Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Check out this idea:

The energy cycle:

Matter falls into a black-hole. The information attached to that matter is smeared across the face of the black-hole. The matter is then destroyed as it approaches the singularity, and all that is left is energy. That energy falls into a wormhole at the singularity. This wormhole opens up as a white-hole spewing into the universe as pure energy with no information or matter. There is only one white-hole in our universe, and we commonly call it the big bang. That means that the energy that is in the universe right now will eventually fall into a black-hole and reappear at the big bang 14 billion years in the past.

This is one way that the universe could exist without ever being created. That would mean that the universe is a closed time like curve.

but who created the energy?

Originally posted by red g jacks
but who created the energy?

Energy is never created. In a closed time like curve, the cause for the past is the future.

i see. allow me to try again.

but who created the closed time like curve?

Counter-intuitive as it may seem, energy can and does escape black holes. It doesn't just collect energy ad infinitum. So though it may take an insanely long time, the "heat death" expanding model of the universe remains the best model we have for predicting the universe's eventual fate.

The other problem is that the concept of black holes as gigantic space vacuums isn't true either. For example, Earth would orbit a black hole the same way it does the sun, provided both were of roughly equal total mass. We wouldn't be sucked in, and would eventually drift out of orbit (in billions of years) if something else didn't destroy the planet before that point.

I think that pokes a hole in your idea here, though I may be misinterpreting it.

....

@red g jacks - matter can be created from nothing. Again, it's almost impossible to conceive of as laymen, much less describe. And apparently even physicists can't actually conceptualize it but end up describing it in mathematical terms. But it's both possible and has been observed. So there's one potential explanation. Not necessarily the right one, but a distinct possibility.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i see. allow me to try again.

but who created the closed time like curve?

There is no requirement for the closed time like curve (CTLC) to be created. It is counter-intuitive, but there is no time for a creation.

You need evidence that "white holes" even exist.
You need evidence that the singularity really exists, many physicists are extremely unhappy with the idea.
You need evidence that the singularity is a wormhole if it does exist.
You need to explain how a black hole can be constantly sending its mass backward through time but still gain mass like anything else.
You need evidence that multiple black holes can combine to let out through a single white hole.
You need to explain why the big bang was a sudden event rather than being drawn out over billions of years as matter leaked backward through time via the black holes that have existed across the lifetime of the universe.

Originally posted by Digi
Counter-intuitive as it may seem, energy can and does escape black holes. It doesn't just collect energy ad infinitum. So though it may take an insanely long time, the "heat death" expanding model of the universe remains the best model we have for predicting the universe's eventual fate.

The other problem is that the concept of black holes as gigantic space vacuums isn't true either. For example, Earth would orbit a black hole the same way it does the sun, provided both were of roughly equal total mass. We wouldn't be sucked in, and would eventually drift out of orbit (in billions of years) if something else didn't destroy the planet before that point.

I think that pokes a hole in your idea here, though I may be misinterpreting it.

....

@red g jacks - matter can be created from nothing. Again, it's almost impossible to conceive of as laymen, much less describe. And apparently even physicists can actually conceptualize it but end up describing it in mathematical terms. But it's both possible and has been observed. So there's one potential explanation. Not necessarily the right one, but a distinct possibility.

This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.
In the far future heat death, there will only be black holes in the universe. This time will exist forever, but will have no effect on the CTLC.

i thought the smiley following obtuse questioning would give away the fact that my questions were made in jest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.

The evidence supporting Hawking Radiation is vastly superior to the evidence supporting all the assumptions you've made so criticizing it for maybe being wrong isn't a smart move.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i thought the smiley following obtuse questioning would give away the fact that my questions were made in jest.

ha, ok.

Normally, yes, it would be a dead giveaway. The religion forum, however, often makes a mockery of such general rules. Thus my confusion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is only true if hawking's radiation does exist. So far, we have not found it.
In the far future heat death, there will only be black holes in the universe. This time will exist forever, but will have no effect on the CTLC.

Sym's comment on this applies. However, I have to go wikipedia some physics articles or something, my memory is fuzzy enough that I don't want to continue at this point just from what I remember from textbooks and novels.

We seem to be squarely in psuedo-science at this point, so maybe my caution is unwarranted. But it can't hurt. I'll grant you that your theory is appealing in an emotional sense. I just don't think it holds much merit.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

1. You need evidence that "white holes" even exist.
2. You need evidence that the singularity really exists, many physicists are extremely unhappy with the idea.
3. You need evidence that the singularity is a wormhole if it does exist.
4. You need to explain how a black hole can be constantly sending its mass backward through time but still gain mass like anything else.
5. You need evidence that multiple black holes can combine to let out through a single white hole.
6. You need to explain why the big bang was a sudden event rather than being drawn out over billions of years as matter leaked backward through time via the black holes that have existed across the lifetime of the universe.

1-3 See the theory of Relativity for the first three.

4 The next one, I have no idea other then it is possible because wormholes are able to have opening in different times.

5 The theory of Relativity predicts that white-holes should exist. The big bang is the closest thing there is to one.

6. How much time did it take? We have no way of knowing what a unit of time was back then.

Please note: I modified your post to make it easier to answer.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The evidence supporting Hawking Radiation is vastly superior to the evidence supporting all the assumptions you've made so criticizing it for maybe being wrong isn't a smart move.

Until Hawking Radiation is proven, then other option are open.

Black holes aren't really holes in space are they? But just collapsed stars with hyper-extreme density and gravity, yes?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1-3 See the theory of Relativity for the first three.

Only the singularity is predicted by relativity and physicists really dislike it because it requires infinite density and ending up with infinity is usually a sign that the idea is wrong. Singularities are not even necessary for black holes.

No one has ever seen something that seems like a white hole or come up with a way that one might form. No well proven theory requires their existence to be complete.

Relativity absolutely does not predict that black holes have a wormhole at the center.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4 The next one, I have no idea other then it is possible because wormholes are able to have opening in different times.

That doesn't resolve the problem at all.

If you pile block onto a train while I remove them them from the train the pile of blocks on the train will grow more slowly than if I wasn't removing them. In the same way if the wormhole constantly sucks matter out of the black hole it should shrink or show a distinctly slower rate of growth than physics predicts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
5 The theory of Relativity predicts that white-holes should exist. The big bang is the closest thing there is to one.

Not it does not. Relativity gives the mathematics tools to needed to describe a white hole. It does not require their presence or even suggest that they might exist, let alone say that all black holes combine to let out through a single white hole.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
6. How much time did it take? We have no way of knowing what a unit of time was back then.

A fraction of a second. If you want to use the Big Bang to legitimize idea you have to actually accept the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Until Hawking Radiation is proven, then other option are open.

Not all options are created equal. The mathematical work Hawking did that predicted Hawking Radiation has been validated by experts. You have barely shown an understanding of the science you're trying to apply.

Originally posted by Robtard
Black holes aren't really holes in space are they? But just collapsed stars with hyper-extreme density and gravity, yes?

Well, according to the theory of Relativity, black-holes should connect to white-holes through worm-holes.

To be honest, my knowledge is limited in this matter. However, I this model was cool because it literally does not need a creation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only the singularity is predicted by relativity and physicists really dislike it because it requires infinite density and ending up with infinity is usually a sign that the idea is wrong. Singularities are not even necessary for black holes.

No one has ever seen something that seems like a white hole or come up with a way that one might form. No well proven theory requires their existence to be complete.

Relativity absolutely does not predict that black holes have a wormhole at the center.



That doesn't resolve the problem at all.

If you pile block onto a train while I remove them them from the train the pile of blocks on the train will grow more slowly than if I wasn't removing them. In the same way if the wormhole constantly sucks matter out of the black hole it should shrink or show a distinctly slower rate of growth than physics predicts.



Not it does not. Relativity gives the mathematics tools to needed to describe a white hole. It does not require their presence or even suggest that they might exist, let alone say that all black holes combine to let out through a single white hole.



A fraction of a second. If you want to use the Big Bang to legitimize idea you have to actually accept the Big Bang.



Not all options are created equal. The mathematical work Hawking did that predicted Hawking Radiation has been validated by experts. You have barely shown an understanding of the science you're trying to apply.

I am not presenting a theory. I am presenting a model that does not require a creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not presenting a theory.

you would be presenting a theory if you had observations

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am presenting a model

n-no you aren't

Originally posted by inimalist
...n-no you aren't

How would this model have a creation?

You remind me of a teacher I had back in college. I asked him about the new idea that birds might be related to dinosaurs. He swore up and down that there is no way that could ever be. Now, it is common knowledge.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not presenting a theory. I am presenting a model that does not require a creation.

You're barely even presenting a model. All you've done is throw together a bunch of terms and called it philosophy/science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would this model have a creation?

You remind me of a teacher I had back in college. I asked him about the new idea that birds might be related to dinosaurs. He swore up and down that there is no way that could ever be. Now, it is common knowledge.

it isn't a model

at best you have a thesis and some hypotheses

Originally posted by inimalist
it isn't a model

Whatever dude. NEXT!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whatever dude. NEXT!

/facepalm

how many parameters would be in your model for a regression analysis?

what fit of the variance, for which phenomenon in question, do you expect to see when running this model?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're barely even presenting a model. All you've done is throw together a bunch of terms and called it philosophy/science.

I never called it anything. That is also not important. This is a religious forum, not science of philosophy. Please stay on topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

how many parameters would be in your model for a regression analysis?

what fit of the variance, for which phenomenon in question, do you expect to see when running this model?

There is no creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no creation.

so you don't have a model then

Originally posted by inimalist
so you don't have a model then

I do seem to have a troll.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never called it anything. That is also not important. This is a religious forum, not science of philosophy. Please stay on topic.

Then tell us why we should care about this religion you built from a bunch of sciency words you tossed together.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do seem to have a troll.

not really

when you open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic (the creation of the universe is a scientific question, regardless of what forum you put it in, especially when the entire OP is about general relativity), you can't cry foul when even the most basic standards of science are applied.

Look how quickly you retreated from Sym because "this is a religion forum" and I'm a troll because you have no idea what the term "model" means, yet you are happy to throw it around before anyone calls you on it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to general relativity to explain something, then feel victimized when someone tries to address the scientific merits of your idea. Science cuts both ways, and if you aren't willing to live up to its standards, it is intellectually dishonest to try and wrap yourself in its theories and language; it just looks silly.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then tell us why we should care about this religion you built from a bunch of sciency words you tossed together.

The first post is a model/senario/thingy/whatever you want to call it that describes a universe that has no creation. For some reason you are fixated on the technical terms I am not using.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really

when you open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic (the creation of the universe is a scientific question, regardless of what forum you put it in, especially when the entire OP is about general relativity), you can't cry foul when even the most basic standards of science are applied.

Look how quickly you retreated from Sym because "this is a religion forum" and I'm a troll because you have no idea what the term "model" means, yet you are happy to throw it around before anyone calls you on it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't appeal to general relativity to explain something, then feel victimized when someone tries to address the scientific merits of your idea. Science cuts both ways, and if you aren't willing to live up to its standards, it is intellectually dishonest to try and wrap yourself in its theories and language; it just looks silly.

I never "open a thread purporting to have ideas generated from math and science, about a scientific topic".

I opened a thread dealing with a religious concept in a religious forum.

in that case, appealing to general relativity seems foolish

Originally posted by inimalist
in that case, appealing to general relativity seems foolish

Not at all. Many religious people understand and believe in general relativity. I know you like to think of religious people as barbarian, but they are not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not at all. Many religious people understand and believe in general relativity.

but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevant

you can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts.

Originally posted by inimalist
but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevant

you can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts.

I haven't changed my point of view. As far as your knowledge of Relativity, it seems to be limited.

I want to talk about is, can the model I started with have a creation. If you want to talk about that, I will listen. Anything else I will ignore.

Honestly sometimes it seems like one of the tenets of Buddhism is "If you say something that sounds clever no one will question you." and you get angry every time it doesn't come true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Honestly sometimes it seems like one of the tenets of Buddhism is "If you say something that sounds clever no one will question you." and you get angry every time it doesn't come true.

Please go spam somewhere else. If you want to talk to me personally, then PM me.

Woah.

Anyway.

Shakya, I think the detractors are treating your idea this way because you're using scientific terminology in a very broad sense to justify ideas you can't possibly verify even on a theoretical level.

So if it's just a religious idea, ok, it's on level with any other religious idea. But as soon as you start invoking scientific principles, you're inviting scientific scrutiny. So any appeal to wormholes, relativity, space-time, white holes, etc. can and will (and should) be questioned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd have any trouble admitting that your idea is just a fanciful guess. Because, and this may be me showing my cynicism, but the murky spiritual/religious/scientific divide has dozens of pseudo-scientists lining up to show us how quantum mechanics and energy fields and {insert science-y term} lead us to their personal conclusions. And, in every case I've seen so far, legitimate scientists are able to show exactly where there leaps in logic are, and what in their arguments is left wanting. This seems no different to me, just on a smaller scale. Best case scenario, you lack any evidence. Worst case, you're either misrepresenting the science behind your ideas or don't have a full enough grasp of all the mechanics involved for your ideas to be possible, let alone plausible.

I don't want to overtly attack being "open" to this kind of thinking, because I think it's mostly harmless. But it's also dangerous if you actually want to believe it, because it creates a precedent for belief that requires little to no justification. So really, my only issue may be how seriously you're taking this. Because it's not sloppy to think about stuff like this, it's creative, but it is flawed to give it too much credence.

Originally posted by Digi
Woah.

Anyway.

Shakya, I think the detractors are treating your idea this way because you're using scientific terminology in a very broad sense to justify ideas you can't possibly verify even on a theoretical level.

So if it's just a religious idea, ok, it's on level with any other religious idea. But as soon as you start invoking scientific principles, you're inviting scientific scrutiny. So any appeal to wormholes, relativity, space-time, white holes, etc. can and will (and should) be questioned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you'd have any trouble admitting that your idea is just a fanciful guess. Because, and this may be me showing my cynicism, but the murky spiritual/religious/scientific divide has dozens of pseudo-scientists lining up to show us how quantum mechanics and energy fields and {insert science-y term} lead us to their personal conclusions. And, in every case I've seen so far, legitimate scientists are able to show exactly where there leaps in logic are, and what in their arguments is left wanting. This seems no different to me, just on a smaller scale. Best case scenario, you lack any evidence. Worst case, you're either misrepresenting the science behind your ideas or don't have a full enough grasp of all the mechanics involved for your ideas to be possible, let alone plausible.

I don't want to overtly attack being "open" to this kind of thinking, because I think it's mostly harmless. But it's also dangerous if you actually want to believe it, because it creates a precedent for belief that requires little to no justification. So really, my only issue may be how seriously you're taking this. Because it's not sloppy to think about stuff like this, it's creative, but it is flawed to give it too much credence.

I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"

Most science today, admits that the big bang is a creation of some sort. I believe that the universe has no creation. It is irrelevant if the model reflects reality. At this point no one knows. Take it at face value and tell me how can it be created.

As far as what has been posted: I am not going to get into an argument over rather what someone has said has upset me or not. That is off topic. I will help explain the model, but I can't tell you if it is true or not, but it doesn't have a beginning. If I can create a model that does not have a beginning, then it is possible to have a universe without a creation or beginning.

I am not presenting a theory or anything scientific, but I have to use the words I know to explain the model.

Awesome thread.

At first I was quite interested in Shaky's post, then Sym buzz killed it. I want to see how this develops as my knowledge is minimal about these things.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Awesome thread.

At first I was quite interested in Shaky's post, then Sym buzz killed it. I want to see how this develops as my knowledge is minimal about these things.

Show me your black-hole so I can make it into a white one. Worm-holes and such.

Originally posted by Robtard
Show me your black-hole so I can make it into a white one. Worm-holes and such.

Oh my...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh my...

What, I was on topic.

Originally posted by Robtard
What, I was on topic.

Don't worry, I'm not the person going to kill you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"

Most science today, admits that the big bang is a creation of some sort. I believe that the universe has no creation. It is irrelevant if the model reflects reality. At this point no one knows. Take it at face value and tell me how can it be created.

As far as what has been posted: I am not going to get into an argument over rather what someone has said has upset me or not. That is off topic. I will help explain the model, but I can't tell you if it is true or not, but it doesn't have a beginning. If I can create a model that does not have a beginning, then it is possible to have a universe without a creation or beginning.

I am not presenting a theory or anything scientific, but I have to use the words I know to explain the model.

Fair enough. Problem being, as I alluded to, a lot of people think certain scientific ideas explain all sorts of things that, in reality, they don't. It's seductive

So again, it's a creative talking point, but not a model with any validity unless it were tested empirically or mathematically in some way. If you can find some tested theories out there that work toward your model, cool. If not, well, then we're just discussing science-fiction right now.

shaky, please stop using the term model, please

Red was on to something. There's always the problem of "where did those rules come from?" A timeless system can exist as a singular instant of no depth, height, or breadth to someone, but as a singular point. Of course, you would have to be nigh omniscient to understand and comprehend such an infinitely small system in a singular instant. So your creationless model (ignore the fact that I used "model", inimalist uhuh ) could still have a Creator with a capital "c". Trying to come up with a system that removes God is sure to fail because people consistently have found ways to throw God back into the system and it is consistently been considered a "truism".

For instance, here is a potential conversation between a theist and an atheist:

T: Where did the rules come from and why are they set that way?
A: There are no actual rules and they are arbitrary to this universe. There are an infinite number of configurations of those rules and we get our 10-11 dimensional reality from this set. Therefore, no creator or this universe is required.

T: Wait, where did the rules that culminate the 10-11 dimensional reality come from?
A: No creator is necessary since there are an infinite number of configurations and all are realized.

T: But why? Why are all infinite configurations realized? Where did the rules come from that created those rules for each universe/system?
A: Just because. There is no explanation beyond there being an infinite combination. Randomness isn't a rule. It is the result of 'unrule'.

T: Why? Isn't that an arbitrary claim that randomness isn't a rule? Seems randomness is difficult to come by as everything is organized. Randomness seems to have to specifically be programmed. DESIGNER!

A: NAY DESIGNER!


Originally posted by inimalist
shaky, please stop using the term model, please


Well..you did say the word "please", twice. Not sure how you could ask any nicer without sounding sarcastic.

Originally posted by inimalist
but if you are appealing to general relativity, the science behind what you are saying becomes instantly relevant

you can't be like "Oh look, science, therefore, whatever I believe" and also "Gee, this is just philosophy, don't hold me to rigorous scientific standards". Science isn't just about reinforcing what you already believe, you can't pick and choose how you apply facts.
Did you read that Kitcher paper I referred you to?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did you read that Kitcher paper I referred you to?

ugh, no actually, I was thinking of asking you for the title again the other day...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am simply saying "look at this model, it has no creation"

But why should anyone care?

You pick an assumption (there was no creation) and worked backward to come up with a set of axioms that have little to no relation to reality. Anyone can do that. It doesn't even rise to the level of interesting philosophy.

Originally posted by inimalist
ugh, no actually, I was thinking of asking you for the title again the other day...
Lol. The Division of Cognitive Labor by Philip Kitcher

I think the problem is that he described what is at it's essence a nonscientific idea using scientific terms, which people are getting hung up on. Would this work as an acceptable alternative?:

Matter falls into a black-hole. The matter then falls into a magic portal at the center. The matter is compressed and some of it is annihilated (by the magic) at the mouth of the portal. The other end of this magic portal, which we can call the whitehole, opens up spewing into the universe the compressed matter mixed with pure energy (probably in the form of em radiation). What we call the big bang was the whitehole opening up and dumping all this compressed matter and energy in the then infinitesimally small universe, all at once. For the rest of the life of the universe, as matter falls into black holes, it is compressed and sent back in time, but because of the magic, it all arrives at the other end (the whitehole) at the same time, that's why black holes don't appear to lose the mass over normal time frames. Given an infinite amount of time, all the matter in the universe eventually falls into one of these portals.

This is one way that the universe could exist without ever being created. That would mean that the universe is a closed loop.

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough. Problem being, as I alluded to, a lot of people think certain scientific ideas explain all sorts of things that, in reality, they don't. It's seductive

So again, it's a creative talking point, but not a model with any validity unless it were tested empirically or mathematically in some way. If you can find some tested theories out there that work toward your model, cool. If not, well, then we're just discussing science-fiction right now.

Please close the thread.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please close the thread.

But I'm not done sexually harassing Lil B.

Originally posted by Robtard
But I'm not done sexually harassing Lil B.

There are plenty of threads for you to do your thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
But I'm not done sexually harassing Lil B.
Play her some Hamaki.
B_wrp9aJspM

She'll say yes every time.

Why does he look like he's constantly holding back a fart?

I think that's supposed to be emotion.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why does he look like he's constantly holding back a fart?

Looks more like he's turtle-heading it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please close the thread.

Fair enough. I get the sense that none of this discussion has been to your liking, and that's a shame. But it's your thread. Closing.