What may have been the initial cause?

If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

Yes of course it is a concept but it does not come with all the false certainty the BB enrages. I have no problem with concepts only the dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them.

But at one point, could the Torus theory also have "all the false certainty"? And eventually the "dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them"?
-AM

If it does then I will confront it also.

-- Updated Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:29 am to add the following --

99% of Christians believe jesus is the son of god but it does not indicate that he is.

??????????

You have it partially correct but background radiation does not indicate a BB and the red shift observations have and are questionable. The concept of the BB is totally dependent on suspect red shift observations.

There is more: Entropy is the biggest enemy of an infinite past Universe. There are sooo many things.

why are you confused? I do not believe jesus was the son of god.

So the BB is proven because you can not conceive of anything else? I find that just a little strange.

I'm not confused... I just failed to see the relevance

Oh no! I can conceive other things, I actually already seen the redshift critics long ago. I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it's very unlikely... but hell! you maybe right! We can't see the Universe as a whole we are limited to a 13,7 billion light year bubble.
I have pretty unorthodox ideas too so it would be very hypocritical of me to reject other's ideas straight out.

Oh I give you this one for free! The fact that the Universe is flat (probably) is a point in your favor!

Why are the critics wrong? You point out the discrepancies but still cling onto the BB. I have no idea what or how of the universe, my one concern is the absolute certainty that it is protrayed by you and others when the subject is debated. The BB is used in almost every subject as a founding for someones opinion.

Xris: "If it does then I will confront it also"

That seems like a consistent cause to me!

"The BB is used in almost every subject as a founding for someones opinion."
Which is why I agree with Xris is the sense that it needs to be challenged, and more theories should definitely be explored. That is good science, that is good philosophy.

Wanabe said: "That is not a definition of everything there is however, there are things that are not physical such as: thoughts, quanta, potential."
Thoughts: Well that adds so much potential if thoughts are a part of everything, then all of this argument of concept gets a highly interesting twist into tangibility.
-AM

What may have been the initial cause?

A void that grew angry at itself for having accomplished nothing.

"Nothing" has never been a steady state phenomena. As to what turns it inside out speculations abound in philosophy and science with credence allocated to the latter. I'll give my own useless speculation. Perhaps the void contains a polarity which in equilibrium keeps it in an unchanging state. It retains Energy and perhaps even augments it until some imbalance sets that energy field on fire so to speak. Just my own two cents worth! Deduct a penny if you like!

I'm not saying they are wrong or right... I'm saying the BB is the more likely explanation after reading everything (well not everything literally).

There's just too many things supporting BB. Eternal Universe has more assumptions.
There is no other explanation for the entropy.
Even many people who criticize current BB theory, are merely saying that space/time is infinite and always was, what happens is several BB occurring in this vastness, forever. Matter explosions from quantum fluctuations in space.

the physical universe is necessarily infinite.

How so?

Space is caused by physicality (in a sense). There can be no space without something in it (Rational Metaphysics; "infinite homogeneity is impossible because it is an infinite quality"). But that means that there can be no border to that "something in it" condition. In short, there must always be an outside to any box and neither the box nor that outside can ever be truly empty.

I'm not saying they are wrong or right... I'm saying the BB is the more likely explanation after reading everything (well not everything literally).

There's just too many things supporting BB. Eternal Universe has more assumptions.
There is no other explanation for the entropy.
Even many people who criticize current BB theory, are merely saying that space/time is infinite and always was, what happens is several BB occurring in this vastness, forever. Matter explosions from quantum fluctuations in space.

Well I am of the opposite opinion I think the BB has nothing going for it. Space and time can be confined without the need of an expanding universe. All this talk of fluctuations are without foundation. They exist only in imagination.

I'm not saying they are wrong or right... I'm saying the BB is the more likely explanation after reading everything (well not everything literally).

There's just too many things supporting BB. Eternal Universe has more assumptions.
There is no other explanation for the entropy.
Even many people who criticize current BB theory, are merely saying that space/time is infinite and always was, what happens is several BB occurring in this vastness, forever. Matter explosions from quantum fluctuations in space.

Well I am of the opposite opinion I think the BB has nothing going for it. Space and time can be confined without the need of an expanding universe. All this talk of fluctuations are without foundation. They exist only in imagination.

Here I must say, after hearing Xris' points, the more support for the Big Bang, the more it seems as though other theories should be explored: not because people find more evidence to support it, but because people find more people supporting it. I think when we are searching for answers, even in science, we help mold the answers and evidence we are looking for.

If there was more support and research committed to the Torus theory for example, then there would be more evidence found.

There can be no space without something in it.

Theoretically this is not accurate(science). There is space between molecules with nothing in it. By the fractal nature of the universe observed so far it follows that outer space and the universe do have spaces with nothing in them, physical at least.

Surly there are places in space in the universe where matter has not made it yet from the big bang, there is plenty of empty space there. Not everything goes on the box and surely there is a nothing outside the box.

even generally, one would usually consider space as exactly that: something without something in it. But is the emptiness itself something? Just like how the space among neurons is as important as the axons or the dendrites? Is there "something" whether it is of conceptual value or any other meaning in empty space?

Amakatura Murou,

Nothingness(physical) has its own properties, but I don't think that makes it something, it's the absence of something. If you speak of nothing to include non-physical things than yes nothing is something.

Amakatura Murou,

Nothingness(physical) has its own properties, but I don't think that makes it something, it's the absence of something. If you speak of nothing to include non-physical things than yes nothing is something.

There is I believe a difference between a void where there is nothing and the concept of nothing. Nothing as a concept can not exist. That is another reason not to accept the BB. If the universe started "X" years ago what preceded that point? If it was something then the universe has always existed if it is the concept of nothing then the universe has always existed. No one can be as naive as to believe nothing can exist. If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?

Amakatura Murou,

Nothingness(physical) has its own properties, but I don't think that makes it something, it's the absence of something. If you speak of nothing to include non-physical things than yes nothing is something.

There is I believe a difference between a void where there is nothing and the concept of nothing. Nothing as a concept can not exist. That is another reason not to accept the BB. If the universe started "X" years ago what preceded that point? If it was something then the universe has always existed if it is the concept of nothing then the universe has always existed. No one can be as naive as to believe nothing can exist. If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?

"If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?": yes
"concept of nothing": I am arguing for the strength of a concept. Physically nothing is exactly that: nothing. But theoretically/ conceptually, nothing is something very meaningful.

And I personally have not accepted that the universe has had a starting point. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I do not believe it came from any kind of focused point.

I've heard the scientific theories, before I'm fed rants, but I have chosen not to accept many of them, like many of us are arguing.

Amakatura Murou,

Nothingness(physical) has its own properties, but I don't think that makes it something, it's the absence of something. If you speak of nothing to include non-physical things than yes nothing is something.

There is I believe a difference between a void where there is nothing and the concept of nothing. Nothing as a concept can not exist. That is another reason not to accept the BB. If the universe started "X" years ago what preceded that point? If it was something then the universe has always existed if it is the concept of nothing then the universe has always existed. No one can be as naive as to believe nothing can exist. If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?

"If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?": yes
"concept of nothing": I am arguing for the strength of a concept. Physically nothing is exactly that: nothing. But theoretically/ conceptually, nothing is something very meaningful.

And I personally have not accepted that the universe has had a starting point. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I do not believe it came from any kind of focused point.

I've heard the scientific theories, before I'm fed rants, but I have chosen not to accept many of them, like many of us are arguing.

You must tell me are you refering to a space with nothing in, like my box, or the concept that people assumed existed before the BB. There is concept that asks can a true nothingness exist. Where space and time do not exist. Beyond the frame work of human imagination.

You must tell me are you refering to a space with nothing in, like my box, or the concept that people assumed existed before the BB. There is concept that asks can a true nothingness exist. Where space and time do not exist. Beyond the frame work of human imagination.

I would like to move on to that point of "beyond the frame work of human imagination" next, but what I have been attempting to clarify is the notion of projecting one's own reality, which means that any concept has the potential to be real, so in a twisted notion, the concept of nothingness has the ability to be the opposite of nothingness, but something very tangible- but we simply cannot comprehend or imagine nothingness as something tangible or physical- which leads to the discussion-

Is there a place where time and space do not exist? If so it cannot be part of our understandable universe- but maybe anther dimension. Or a kind of "outside" which the author Orson Scott Card illustrated in his "Ender" series.

Unless that place is even closer than expected, deep within ourselves: Thought- meditation.

There can be no space without something in it.

Theoretically this is not accurate(science). There is space between molecules with nothing in it. By the fractal nature of the universe observed so far it follows that outer space and the universe do have spaces with nothing in them, physical at least.

Surly there are places in space in the universe where matter has not made it yet from the big bang, there is plenty of empty space there. Not everything goes on the box and surely there is a nothing outside the box.

Haha.. that is something that you obviously haven't thought about much. Note that you said there is no "matter" between those molecules. Depending on your exact definition of "matter", that would be true. But does that mean that there is nothing between them? If you believe that then do a little experiment.

Place a raw egg in a plastic bag and into a microwave oven. Set the oven for 1 minute. Watch what happens.

You know that there was no matter going from the oven to the egg. So was there "nothing" between the egg and the oven? Explain why the egg blew up.

And then think about something else. You seem to believe that between the molecules, there is "nothing", "empty space". Well, physics has demonstrated that the size of the particles compared to the space between them is infinitesimal. The space between those particles is huge in comparison. So why is it that electricity, light or other molecules can't simply slip right between those particles since there is nothing there? In fact, since there is nothing there, why do those particles even bother to stay around at all? They are not touching anything. Why do they stick around?

Or in the case of two magnets. Note that the magnets do not have to physically touch for one to affect the other, hence the name "magnet" from "magic". You can pass a piece of paper between them and they still affect each other. Obviously there is a "magnetic field" between them. Do you think that a magnetic field is "nothing"? Pass a thin sheet of ferrite iron between those same magnets and see what happens. The sheet isn't touching anything. So why don't the magnets behave the same?

Additionally, you are aware that nothing to date has been seen to travel faster than light, right? Realize that if you were to very quickly (very, very quickly) move one of those magnets, the other magnet could not be aware of that movement until light would have had time to go from one magnet to the other such as to "inform it" of the change. Note that it is the distance between them that determines the time lag. What is traveling between them such that the distance determines how long it takes for one to know of the change in the other? "Nothing"? Afraid not.

Or even a radio signal. Radio waves are not of "matter". Yet they take time to travel through "empty space" and they can be blocked or aimed. How empty can it be if the radio wave is taking time to travel through it or must be allowed to travel freely?

How close do you think two electrons can get to each other? There is nothing between them, right? So they should be able to get extremely close. But they don't. They don't get anywhere close at all. An electron can't even get very close to a proton even though they very strongly attract. If there really is nothing between them, what is preventing it?

Or even the light that bends as it goes through a gravity field. Is gravity "nothing"? Where does that gravity field end? Think of the countless quadrillions of particles with each emitting their own gravity field and no one of those fields is ever blocked by anything, not even other particles. Where could you go to escape that collective field? No where.

Now if you believe in the obsolete theory that at one time the whole of all things was no more than an infinitely small singularity, then you can imagine (and it will be strictly your imagination) that all around that singularity of infinite mass, there was "nothingness, right? What about the gravity field emitting from ANY mass? How strong do you think the gravity field of an infinite mass might be? Light couldn't escape from that singularity, but that is only because of that gravity field. So how far away from that singularity would that gravity field extend? Gravity is the one thing that can escape anything including black-holes and "singularities" (which even Science has given up on the existence of, btw). For how long was it there before the theoretical Big Bang took place? Do you seriously believe that literally out of nothing, a singularity appeared and instantly exploded all without reason or anything before that moment?

The BB theory proposed that the universe was expanding from a central location. And it might very well be doing that if you call "our known universe" as the true entirety of all existence (highly unlikely, in fact, impossible). The theory that it was at any time a truely infinitely small singularity has been abandon by Science (perhaps not the other religions yet). So realistically, how big might it have been and from where did that "small object" come? From nowhere? Out of Nothingness? Suddenly "poof", there is this almost infinitely massive object which then instantly exploded, not giving time for its horridous gravity field to get very far?

Now all of that, is regardless of one simple principle of Rational Metaphysics. RM states that there can never be an infinite quality of anything.. ever. That means that even an "empty space" cannot be infinitely homogeneous. It cannot be exactly identical in all locations. How do I know? Well look at what "infinite" means. It refers to absolutely no end or limit. It is that number that can never be reached no matter how far you go.

The microscope looking for any distinction between one point in space and another can keep looking with greater and greater detail infinitely and yet still have an infinite amount of detail to yet examine. Having gone even that far, it would have still the same amount to go without reaching total detail. Infinite homogeneity would require that throughout all of the infinite number of infinitesimal points in even the smallest amount of space, not to mention the infinite huge amount of space, absolutely no difference of any kind would exist. What is the sheer probability that out of an infinity raised to the infinite power number of trials, something would be found? It only would take one. The probability is exactly 100%. And that is for even the smallest amount of space you could examine.

Finally, you have actually zero evidence that "nothing" is between any two objects. Physics agrees that the electric, magnetic, and gravity fields extend infinitely in all directions from every single particle throughout the entire universe. That isn't "nothing", else it wouldn't have affect, yet it does.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable that so otherwise educated people, the quantum priests and theoretical fantasizers, believe that there was this magical beginning of time where a small almost infinite mass appeared out of nothingness to begin the whole universe of all existence. You are living through a time not really any different than when such educated elites argued endlessly that the Earth was flat. They were "flat Earthers". Now those same quality of people are "time beginners". From my perspective, they are sadly no different at all. We are still living on the Planet of the Apes. Nothing has changed other than their weapons with which to enforce their apish will and primitive notions.