After looking around and reading a few reasons people give for being atheist, I've been quite surprised to find that nobody seems to share the reason that first made me an atheist. I've always thought it funny that people turn to religion to answer questions like where we came from, where the world came from, and what are purpose of life is. Most religions attribute such things to the presence of a creator of some sort, a supreme being that made everything. However, this idea has a serious flaw... what created the creator? What created existence in the first place? Why does anything exist? These are questions I've never been able to answer, and I doubt anyone ever will be able to.. not even religion. I was just wondering if anyone else had ever wondered about these things, and what they thought.

Views: 378

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How about this if our universe is not eternal why would a multiverse be eternal since the Universe is just a part of the multiverse
And this is falsifiable ?
What do you know about falsifiable? Like God is falsifiable?

Actually, yes. It IS falsifiable because further observation and testing of the universe can prove whether what we know about the rest of it is true or not. There is no way for the mathematics of electromagnetic waveforms or the sub atomic particles to make sense except through the higher dimensions above the third and fourth. It is falsifiable because we can make up whatever crap we want concerning theories, but if the math doesn't add up to jive with the general laws of the universe(remember everything boils down to matter and energy), then what you have is exactly that. Crap.

At least science knows when it is wrong. Does religion?
Sort of like how how humans are born and die, yet the human race lives on.
I've been fascinated with that idea for awhile, too. Not sure how much water it will hold, though.

The Universe is not a black hole via T|A's Sunday School.

Over my head, I must admit.
I think I've heard the idea of the universe being a burst bubble at the end of a black hole in another universe before. I don't think that article is talking about that, though.

Coincidentally, a black hole is not an object of zero volume, as astronomers have actually discovered black holes that rotate, thus altering the size of its event horizon. This is a quality called A*.

The problem I have with the black hole theory is that only half of all matter falling into a black hole goes in anyway. The other half gets converted into radiation and sent back into deep space. Also, time is theoretically frozen within a black hole. A black hole will never gain mass from the material it gobbles up because the material never adds to the black hole. It's probably possible that a black hole continues deforming space around it to the point where it bursts at the other end, but no regular black hole has enough matter to convert into energy to form a whole universe. Maybe if all the supermassive black holes at the center of each galaxy pooled their distortions into the same dimensional space and this space just bursts wide open at the same time.

Or maybe a universe forms from the death of a previous universe.
It is my understanding that black holes continue to grow in mass as they gobble up stars, but they don't grow in size.
One possibility is that our universe is just a local event in an infinite universe. Of course this is all hypothetical. I don't think there is anything wrong in contemplating these hypotheses as long as we understand that they are just that.

It makes sense to me that our universe is part of a larger, eternal multiverse or universe, because it is the simplest explanation. It requires no physics or objects beyond the kind we can already observe.
It requires that there be an infinite number of universes with different laws for physics and that the Universe be apart of something infinite or eternal even though the Universe itself is most likely not eternal
David, a more parsimonious hypothesis might involve an infinite number of universes, or just an infinite universe, all following only one set of physical laws.

Michel, yes, a black hole with low mass would be the same size as one with huge mass. Both would occupy essentially zero space. But their effect on the space around them would be drastically different. The one with small mass might go unnoticed unless you were right on top of it, while the supermassive black hole would effect space for thousands of light-years in all directions, typically forming a spiral galaxy of matter within the reach of it's gravity well.
Theoretically, the size of the black hole is determined by the event horizon, which is affected by its mass and whether it has A*. However, this is not the physical black hole itself. But since the actual black hole can not be detected, using the event horizon is good enough. Most black holes are formed by giants and supergiants about 4 times to 200 times the mass of the sun, and the mass of the black hole is determined by the size of the star it originally was before collapsing. After it becomes a black hole, we can determine its mass by the amount of matter it's affecting in its accretion disk and anything in orbit, as gravity is a direct function of mass. We know how much mass it's affecting by various means like red shift coming from the accretion disk.
As for what caused the supermassive black holes. . . No idea. These things seem to operate on a completely different level of physics as regular black holes. The only thing I can think of is if the super-heavy atoms formed after the Big Bang much earlier than expected. During the early universe, there was basically not much in the way of the formation of systems. I read an article that postulated that black holes were "starving" during the early universe. Maybe many black holes collided with each other very early and formed the supermassives.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service