The Genesis Hypothesis

dleviwing · **The Genesis Hypothesis -** 10-07-2005, 01:23 PM

The Genesis Hypothesis

At one time we were able to say that the universe was everything that existed. Now we need to refine this image such to say "the Cosmos represents everything that exists". Our universe is but one of many within the infinity of the Cosmos. Having stated this, let's consider some Genesis hypotheses.

The Standard Model:

This standard model describes our universe as having expanded from a “singularity”; a point-like region of space (or in space) that was supersaturated with energy and formed an ultra-hot ultra-dense medium in which the gravity was so strong that it curved space back on itself in a distance of about 10^-36 cm. As the universe became larger it cooled from its ultra-dense ultra-hot origins. The fundamental interactions sorted themselves out into the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces. The resulting mixed soup of matter, neutrinos, and radiation, cooled and separated, and the components went their separate ways. The radiation component, we still see today as the cosmic microwave background. The matter congealed into dust clumps that became galaxies. Stars formed, exploded in supernova violence, and formed again, repeatedly recycling matter into heavier elements. The result is what we call the Big Bang.

To clarify this inflation model further, we must also accept the notion that nothing existed prior to this event. By nothing, science means that there was not a place for the universe to expand into. No empty void and no existence of any kind. As a realist, I have a problem with the something from nothing scenario.

There are other aspects of this scenario that tend to irritate the right side of our brain. Those who have been through the rigors of Thermal Dynamics tend to have objections as to the use of the term "ultra-hot". Temperature is often related to "degree of freedom" of an object. The universe object could not have had any significant degree of freedom to warrant such an extreme temperature; so what invoked the rapid rise in temperature? Where is the real physical machinery of cause-and-effect?

One should note however, that the expansion picture is exceptionally accurate for explaining astrological observations. Rather than view the Big Bang as an explosion, expanse describes it as something like raisin bread dough (space) as it rises and carries the raisins (galaxies) along as the dough swells up. If we think of the dough as being the density of space, then we can say that as the universe cools, the spatial density between the galaxies decreases as they continue to move away from each other. An article in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American provides excellent description of the Big Bang expansion.

The "Big Bang" scenario, defined by the quantum theory, provides an interesting feature. If inflation occurred at the rate suggested by quantum theory, then "Absolute motion" would need to be 2x10^20 meters per second. This is about 6.5x10^11 times faster than our measured velocity of light in a vacuum. It would appear that the speed of light is somehow related to spatial density of the vacuum.

mkirkpatrick · 01:16 PM

Just a brief few lines David,to say that I have read your post the Genesis Hypothesis,and I too am a realist,justlike yourself,and have a problem with something coming from nothing.I enjoyed your contribution,made a lot of sense,I notice that also you think for yourself,and have the courage of your convictions to speak out when you think it needs doing.

Keep up the posts,with Guille on holiday,it can get lonely out there.

kindest regards.michael.

dleviwing · 10-07-2005, 06:18 PM

Michael;
I appreciate the comment mate. This thread is also for voicing opinions and observations of others if you wish to have a go-at-it.
Actually I don't accept the concept that there had to be a beginning. What's wrong with existence being eternal?
Thanks;
Dave

Guille · 01:19 PM

Quote:

What's wrong with existence being eternal?

The fact itself that eternity doesn't exist, and thus, it cannot be a property of any existing thing.

dleviwing · 01:20 PM

Quote:

The fact itself that eternity doesn't exist, and thus, it cannot be a property of any existing thing.

Guille;
There is a high probability that you are wrong.

I don't know of anyone who can present FACTUAL evidence of either belief; Do you?

Guille · 10-09-2005, 06:07 AM

Dave,

I know start understanding that you are the kidn of person that fight and fights to acheive a thought that brakes all the other knwoledges, and then by converting thsi thought into a knwoledge, is oblighting the others to brake it, but doesn't accept it...lol

Look around you. Do you see anything eternal? Either spatial or temporal eternity? NO. And, as we are humans, and we are doing science (or pretend to do so), we must study what we perceive, because thoughts about things that are not part of our perception, are, not useless thoughts, but, thoughts about things that are not subject to us.

dleviwing · 10-09-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Look around you. Do you see anything eternal?

Guille;
You shouldn't presume my answer to your question.
My answer is: Yes, everything. It is quite likely that what you see will not maintain the same form, but the substance has always existed and will always continue to exist.

Like any hypothesis of this type of philosophy, I see no hope of proof; thus it comes down to what you are willing to believe. Since it cannot be measured or proven, it is of little use to science and falls in the same category as "infinity".

You have my permission to adopt my methods whenever you wish Guillermo.

Guille · 10-09-2005, 02:05 PM

Thanks for your invitation of adopting your methods but no: I don't think they match with my way of thinking.

I think I know understand why I don't believe in the hypothetical concept of eternity (as well as those of infinity, perfection, absolute truths...etz): it is because I don't like believing things that are impossible to be proved. And, as proof is what is needed to built up knowledge, I don't see any use in believing in something that doesn't have to do with the construction of the mind.

dleviwing · **Entropy and the Big Bang -** 10-23-2005, 03:01 PM

Has anyone realized that the randomized chaotic motions of the wave functions of the universe and of subatomic particles and structures, is the disorder of entropy that everyone seems to place so much emphasis on.
I find it easier to view this as a conversion of uniform motion to wave function at the beginning (increasing entropy). The universe has been converting this wave function chaos back to uniform motion (decreasing entropy) ever since. The only thing is that matter will never return to the single condensed object as it was before the BB.

mkirkpatrick · **Singularity convergent point for out-verse. -** 10-23-2005, 07:49 PM

If as it seems that this universe began its outworking from a singularity a point-in No-where!Which leads us to discover the Somewhere where we are now,what
if the singularity is the birthing mother of Universes,prehaps the opposite like anti-matter,as has been talked about so often.It would appear that the reason
there are so many black holes and there indivisible relatives the singularity,is because they act as a Natural-safety valve for each segment of the system that they are manifest in,each balances the other and the singularity acts rather like a bouncer in a night-club,instead of keeping the riff-raff out of the club though,it dis-allows anti-matter,entrance into our universe,and visa-versa.

The singularity is like a dimensional doorway,that not too many of us will ever walk through,on a nice spring-morning!

kind regards michael.