Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

Technicaly a void can't be spaceless because by definition a void is an empty space. But at least we are talking about the same thing, what I call non existence you call a void.

 

How can non existence fluctuate and what proof do you have that it is even possible.

 

 

 

Quantum fluctuation happen in a vacuum which isn't spacelsss nor empty.

There is no evidence to suggest that vacuum fluctuation can happen if the vacuum doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

Its far from satisfactory and the laws of physics don't apply because they only apply to the universe, not to non existence, hence the reason they break down before we get to nothing.

 

 

 

No really we don't, what they think they know is supported by many assumptions to make it work, and even if it is fact it still happened in a universe that already existed.

 

 

 

Where are all the old stars?

Why is the cosmic microwave background there?

Why has your supposedly infinite universe not reached thermal equilibrium?

 

There is unknown physics in the big bang model. It's under study, but incomplete. We know from the data that it happened but we can't be sure exactly how. Your model is in conflict with known physics. So it's dead.

Edited May 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Not to mention that it would be completely at odds with a very wide range of astronomical observations.

Example (one of many):

The oldest stars in the observable universe are around 13 billion years old.

In the observable universe which is an insignificantly small part of an infinite universe.

 

 

The big bang model explains that the very first stars, because of the high density of the universe at that time, would be very large and would supernova after a rather short life.

 

Which would happen in an infinite universe with no begging.

 

 

Such is the way with big stars. The second generation of stars formed from the remains of the first are more like what we mostly see today.

 

Its very likely that the stars in our galaxy were seeded by the black hole at its heart.

 

 

However due to the rate at which they consume their hydrogen fuel, smallish stars (<0.8x the mass of the sun) and smaller (which is a large fraction of the stars) have a lifetime of well over 13 billion years.

 

That's not in conflict with an infinite universe with no beginning.

 

Assuming that by magic, or divine intervention, or mystic hydrogen emitting black holes or any of the other ridiculous notions you've put forth; that the universe is eternal (which it clearly isn't); where the hell are all the old stars?

 

 

Some of the old stars are now blackholes and they will consume anything that gets close enough recycling it to produce the material for future stars.

 

 

 

 

Going back to your void, do you believe that this universe is in the void or did it replace the void?

 

Is there just one void making the big bang or was it a one time only event?

[unbeliever]

 

Is there just one void making the big bang or was it a one time only event?

 

It seems more likely that many universes exist. Although I can conceive of no way to detect them. Each having their own time and so on.

 

Where are all the old stars?

Why is the cosmic microwave background there?

Why has your supposedly eternal universe not reached thermal equilibrium?

 

If the stars were somehow seeded by the black hole at the centre, which is of course completely incapable of manufacturing hydrogen but never mind that for now, where did that black hole come from?

[sutty27]

Where are all the old stars?

Out side the visible universe.

Why is the cosmic microwave background there?

Why wouldn't it be there.

 

Why has your supposedly infinite universe not reached thermal equilibrium?

 

It will never reach thermal equilibrium.

 

There is unknown physics in the big bang model. It's under study, but incomplete.

But works if we remove the assumption that everything came from nothing, once they accept that what we see came from a universe that already existed their physics will work.

 

We know from the data that it happened but we can't be sure exactly how.

They think it could have happened, its one of several possible explanations and it would work if they stopped with the universe from nothing idea.

 

Your model is in conflict with known physics. So it's dead.

 

No it isn't.

[unbeliever]

Out side the visible universe.

Why wouldn't it be there.

 

 

 

It will never reach thermal equilibrium.

 

But works if we remove the assumption that everything came from nothing, once they accept that what we see came from a universe that already existed their physics will work.

 

We know that it could have happened, its one of several possible explanations and it would work if they stopped with the universe from nothing idea.

 

 

 

No it isn't.

 

All the old stars just happen to be outside the visible universe. That would be an absolute astounding coincidence. It's almost as if somebody wants us to believe the universe is less than 14 billion years old. How about you take a hint.

10^21 stars in the observable universe spread throughout 10^10 galaxies. Of course not all of them have been or indeed could be studied extensively. The ones which have range in age from brand new to about 13 billion years old. None older. Odd that.

 

It appears that you've rejected the second law of thermodynamics twice in that post.

How about you just come out and say it. Come on. Say "I reject the second law of thermodynamics".

Edited May 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

It seems more likely that many universes exist. Although I can conceive of no way to detect them. Each having their own time and so on.

What you believe to be multiple universes is just one infinite universe. Our solar system formed independently from other solar systems, it form in a galaxy that formed independently of other galaxies, the black hole at the centre of each galaxy drives the creation of stars within the galaxy, our collection of galaxies (that's the viable universe) formed independently of other collections of galaxies that we can't see nor detect.

 

Where are all the old stars?

The old star in this part of the universe exploded or imploded to from blackholes, if they hadn't we wouldn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

If the stars were somehow seeded by the black hole at the centre, which is of course completely incapable of manufacturing hydrogen but never mind that for now, where did that black hole come from?

 

It used to be a super massive star that died and collapsed in on its self because of gravity.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2016 at 18:57 ----------

 

All the old stars just happen to be outside the visible universe. That would be an absolute astounding coincidence.

No it wouldn't because the event that created our part of the universe would have either pushed them out or consumed them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

10^21 stars in the observable universe spread throughout 10^10 galaxies. Of course not all of them have been or indeed could be studied extensively. The ones which have range in age from brand new to about 13 billion years old. None older. Odd that.

 

Not odd at all because the event that drove the creation of this part of the universe would have consumed everything that was here before it or push ed it well out side our ability to detect it.

Edited May 13, 2016 by sutty27

[unbeliever]

What you believe to be multiple universes is just one infinite universe. Our solar system formed independently from other solar systems, it form in a galaxy that formed independently of other galaxies, the black hole at the centre of each galaxy drives the creation of stars within the galaxy, our collection of galaxies (that's the viable universe) formed independently of other collections of galaxies that we can't see nor detect.

 

The old star in this part of the universe exploded or imploded to from blackholes, if they hadn't we wouldn't exist.

 

 

Small stars don't do that. They can't. They just go out.

 

It used to be a super massive star that died and collapsed in on its self because of gravity.

 

No. It didn't. It's way, way too big for that.

 

Just say it. "I reject the second law of thermodynamics".

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2016 at 19:23 ----------

 

Not odd at all because the event that drove the creation of this part of the universe would have consumed everything that was here before it or push ed it well out side our ability to detect it.

 

You know the observable universe is called the observable universe because light from further away has not had time to reach us since the big bang.

If the universe is eternal, we ought to be able to see all of it. Why can't we?

You don't think the universe is expanding, so Olber's paradox applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox.

 

Just say it. "I reject the second law of thermodynamics".

Edited May 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Small stars don't do that. They can't. They just go out.

 

They would be the ones that got consumed by the event that caused our part of the universe to build galaxies.

 

 

No. It didn't. It's way, way too big for that.

 

No it isn't, black holes increase in mass so the collapse of a massive star would seed the growth of the massive black holes found at the heart of each galaxy. The black hole will end up with significantly more mass than the star that seeded it.

 

 

You know the observable universe is called the observable universe because light from further away has either not had time to reach us since the big bang.

If the universe is eternal, we ought to be able to see all of it. Why can't we?

 

There is no reason to assume that we would be able to see it all, what makes you think that a photon could travel unhindered for trillions of light years?

Or that light from long extinct galaxies trillions of years older than this galaxy didn't pass us by long before we existed.

The evidence says that this region of the universe was expanding so might still be examining, it says that it could be expanding faster than light which means that a light source outside this region of the universe would never reach us.

[unbeliever]

They would be the ones that got consumed by the event that caused our part of the universe to build galaxies.

 

What event was that then?

 

 

There is no reason to assume that we would be able to see it all, what makes you think that a photon could travel unhindered for trillions of light years?

 

 

What's to stop it?

 

Or that light from long extinct galaxies trillions of years older than this galaxy didn't pass us by long before we existed.

The evidence says that this region of the universe was expanding so might still be examining, it says that it could be expanding faster than light which means that a light source outside this region of the universe would never reach us.

 

So now the rest of the universe is too far away to see. How did that happen?

 

In an infinite and eternal universe, only gravity moves galaxies around.

What has prevented the gravitational collapse of the entire system? What's holding them apart?

[sutty27]

What event was that then?

 

The event that preceded the formation of stars and galaxies.

 

 

What's to stop it?

Matter and gravity.

 

 

 

So now the rest of the universe is too far away to see. How did that happen?

 

Its infinite.

 

In an infinite and eternal universe, only gravity moves galaxies around.

 

Says who?

 

What's driving expansion now and what makes you think it couldn't drive expatiation in parts of an infinite universe?

 

What has prevented the gravitational collapse of the entire system? What's holding them apart?

 

Is that the gravitational collapse of the visible or the entire infinite universe?