aren’t seen in the next couple of decades, this won’t entirely disprove inflation (the telltale swirls could simply be too faint to make out), but it will strengthen the case for bounce cosmology, which doesn’t predict the swirl pattern.
Already, several groups are making progress at once. Most significantly, in the last year, physicists have come up with two new ways that bounces could conceivably occur. One of the models(opens a new tab), described in a paper that will appear in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, comes from Anna Ijjas(opens a new tab) of Columbia University, extending earlier work with her former adviser, the Princeton professor and high-profile bounce cosmologist Paul Steinhardt(opens a new tab). More surprisingly, the other new bounce solution(opens a new tab), accepted for publication in Physical Review D, was proposed by Peter Graham(opens a new tab), David Kaplan(opens a new tab) and Surjeet Rajendran(opens a new tab), a well-known trio of collaborators who mainly focus on particle physics questions and have no previous connection to the bounce cosmology community. It’s a noteworthy development in a field that’s highly polarized on the bang vs. bounce question.
**
Full article:
How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back | Quanta Magazine
Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand. The new work resuscitates an old idea that directly challenges the Big Bang theory of cosmic…
Scott
Verified User
Any good theory needs to be backed up by observations. They're working on that part. You seem to be saying that it still leaves much left unanswered and I'd certainly agree to that.
Yakuda
Verified User
Yes that's what im saying. It's a bang of a bounce or expansion/contraction and maybe the next theory will be it's a flutter. Just different ways to describe the same phenomenon but we don't know anymore than we did before. This is what passes for wisdom these days, theories they don't really tell us anything new. I stopped listening to this stuff long ago
Scott
Verified User
Scientific theories are made to explain things we observe. That's what this theory attempts to do. There are ofcourse many other things that we still don't understand, but I applaud true scientists efforts to try to explain what we see.
Yakuda
Verified User
I Get it but whether the universe started with a bang of a bounce is just explaining the same thing just in a different way. I wish they'd spend their time on something useful like getting rid of cancer.