We came from nothing?

[philadiddle]

An explanation of how scientists "know" we came from nothing. Your thoughts? (If you're into science it's very interesting to watch, even though he makes a few jabs at religion.)

YouTube - 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

 

[Chesterton]

Your thoughts?

Why doth the heathen rage, and the people imagine something from nothing? Only important thing he had to say: "Falsifiable science will produce the wrong answer."

 

[philadiddle]

Why doth the heathen rage, and the people imagine something from nothing? Only important thing he had to say: "Falsifiable science will produce the wrong answer."

So you reject everything he says except for that one statement? If you don't trust what he says then why do you trust the one thing that confirms your beliefs? Confirmation bias?

 

[Chesterton]

If a person says 10 things and I agree with only 1 of the things, that's not confirmation bias. That just means the person said 9 wrong things.

Seriously I don't reject everything he said, though.

 

[alexross8]

The universe can't come from nothing.


There are galaxies that are coming closer to us.
There is no standard candle.
They are all different.
Nothing standard.

There is no constant expansion rate.
WOW WOW WOW!!
The science they use to say that is circularized .

When scientists get a wrong calculation , they try to find the real answer by denying their original calculation .
If it says it's right , try to see why it would say that.

The universe cannot be flat.
Think about it. If there is no energy at all , then there is nothing.
A flat universe constitutes absolute value = 0.
If a flat universe is 0 , then there can be nothing.
If there is something , then there is no flat universe.
But scientists believe in Flat universe , because it's the only thing besides "God" that seems logical.

The only other possibility would be that God created us.

 

[lucaspa]

An explanation of how scientists "know" we came from nothing. Your thoughts?

"Nothing" in this context means "no space, no time, no matter, no energy". The Big Bang is the beginning of all those.

There are books devoted to evidence supporting Big Bang and that Big Bang is the origin of spacetime, matter, and energy: the essential components of our universe. Here are a few places you can start looking at how scientists "know" this:

1. http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/acosmexp.html
2. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
3. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/315/5808/59?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=315&firstpage=59&resourcetype=HWCITScience article discussing summarizing present Cosmology -- Jan 2007

7. Lineweaver CH and Davis TM Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American 36-45 March 2005. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

2. PJE Peebles, DN Schramm, EL Turner, RG Kron, The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology. Nature, 352: 769-776, 29 Aug. 1991.
3. Barry Parker, The Vindication of the Big Bang, Breakthroughs and Barriers, Plenum Press, 1993.

 

[lucaspa]

There are galaxies that are coming closer to us.

Within our local group of galaxies, that is true. But that is relative motion. It has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe.

There is no standard candle.

Cepheid variables with the same period have the same intrinsic brightness. Supernovae have the same intrinsic brightness. That is what is meant by "standard candle". Trignonometry using the diameter of the earth's orbit as a baseline gives the distance to the nearer stars. These stars include Cepheid variables. Cepheid variables and the inverse square law give distances to further stars and galaxies, including supernovae. Supernovae give distances to even further galaxies. Those in turn give distance to the redshift, which is used for distances to even further galaxies and quasars.

There is no constant expansion rate.

As it turns out, somewhat true. The expansion rate is accelerating.

The universe cannot be flat.

"flat" here has a special meaning, not the meaning we take in 3 D geometry. See the article on Misconceptions of the Big Bang to see what "flat" means in terms of shape of the universe.

Think about it. If there is no energy at all , then there is nothing.

Not really. What we are talking about is net energy. Think of a business that takes in money and pays out bills. The two may balance each other and there is no net income. But there is income.

But scientists believe in Flat universe , because it's the only thing besides "God" that seems logical.

The shape of the universe has nothing to do with the existence of God. It has to do with the observations of the universe.

The only other possibility would be that God created us.

Not at all. The universe could have several different causes other than God. Again, the shape of the universe -- whether it is flat or not -- has nothing to do with the existence of God.

 

[alexross8]

Not really. What we are talking about is net energy. Think of a business that takes in money and pays out bills. The two may balance each other and there is no net income. But there is income.

The concept of a bill is debt.
There is a balance , but there are cheaters.

The balance of this universe doesn't exist , because there is no balance.
There are factors which make this universe uneven.

1 -2 -3 4
-1 2 3 -4

Those numbers balance eacother out .
However , there is indeed something in this universe.
There is no opposite , nor is there not nothing.

In Quantum physics , it creates a paradox.
If there is nothing , then there is still something.
We can conclude that something must be wrong.
Paradoxes do not exist.

The reason that I cannot go back in time within this universe , would be because it would change my present.
In that case , it makes a paradox.
Therefore , this paradox cannot be right.

So in quantum physics , I am sure the same thing would apply.
If something happens , it cannot not happen.
Therefore if we exist , anything that tells us we do not exist is wrong.

I've said this before , and I will say it again.
It always occurs to me in this cruel harsh world that others will never stop letting us down.
If there is something to be achieved , it will be achieved no matter what.
Given a motive , anyone will try to do anything just to fulfill that motive.
Say your motive was to be glorious , you must achieve glory.
To achieve glory , you must do something either significantly bad , or significantly good.

Most scientists have no moral objectivity , and would have the motive to lie to us for glory. Why do I say most scientists have no moral objectivity , you might ask?
Most scientists are atheists and believe in no higher power , therefore do not have an objective moral standard.

The most likely people to lie to us , would be the people that adhere to a subjective set of morals , which is more likely to be doctors or scientists , and other professions and nationalities .