Eternal and Infinite Physical existence?

[shunyadragon]

Well first, there is no evidence that there is more to our physical universe - unless you include dark matter/energy, which no one understands. Second, the idea that these circular patterns were the result of the universe being bumped by another universe is just made up. Who predicted that this would be the result of such a collision before they observed it?

Yes, there is evidence that there is more to existence than just our universe, but because of your strong traditional theist bias you reject the possibility. You are clear posing your questions from a skeptical layman's perspective with a traditional theist agenda. Reread my post and the article, I emphasized and so did the article that we are talking about possibilities based on the evidence, and I gave alternatives.

That makes no since at all. If existence is eternal then there would be no need for God to create it.

Whether our the nature of existence including our physical existence is infinite and eternal, or finite and temporal would not determine whether there is a need for God to be a creator. I doubt whether your criteria for the need of a Creator would determine God's criteria as a Creator. have given a possibility in the past, and that is Creation is a mirror image of God's intent for existence, and it would exist eternally with God.

Besides, not the subject of the thread.

[seer]

Yes, there is evidence that there is more to existence than just our universe, but because of your strong traditional theist bias you reject the possibility. You are clear posing your questions from a skeptical layman's perspective with a traditional theist agenda. Reread my post and the article, I emphasized and so did the article that we are talking about possibilities based on the evidence, and I gave alternatives.

Shuny, where is the evidence that something besides our universe exists? Where is the proof? Second, even if there was that does not effect my faith in God - He could have created multiple universes - scripture doesn't say either way. Third, as I said the link that I quoted offered nothing in the way of evidence. It was made up. We have no idea what caused these circular patterns. WHO PREDICTED that such circular patterns would be the result of universes colliding? Isn't that how science works? You have a theory and make predictions - then confirm the predictions or not. They find an anomaly and jump to a conclusion, when said anomaly could be caused by any number of unknown factors .

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, where is the evidence that something besides our universe exists? Where is the proof?

First, this old turf seer, your approaching this as a laymen with a traditional theist bias, and little or no knowledge in the subject.

Second, big time ongoing groundhog day problem with laymen traditional theists, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN SCIENCE.

The background of what you cited is some of the evidence.

Second, even if there was that does not effect my faith in God - He could have created multiple universes - scripture doesn't say either way.

It was not supposed to effect your, anyone else's, nor my faith in God or whatever, but many traditional theists approach the argument in this manner. Just the idea of the possibility of an infinite, eternal physical existence is threatened to the belief of many traditional theists. This is strictly addressing the current scientific view, and the evidence behind the theories and hypotheses that concern the nature of our cosmos from the smallest to largest.

If there is no threat to your beliefs, why all the hoopla concern the relationship between this thread and the belief in God, which is off topic.

Third, as I said the link that I quoted offered nothing in the way of evidence.

. . . because the articles were summaries for layman consumption,

It was made up. We have no idea what caused these circular patterns. WHO PREDICTED that such circular patterns would be the result of universes colliding? Isn't that how science works? You have a theory and make predictions - then confirm the predictions or not. They find an anomaly and jump to a conclusion, when said anomaly could be caused by any number of unknown factors .

First, no, these features are not anomalies. They are features of our universe. Unless you are very competent and educated in this concerning the physics and math behind this article you would not likely have a clue about the answers to this question. Read the article again google the research publications and read them. Then come back. I believe the conclusion is that is one of the possible explanations, and not that it is the explanation. I can provide one clue, it is related to the nature of gravity and the normal known distribution of matter, energy and objects in the most distant visible regions of our universe.

[seer]

First, this old turf seer, your approaching this as a laymen with a traditional theist bias, and little or no knowledge in the subject.

Second, big time ongoing groundhog day problem with laymen traditional theists, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROOF IN SCIENCE.

The background of what you cited is some of the evidence.

Really Shuny, show me - show me any one who PREDICTED that we would find circular patterns in the microwave background if universes collided. Show me why these circular patterns could ONLY be caused by universes "bumping." You can hide behind your intellectual snobbery all day but the fact is you can not back up these claims, neither can the authors. It is pure speculation.

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny, show me - show me any one who PREDICTED that we would find circular patterns in the microwave background if universes collided. Show me why these circular patterns could ONLY be caused by universes "bumping." You can hide behind your intellectual snobbery all day but the fact is you can not back up these claims, neither can the authors. It is pure speculation.

Never was claimed that the causes were necessarily bumping. You cannot even under stand the basics of math and cosmology. The references cited explained the evidence. They were not likely predicted in advance. The were found, and the researchers cited in the article did modeling to interpret what they found. Again you need to back track the sources and read them your self to understand the theories of the researchers, who may or may not be the articles. I have found references to many research articles on the subject and have read a few.

You need to do your homework and not demand to be spoon fed.

You would not understand the evidence if you sat on it.

[seer]

Never was claimed that the causes were necessarily bumping. You cannot even under stand the basics of math and cosmology. The references cited explained the evidence. They were not likely predicted in advance. The were found, and the researchers cited in the article did modeling to interpret what they found. Again you need to back track the sources and read them your self to understand the theories of the researchers, who may or may not be the articles. I have found references to many research articles on the subject and have read a few.

Good so we agree that this is not evidence for other universes. And I may not understand every detail of this Shuny, but I do recognize faulty inductive reasoning. You are correct NO ONE predicted that "bumping" would cause such a things, because there was no reason to believe it would. And no one can show that such circular patterns could ONLY be caused by said bumping. Glad we are on the page...

[Leonhard]

I'm not gonna participate in this discussion, but I felt a few small things were worthy of note.

Where is the evidence? Form the page that was linked: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...universes.html Why on earth would anybody jump to the conclusion that these circular patterns were the result of the universe being bumped? Might there not be a hundred other reason why these patterns show up? Perhaps unknown? Where is the rational to make this leap?

Really Shuny, show me - show me any one who PREDICTED that we would find circular patterns in the microwave background if universes collided.

Ahem, if you read the article you'd notice that there were links to the scientific papers it referenced. There's a difference between a journalistic report of science, and the science reports exchanged between scientists. The latter are often jargon heavy and require an understanding of technical subjects, so that stuff tends to be left out when a journalist reports the subject. There were two articles referenced, one was by Roger Penrose who was assisted by V. G. Gurzadyan. You can read their paper (here), and there's links to the papers and books Penrose wrote detailing the derivation of his predictions of circular artifacts in the CMB. You'll want Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary View of the Universe for all the nitty details. However his prediction doesn't come from a collision between universe, but from gravity waves emanated by the collision of galactic core black holes which end up skewing the distribution of matter in the next big bang. They didn't find anything unambiguous in the WMAP data, but they honed the computer algorithms they used to search for those patterns. When the Planck mission is done with the latest measurement of the CMB they'll try it on that.

The second group works from a hypothesis of Eternal Inflation which is one cosmological model popular these days. You can read their paper and how they got their results here. Like Penrose they didn't find anything unambigious, but will try again when the new dataset comes out.

Lesson to learn Seer, distinguish between a news report and a science report.

Show me why these circular patterns could ONLY be caused by universes "bumping."

Ask yourself, why Shuny has to show this? Do you have a better proposal which isn't ad hoc? Science progresses by proposing as many simple and testable hypothesis it can and weeding them out empirically. Its all fine and dandy if you can find a better explanation that's simpler (proposes less new stuff), but scientists don't have to wait until they've eliminated not just all the reasonable explanations they are aware of, but all possible explanations that could be. I don't think we'd have gotten beyond the stage of the ancient Greeks if that had been the case.

You can hide behind your intellectual snobbery all day but the fact is you can not back up these claims, neither can the authors. It is pure speculation.

Slander and ignorance all rolled into one, you're on a roll Seer.

[seer]

I'm not gonna participate in this discussion, but I felt a few small things were worthy of note.



Ahem, if you read the article you'd notice that there were links to the scientific papers it referenced. There's a difference between a journalistic report of science, and the science reports exchanged between scientists. The latter are often jargon heavy and require an understanding of technical subjects, so that stuff tends to be left out when a journalist reports the subject. There were two articles referenced, one was by Roger Penrose who was assisted by V. G. Gurzadyan. You can read their paper (here), and there's links to the papers and books Penrose wrote detailing the derivation of his predictions of circular artifacts in the CMB. You'll want Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary View of the Universe for all the nitty details. However his prediction doesn't come from a collision between universe, but from gravity waves emanated by the collision of galactic core black holes which end up skewing the distribution of matter in the next big bang. They didn't find anything unambiguous in the WMAP data, but they honed the computer algorithms they used to search for those patterns. When the Planck mission is done with the latest measurement of the CMB they'll try it on that.

The second group works from a hypothesis of Eternal Inflation which is one cosmological model popular these days. You can read their paper and how they got their results here. Like Penrose they didn't find anything unambigious, but will try again when the new dataset comes out.

Of course you know that there are others in this field that believe it is basically bunk?

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P Zibin

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

Ask yourself, why Shuny has to show this? Do you have a better proposal which isn't ad hoc? Science progresses by proposing as many simple and testable hypothesis it can and weeding them out empirically. Its all fine and dandy if you can find a better explanation that's simpler (proposes less new stuff), but scientists don't have to wait until they've eliminated not just all the reasonable explanations they are aware of, but all possible explanations that could be. I don't think we'd have gotten beyond the stage of the ancient Greeks if that had been the case.

Isn't ad hoc? This whole thing is ad hoc! Like I said no one predicted that such circles would be the result of universes "bumping." How could these "markers" even survive the last inflationary period? It is made up after the fact. We may not know what caused these anomalies that doesn't give one the right to invent a reason. Let's face it Leonhard, Penrose never like the idea of the big bang and has been trying to find evidence for a multiverse for years now. But no one questions his motives...

[Leonhard]

Of course you know that there are others in this field that believe it is basically bunk?

Irrelevant, you were making the claim that nobody had made any predictions. Each article discusses reasons for why such "circles" would appear. Penrose's prediction was very specific. I havn't seen anyone attack the mathematical soundness of his hypothesis, only the postulates that go into it. You can take objection to the theories, you're free to do that, and I have my own reservations about these subjects. However you can't say that they didn't make any predictions, or that there weren't reasons supporting their hypotheses. They didn't just invent the predictions out of thin air like you seem to imagine that they did.

Isn't ad hoc? This whole thing is ad hoc!

Don't tell me, show me.

Like I said no one predicted that such circles would be the result of universes "bumping."

Yes they did, if you read the articles you'll find the reasons behind the predictions.

How could these "markers" even survive the last inflationary period?

Are you asking about Penrose's predictions, or the other teams? Penrose demonstrated his claim in his book. The other team outlines why it happens (you really ought to read the articles Seer) in this reference here.

Let's face it Leonhard, Penrose never like the idea of the big bang and has been trying to find evidence for a multiverse for years now.

Ad Hominem fallacy.

But no one questions his motives...

Would you like me to question yours?

[seer]

Irrelevant, you were making the claim that nobody had made any predictions. Each article discusses reasons for why such "circles" would appear. Penrose prediction was very specific. I havn't seen anyone attack the mathematical soundness of his hypothesis, only the postulates that go into it.

No Leonhard, I know this is false. They did not make these predictions before the circles were found. They claimed after the fact that they could be the result of such collisions.

Don't tell me, show me.

I did, here are two papers that say that Penroses' conclusions don't wash. Now who is correct - him or them?

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P Zibin

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

[Leonhard]

Of course you know that there are others in this field that believe it is basically bunk?

Adam Moss, Douglas Scott, James P Zibin

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evi...e-circles-sky/

Amir Hajian

http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1656?__utm...__utmk=6449841

A minor note, neither author argued against the proposals on theoretical grounds. They simple did a similar search on simulated cosmological backgrounds and didn't find anything beyond what was expected in the case of no induced circles.

[Leonhard]

No Leonhard, I know this is false. They did not make these predictions before the circles were found. They claimed after the fact that they could be the result of such collisions.

Try thinking a little Seer, why couldn't it be the case that Penrose started claiming these things after he had made the search for circles?

[Leonhard]

I did, here are two papers that say that Penroses' conclusions don't wash. Now who is correct - him or them?

And them being correct or not has any barring on Penrose's predictions being ad hoc.. why? Lets say the authors are right, the results Penrose found were ambigious (this is the consensus view btw) and expected to be found within the CMB as we conceive in standard cosmology. Or lets say that they were wrong, and the results weren't ambiguous but unexpected. What bearing has that on your accusation that Penrose was just making up predictions? Its a non sequitor fallacy "Penrose is wrong, therefore Penrose's didn't make any predictions".

[seer]

A minor note, neither author argued against the proposals on theoretical grounds. They simple did a similar search on simulated cosmological backgrounds and didn't find anything beyond what was expected in the case of no induced circles.

Leonhard, they also said that these were not markers of previous universes. They said there were no "Echoes From The Pre-Big Bang Universe."

[seer]

Try thinking a little Seer, why couldn't it be the case that Penrose started claiming these things after he had made the search for circles?

I am thinking Leonhard, and Penrose never published anything before the finding of these circles that predicted that such circles would the result of universes bumping. He found an anomaly and tried to fit his predisposed belief into it. One that other scientists say is bunk...