Did the universe have a beginning?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
What we see (or percieve) and wht there really is, is two different things. Our senses are not perfect about things we don't need to know. Like radioactivity, microscopic and universal size scales, etc. So we have a good experience about N=3 and T=1. But after the string theoreticans invented more spatial dimensions, we need to think again.

Say that we ...[text shortened]... ould have a nice discussion over a nice and cold bear some night, if we get the chance! 🙂

Cold beer (I would get a Kwak for starters) and nice conversation sounds fine; come in Athens and we 'll fix it, sure thing!

Space alone cannot have independent existence from Time -any such philosophical attempt cannot be conceived of as separate and therefore it cannot be described without causing contradictions. However SpaceTime is not a "method of understanding" but a process that is spontaneous and part of our own inner nature. This is the reason why the suspension of SpaceTime is easily achieved by means of meditation.

Anyway, I consider "Space" to its maximum as "universe" and "Space" to its minimum as the point singularity. This way I see no contradictions when I assume that SpaceTime cannot be separated, but I really want to hear comments regarding this issue by you, KazetNagorra, Deep Thought, twhitehead, clearlight, Palynka, Bosse de Nage, Scriabin, barr, vistesd and Mr. Hamilton amongst else😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is no proof that there was a beginning of time. We simply do not know enough to make the call.

but if there was a provable begining of time , what tense would it be in........haha

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sir Issac Newton, the eminent scientist also had a profound belief in God, are you saying he was also stupid,

Two things:

1 - You're being highly anachronistic.
2 - I'd certainly bet that the God Newton believed is very different from the one you believe. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

Edit: and answering the question, scientifically speaking, no one knows.

Originally posted by znsho
I am not a physicist / astronomner, but one possible problem, I think, with Big Bang theory is that it assumes that the laws of physics remained the same throughout the whole time. Is, though, that a reasonable assumption?

João Magueijo, and some other people, are doing some work in the possibility of the laws of physics changing with time. It is a neat subject, if you ask me, even if they are proven wrong.

As you correctly noted the constancy of the laws of Nature is just a working hypothesis. But there are very good reasons to do so. an easy one to understand: in physics when he state that something changes we have to show the way how it changes, normally in the the form of a differential equation. But if we say that laws of physics change (either in time and in space) what is the law that govern that change?? This is a big question and we just normally side step it. If someone along the road come with this kind of meta law(s) and proves that the assumption of the constancy of the laws of Physics leads to false results than we have ourselves a new playground.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17200
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf
I once read a very good article of Magueijo on this issue but I can't seem to find it now... 😞

And references therein.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Two things:

1 - You're being highly anachronistic.
2 - I'd certainly bet that the God Newton believed is very different from the one you believe. Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

Edit: and answering the question, scientifically speaking, no one knows.

no i don't believe in the holy trinity, and you don't know what i have reason to believe, therefore its impossible for you to draw any comparisons, therefore i suggest you shut up, this is the science forum, if you want to talk about spirituality, go to the spirituality forum, i promised Fabian that i would keep the two separate, but it seems you people are intent on dragging it into the discussion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... this is the science forum, if you want to talk about spirituality, go to the spirituality forum, i promised Fabian that i would keep the two separate, but it seems you people are intent on dragging it into the discussion.

Thank you, Robbie.

When talking science (as the beginning of unviverse in a scientific meaning, we keep it in Science Forum. When talking of the creation in a spiritual meaning, we keep it in Spiritual Forum.

Religion and Science cannot ever mix.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i don't believe in the holy trinity, and you don't know what i have reason to believe, therefore its impossible for you to draw any comparisons, therefore i suggest you shut up, this is the science forum, if you want to talk about spirituality, go to the spirituality forum, i promised Fabian that i would keep the two separate, but it seems you people are intent on dragging it into the discussion.

😕

Why so agressive?

but it seems you people are intent on dragging it into the discussion.
Who are you people and what is the discussion? I really don't know where this is coming from... 😕

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Religion and Science cannot ever mix.

Wrong.

Originally posted by adam warlock
😕

Why so agressive?

[b]but it seems you people are intent on dragging it into the discussion.
Who are you people and what is the discussion? I really don't know where this is coming from... 😕[/b]

sorry if the tone was aggressive, i just been watching Madagascar 2, and i like the little Lema King Julian, especially the way he tells Maurice to 'shut up', nothing personal 🙂

Originally posted by adam warlock
Wrong.

yeah, at one point they were one and the same.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Wrong.

Religion and science never mix.

I've motivated my standpoint numerous times, and you only say 'wrong' without any thought. Quite weak don't you think?

Try to prove the existance of god scientifically.
Try to change an outcome of a scientific experiment by prayers.

See? Religion and science never mix.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Religion and science never mix.

I've motivated my standpoint numerous times, and you only say 'wrong' without any thought. Quite weak don't you think?

Try to prove the existance of god scientifically.
Try to change an outcome of a scientific experiment by prayers.

See? Religion and science never mix.

I've motivated my standpoint numerous times, and you only say 'wrong' without any thought. Quite weak don't you think?
Quite weak indeed. But the reasons of why religion and science do mix are very well known. I'd urge you to look them up.

Try to prove the existance of god scientifically.
Try to change an outcome of a scientific experiment by prayers.
Very right indeed. And I think that anyone with half a brain would know that, as I also hope that anyone with half a brain would know that those arguments you present have nothing to do whatsoever with the question of religion and science mixing up.

By the way: who died and made the enforcer of the Science and Spirituality forum?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry if the tone was aggressive, i just been watching Madagascar 2, and i like the little Lema King Julian, especially the way he tells Maurice to 'shut up', nothing personal 🙂

😕

Are you interested in knowing why your comment was anachronistic and why I said that the God Newton belied is most certainly different from the one you believe?

Originally posted by adam warlock
I've motivated my standpoint numerous times, and you only say 'wrong' without any thought. Quite weak don't you think?
Quite weak indeed. But the reasons of why religion and science do mix are very well known. I'd urge you to look them up.

Try to prove the existance of god scientifically.
Try to change an outcome of a scientific ex ng up.

By the way: who died and made the enforcer of the Science and Spirituality forum?

Skip the jargon of "anyone with half a brain would know", it just make you seem unserious. Retoric tricks doesn't prove you're right, nor wrong.

I gave you example why religion cannot use scientific methods, and why science cannot use religious methods. You don't argue against the examples, you au contraire agree with them. Yet you think I'm wrong. I don't get it.

"who died and made the enforcer of the Science and Spirituality forum?"
I don't know, you tell me?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Skip the jargon of "anyone with half a brain would know", it just make you seem unserious. Retoric tricks doesn't prove you're right, nor wrong.

I gave you example why religion cannot use scientific methods, and why science cannot use religious methods. You don't argue against the examples, you au contraire agree with them. Yet you think I'm wrong. I d ...[text shortened]... made the enforcer of the Science and Spirituality forum?"
I don't know, you tell me?

I gave you example why religion cannot use scientific methods, and why science cannot use religious methods.
That has nothing to do with the question of the mixing between science and religion. That's why I agree with your arguments but don't agree with your conclusion.

People that make science aren't robots and the idea of absolute objectivity that you are trying to push about scientists is wrong. If you want I can provide you with a case study, but only if you promise that you'll do some homework and study this question a little more deeper.




"who died and made the enforcer of the Science and Spirituality forum?"
I don't know, you tell me?
If I knew I wouldn't ask. But that tone of yours that wants to decide what's written here and on the spirituality forum certainly is was too authoritarian for me.