Forums > Social Discussion > theories of earth creation

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
I imagine a bunch of executives gathered around for a cost vs profit analysis meeting, and the decision was made to expand the chain to our solar system.
EDITED_BY: snork (1108895175)

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
Maybe we've always been here?
Thats a mind bogling thought men, trying to imagine Earth always having been here...forever!

AAARRRGGGHHH!!! My giant stick broke!!! In two!!! My stick broke in two!!!

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
Are you talking about earth creation or universe creation? Aside from creationist theorys I think people are pritty sure about the earth.

There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
well if any of you are fans of hitch hickers guide to the galaxy, you'll know that the earth was created to find the question for life the universe and everything, as the answer was already found to be "42"

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
I like the executive theory, though I tell you what the parking on Earth sucks! They really need to turn the moon into a multi-story parking garage!

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
i just want to start of saying that i dont like to hold beliefs for the simple fact that when you believe something you disbelieve the opposite and this limits your perception of hte world, instead i find that suspending belief and disbelief to entertain ideas is a good way to go.

I find the notion of everything having always existed doesnt sit well with me, its kind of like an unbalenced equation, everything is where it is based on where it was before so if it was never created and set in motion it doesnt make sense for it to be.

I also find the notion of a god or gods doesnt sit well as it puts into place well what created god

At the moment i like the idea that initially there was nothing no matter no energy just a big empty void of space.

so the initial state of everything can be expressed as an equation of
nothing=nothing

its the inital state of hte universe as there is nothing to distinguish it from any other state before it so time effectively does not exist as each instant remains identical to the previous state

at the moment i think the universes purpose is to evolve while solving really complex equations by modifying its rules of existence in such a way that all of the past still hold true. At the moment when the universe created its first rule this would correspond to time beginning as suddenly the universe was able to exist in more than one state. (this paragraph is a bit airy fairy at the moment i know as it gives the universe a consciousness which also requires creation)

When matter and anti matter combine they annul each other and produce energy so

matter + anti matter = energy
matter + anti matter - energy = nothing
matter + anti matter + anti energy = nothing

with anti energy being gravity, the logic being if u through a ball up the kinetic energy gets converted into potential energy as the balls height increases and then back into kinetic energy again as the ball falls back down to earth.

so the universe is then able to go from existing as
nothing = nothing
to
matter+anti matter + gravity = nothing
without violating any rules about creation and destruction.

as more and more bits of nothing seperated little pockets of gravity would be created seperating the matter away from the anti matter. lots of the pockets would hit other pockets and be annulled again. Over time a large pocket of matter would form the same thing happening with the anti matter

due to there effectively being only two objects of significant size the gravity feild for the universe would be like a ball with the objects being on opposite sides with the gravity resulting from the anti energy keeping the two apart. then eventually u get two point masses and a nice big bang. Most likely this would occur after several attempts due to the random nature of the seperating bits needing to fufill some sort of idea equilibruim for enough matter and anti matter to forum so that the big bang could occur. so for example if multiple large pockets formed the gravity would cause them to move around the outside of the ball shaped gravity field to annul with opposing particles and disrupt the system if it had to much inertia.

so then one of two situtaions would occur with the ever expanding universes either a) their inertia will be to great for the effects of gravity to pull it back into the center point and it will expand forever or b) gravity pulls it all back in and it all begins again but this time with slightly different conditions resulting in a different version of existence

but that just opens up a whole other can of worms which i dont have time to write on now cos in 15 mins my uni experiment of doom will be finished *fingers crossed this time all the data will be noise free*

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
I think the world was the result of a theory similar to the big bang, The Big Sneeze.

But our end is nigh, I forsee the Coming of the Big White Hankerchief

Dance like it hurts; Love like you need money; Work like someone is watching.

Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, when you DO criticize them, you are a mile away, and you have their shoes.

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
arg, ben, i really dont like your gravity = anit-energy dealie. according to string theory, everything is made of two dimensional vibrating strings of energy. the frequency of these vibrations is what differentiates the strings from each other. in an atom, there are protons, neutrons, and electrons. protons are made of two up quarks and a down quark, and neutrons are made to two down quarks and an up quark. each quark and each electron is a string vibrating at a different speed. (i'm not sure about any of this it's been a while since i leaned about string theory). equally, photons, strong atomic force particles, weak atomic force particles, and gravitons (theorized gravity particles, their existance hasn't been proven) are also strings vibrating at different speeds. gravitons couldn't possibly be particles of "anti-energy". if anything, gravity is a source of energy. in your senario involving a ball, i dont see how energy is lost to gravity at all. the chemical energy in food powers the hand of the person throwing the ball, turns some of it into thermal energy and the rest into kinetic energy as the ball acends. the ball picks up potential energy in its journey up, and at the zenith it has almost all potential energy and no kinetic. it then looses potential and gains kinetic as it tumbles back to earth. upon landing, the energy goes off into a variety of forms, and at no point is energy lost. in this scenerio, it is gravity that is the source of potenital energy. without gravity, the ball would continue to exhibit its energy in kinetic form, only loosing it to friction.

-James

"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
The current thinking has expanded from superstring theory into M-Theory. try this linky on M-Brane Theory

I saw on TV (ahhh the magic box) that, possibly, interactions in 12 dimensional space betwixt branes created enough energy to create the universe, or a new space time boundary (Think when you join 2 soap bubbles together, and then a new soap bubble appears between them)

BOOM one big bang.

Then it begs the question, a la Ben, what created the branes?

Hmmm now we are into metaphysics, which is very subjective indeed.

ohmygodlaserbeamspewpewpew!

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
you really need to be stoned to answer this question properly!

Posted: 20th Feb 2005
Tell... Me... About... It...

ohmygodlaserbeamspewpewpew!

Posted: 21st Feb 2005
I just want to say as a physicist, I do not condone the anti-energy=gravity proposal.

gravity is not an energy. it is not even a force. it is an acceleration, which causes a resulting force (in fact it is rather like a variable force, that acts differently depending on the mass it is acting on - but this already has a name -acceleration). acceleration in not equal to energy or anti energy. you can get potential energy by having an object in a gravity field, and letting it fall turns that into kinetic enrgy, but the gravity itself is not energy.

also, there is no such thing as anti-energy in physics. perhaps in metaphysics there is, but I am not an expert on meta physics.

there is, however, a theory about a "dark" energy existing, and the main thing this energy does is oppose gravitation, but only via causing an extra pressure on the universe compelling it to expand more rapidly than gravitation should allow for. Many cosmologists beleive this theory, but many physicists are dubious (myself included). Personally I think that dark energy MAY merely be a construct used to patch the holes in cosmological theory caused by the fact that General Relativity is not an accurate way to explain the true nature of the universe. This dark energy is in no way like an anti-energy though, but rather like a vaccum space energy. dark enrgy will not react with normal enrgy, and it only very loosly/indirectly interacts with matter or anti-matter. Any reaction between matter and anti-matter will only give you the one kind of energy you are normally familiar with and dark energy doesn't care one iota about matter and anti-matter reacting with each other, except perhaps in the very small way that that reaction might cause a little additional energy pressure within the universe, and even that is like saying the atmosphere cares that you inflated a helium balloon for a child at a birthday party (actually, far less than that, but you get what I mean)

see other threads for more of my thoughts on why I doubt the creation of the universe will ever be properly explained, but one thing I will say is that I do not think, in my best proffesional opinion, that there actually is a unique answer to how the universe started. I will say only this for now in defense of that: at some point at the earliest moments (before the "inflation" era of the universe began, at somepoint only a few nano seconds after the true beginning - but don't let that fool you because time was rather meaningless in that pre-inflation era, so really a nanosecond is as good as an eternity), the universe was small enough to be governed by the laws of quantum mechanics - smaller than electron - though never much smaller because not far beyond that scale of smallness, size also becomes irrelevant. Anyway, the universe was very small, small enough to be governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. once that is true, all you can do is talk about probabilities, about the chances of something being true. true hard fact information like we humans love and need to have is literally impossible to come by, and all you can do is say what the possibilities might be and what the chances are for each. There simply is no unique solution.

Similarly there is no unique solution for the einstein field equation - unless you make 3 very large assumptions (which everyone uses when working with general relativity) and thereby force variables and even tensor variables into constant values numbers. Those three assumptions all seemed very reasonalbe back in the early 20th century, but now, less than a hundred years later, all three are suspect, and one of the three is now clearly wrong. And while cosmologists who talk about how the universe was created and how old it is must ignore this to be able to accomplish anything (ie, get a tangible answer), their work is to be taken with with a large pinch of salt, as they are applying the laws of how the very large things work (the universe as a whole) and forcing something very small (the primordial pre-expansion quantum scale universe) to work the same way - and any quantum physicist will tell you this is simply the wrong approach (but cosmologists are generally very self important people who cannot be bothered with trivialities such as the compications of quantum physics, obvious inconsitancies in their basic assumptions, or even being wrong). And while following up this one path has led to some interesting insights and discoveries, all it is doing is chasing down a single and really none-to likely possibility within the vast realm of ways the universe could have started.

While there are other avenues being explored (quantum gravity theory, string theory, quantum loop theory, etc.), these more rigerous approaches to understanding the universe are MUCH more complicated than general relativity (though at least consistant with other physics, which GR is not BTW). Interestingly, they do not give single answers to questions like how the universe began, though for some reason people still bang their head against them to try and force them to.

The true beginning of the universe is something only for philosophy to ponder. Physics can only describe it accurately to a certain point, and perhaps frame the rest in a certain vaguely valid context of probablities, despite that many scientists beieve they can do more than this because in their obsession they have missed or simply chosen to ignore some basic points (perhaps for the very valid reason of being able to make any progress of any kind at all).

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 21st Feb 2005
Inter-celestial sprinkles all spilt all over the place...

Posted: 21st Feb 2005
pervert!

-v-

Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!

Posted: 24th Mar 2008
I was there when this happened so heres how it went down.

There was this big guy wearing a toga sitting on a space rock. He was like "Damn, I'm bored" so he started to invent math, not normal math, but like a strange space math. After he figured out the Pythagorean Theorem....well the space Pythagorean Theorem worlds started coming together and elements combines to make stuff, It was nuts.....

O.B.E.S.E.

Owned by Mynci!

Posted: 24th Mar 2008

 Written by :Sym


Are you talking about earth creation or universe creation? Aside from creationist theorys I think people are pritty sure about the earth.

Actually, the discovery of many other solar systems with large gas giants (larger than Jupiter) orbiting strangely close to the star has thrown a wrench in our theories of solar system formation.

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 25th Mar 2008
I'm no creationist but I do say that we don't know for sure how things went down and (me) God had some hand in it...but to all the theories, I'll see with definitive proof. That's the fun part of science. You get to say prove it

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 25th Mar 2008
Well that's really interesting you say you're not a creationist Faithinfire, cos I thought you were a Christian. Is creationism particular kind of christian thought then? Like fundamentalist-it-all-happened-in six-days type thinking?

.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....

Posted: 26th Mar 2008
I allways thought we are aliens and our plant got blowen up so we all got on our space ships and toke over earth

please have patience when reading my posts as english is not my first language
Im blonde and irish all in one Explains all
Forgive me

Posted: 26th Mar 2008
Yes, that is called fundamentalism and/or literalism

It's something that pisses me off all the time that since I'm Catholic people think I take the Bible literally as a whole when it's obvious by writing styles some stuff is allegorical and such

So I lean toward Intelligent Design and evolution-not mutually exclusive. God laid the parameters. Maybe played a hand in some of the direction because of a wayward ameoba. But evolution appears pretty certain

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 26th Mar 2008
i quite like the idea that maybe i dont exist...maybe someone is dreaming me....and all of this because then i dont have to think about it and i can just get on with living rather than hurting my head over a question i cant answer myself, and wouldnt understand anyway if someone else could answer it even if they broke it down into really simple chunks.

but failing that i quite like the idea that the world just always existed

if i could be a busy busy bee...

Posted: 28th Mar 2008

 Written by :faithinfire


Yes, that is called fundamentalism and/or literalism

It's something that pisses me off all the time that since I'm Catholic people think I take the Bible literally as a whole when it's obvious by writing styles some stuff is allegorical and such

So I lean toward Intelligent Design and evolution-not mutually exclusive. God laid the parameters. Maybe played a hand in some of the direction because of a wayward ameoba. But evolution appears pretty certain

Thank you! and here I thought I was the only one... my outlook is fairly similar, not mutually exclusive.

Now if you follow Terry Pratchett... The universe always existed as a very ordered place, that is until life came along, especially humans. So now the universe tries to restore order by pacifying life (ie throwing the odd meteor its way etc) but the darn things just keep surviving...

Haha you gotta love Terry Pratchett

Do what you want coz a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!
Yo ho fiddle dee dee, being a pirate is alright to be,
Do what you want coz a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!

Posted: 28th Mar 2008
Well, the universe should get some more time on the practice range, tell ya that much. It misses us by a great deal... every day.



Is that 'god' you're talking similar to that white bearded dude, sitting 'round?



Like this guy?




Non-Https Image Link

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 31st Mar 2008
Tom, you can be very rude

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 31st Mar 2008
Admittedly it's been a bit over the top, but actually... could it not have been happening like this? A supreme being sketching out a plan to design our universe?

okay

the best smiles are the ones you lead to

Posted: 3rd Apr 2008
"big man in the sky did it" doesnt really work for me but i do like the creationism story that a tribe of native americans came up with tho, it starts with god being alone in universe and he didnt like it, he was bored so one day he sat there and *done adult things to himself* and *the resulting incident* made the world come into existance
EDITED_BY: fanged_angel (1207254089)

Posted: 3rd Apr 2008
Ok let me repeat:

Christianity =/= Creationism

And i find that incredibly offensive

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Posted: 3rd Apr 2008
while others find it ridiculously funny.

But really, that was in poor taste and may border on PG-13

O.B.E.S.E.

Owned by Mynci!

Posted: 3rd Apr 2008
sorry if i offended you, admittedly my post was very risqué but hopefully the censoring will solve that but if it still needs removing then id be happy to, at no point however did i say chrisianity = creationism.

Posted: 3rd Apr 2008
Ok



Negative energy does exist in Physics but it's not gravity, it's from the quantum realm and has no known macroscopic effects. It's a theoretical oddity.



The big bang is an odd theory indeed and requires some mind bending leaps, but is well supported by the evidence particularly the microwave cosmic background radiation and the observation of an expanding universe.



After the big bang there is little that is disputed, we have the life and death of the first generation of stars and the coalescing of new stars and planets from the debris under the influence of gravity.



We can argue about what caused the big bang (colliding membranes in extra dimensions anyone) till we're blue in the face but the truth is we may never know.



I think it is a great mistake to throw out a theory because it appears odd and violates our human intuition about the world.



Why on earth would the laws of the cosmos over untold millenia conform to our human intuition evolved to make sense of the world on our scale day today?
EDITED_BY: Mascot (1207257035)

Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes