What do those Nobel people know anyway?

[shunyadragon]

Right Shuny, that is why I said: Ellis is speaking of creation with ONLY the laws of physics being prior to the event (similar to Vilenkin). No preexisting energy, only a prior structure provide by the laws of physics see (30:30 on).

Incomplete and misleading as usual.

But every thing else is about empty space as Barrows sets out in the opening talk, [/QUOTE]

False.

[shunyadragon]

BTW Shuny, you do know that Ellis is a Christian and favors a theistic explanation for the creation of the universe - correct?

Start at 11:00 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L-g4CiJIVM

So what?!?!!?!?

His religious beliefs are not an issue here. He is not presenting a misleading argument as you are.

[seer]

So what?!?!!?!?

His religious beliefs are not an issue here. He is not presenting a misleading argument as you are.

Well yes, Ellis said the best explanation for the cause of the universe is God.

Incomplete and misleading as usual.

And you are lying as usual. No one besides Ellis is even speaking of what came prior to the universe, that wasn't what the talk was about. But you have a religious agenda to defend - you need eternal matter or energy because that is what your faith teaches.

[Sparko]

Shuny, how would anyone ever even test something like "universes bubbling out of nothing"? That is just pure theory without any evidence whatsoever. You might as well just posit "God did it" - or "magic" - it is the same thing.

[TheLurch]

Shuny, how would anyone ever even test something like "universes bubbling out of nothing"? That is just pure theory without any evidence whatsoever. You might as well just posit "God did it" - or "magic" - it is the same thing.

Let me give you an analogy on a related topic.

Right now, inflation is the only idea to explain how the universe got into its current condition. We have strong indirect evidence for inflation, and have ways of looking for direct evidence of it, which are being pursued. So, that's standard science.

If that turns out to be correct, it's a mathematical certainty that there are other universes. Inflation will necessarily continue so quickly that, while the area that became out universe slowed down, areas outside it continued inflating. And, as parts of that slowed down, they formed additional universes, while the areas outside kept inflating.

Another analogy: if we learn something about protons on earth, then we know something about protons anywhere in the universe.

I don't know this area of physics well enough to understand whether this is the case, but it's possible that studying physics that is testable with our current technology will tell us something about the formation of our universe - not directly, but as a necessary consequence of what we're studying. In which case it wouldn't be "without any evidence whatsoever".

[Sparko]

Let me give you an analogy on a related topic.

Right now, inflation is the only idea to explain how the universe got into its current condition. We have strong indirect evidence for inflation, and have ways of looking for direct evidence of it, which are being pursued. So, that's standard science.

If that turns out to be correct, it's a mathematical certainty that there are other universes. Inflation will necessarily continue so quickly that, while the area that became out universe slowed down, areas outside it continued inflating. And, as parts of that slowed down, they formed additional universes, while the areas outside kept inflating.

Another analogy: if we learn something about protons on earth, then we know something about protons anywhere in the universe.

I don't know this area of physics well enough to understand whether this is the case, but it's possible that studying physics that is testable with our current technology will tell us something about the formation of our universe - not directly, but as a necessary consequence of what we're studying. In which case it wouldn't be "without any evidence whatsoever".

What makes you think there is an 'outside' of our universe? You are still only guessing. Anything outside of our universe is unknown and is just a theory and there is no way to test it.

[seer]

Let me give you an analogy on a related topic.

Right now, inflation is the only idea to explain how the universe got into its current condition. We have strong indirect evidence for inflation, and have ways of looking for direct evidence of it, which are being pursued. So, that's standard science.

If that turns out to be correct, it's a mathematical certainty that there are other universes. Inflation will necessarily continue so quickly that, while the area that became out universe slowed down, areas outside it continued inflating. And, as parts of that slowed down, they formed additional universes, while the areas outside kept inflating.

Another analogy: if we learn something about protons on earth, then we know something about protons anywhere in the universe.

I don't know this area of physics well enough to understand whether this is the case, but it's possible that studying physics that is testable with our current technology will tell us something about the formation of our universe - not directly, but as a necessary consequence of what we're studying. In which case it wouldn't be "without any evidence whatsoever".

Except as Ellis in your link, and Vilenkin in his theory suggest that the universe came into being absent of prior space, time and matter. What can pop out literally nothing. What can exist absent of space?

[TheLurch]

What makes you think there is an 'outside' of our universe? You are still only guessing. Anything outside of our universe is unknown and is just a theory and there is no way to test it.

I said, specifically, if inflation is right. That's not guessing; that's conditional.

[Sparko]

I said, specifically, if inflation is right. That's not guessing; that's conditional.

It is exactly guessing.

Inflation doesn't tell you what is "outside" or if there is an outside, or if there are other universes. It is all guessing. It is all it can be. You can't have any evidence of anything outside the universe because it is outside of the universe.

[TheLurch]

It is exactly guessing.

Inflation doesn't tell you what is "outside" or if there is an outside, or if there are other universes. It is all guessing. It is all it can be. You can't have any evidence of anything outside the universe because it is outside of the universe.

Do you accept that gravity governs the behavior of planets in exosolar systems in other galaxies? Isn't that just a guess, too? We're never going to get evidence they exist, much less go there to confirm.

[Sparko]

Do you accept that gravity governs the behavior of planets in exosolar systems in other galaxies? Isn't that just a guess, too? We're never going to get evidence they exist, much less go there to confirm.

We can observe them and they are in this universe so we could actually go there and test it, and as far as we can observe the same natural forces are in effect. Can't say the same for "outside" of the universe where you can't observe anything or test anything.

eta: noticed you said "other galaxies" just now.

We can observe that the other galaxies themselves appear to follow the same predictable laws of physics as our own galaxy and are made up of stars like our own galaxy so it is not a stretch to assume that the planets observe the same laws of gravity as our own. We can't say the same for outside the universe.

[TheLurch]

We can observe them and they are in this universe so we could actually go there and test it, and as far as we can observe the same natural forces are in effect. Can't say the same for "outside" of the universe where you can't observe anything or test anything.

eta: noticed you said "other galaxies" just now.

We can observe that the other galaxies themselves appear to follow the same predictable laws of physics as our own galaxy and are made up of stars like our own galaxy so it is not a stretch to assume that the planets observe the same laws of gravity as our own. We can't say the same for outside the universe.

What do you consider "outside our universe"? The speed of light is such that there are portions of this universe that we can never observe.

[seer]

Do you accept that gravity governs the behavior of planets in exosolar systems in other galaxies? Isn't that just a guess, too? We're never going to get evidence they exist, much less go there to confirm.

Lurch, you can't even know if these other universes operate by the same laws of physics ours does. They could never be tested or observed. It is pure speculation, and BTW, if memory serves, inflation theory does not mandate that other universe exist, it is a possibility - but not written in stone.

[Sparko]

What do you consider "outside our universe"? The speed of light is such that there are portions of this universe that we can never observe.

portions that we cannot see are by definition still part of this universe. Outside would be anything that is not our universe or existed prior to our universe, or in which our universe is a subset of. I don't know what that is, because it is not part of our universe. That is kind of the point I was making. none of us can know. we can guess all we want. But it is guessing.

[TheLurch]

portions that we cannot see are by definition still part of this universe. Outside would be anything that is not our universe or existed prior to our universe, or in which our universe is a subset of. I don't know what that is, because it is not part of our universe. That is kind of the point I was making. none of us can know. we can guess all we want. But it is guessing.

Ok, so you're willing to assume that the rules of physics that apply inside our universe apply to those sections that we will never be able to observe. And you're willing to consider that not a guess.

One of those rules may be inflation. And inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure (commonly called an inflationary fabric). But the existence of that, even if it's necessitated by observations in our universe, would be a guess in your view.

Is that a correct description of your position?

(That's not a rhetorical question - i'm really trying to understand your perspective, and i realize a lot of it depends on the semantics of your use of "guess".)