The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[Paul H]

While I applaud durgatosh'spost in general, I think I see many logical faults within it.

[durgatosh]

Harry Costas

Hello All

 

How many words does it take to say INFINITE.

 

All this positive and negative infinity and zero, half zero complicates the simple issue that the universe is infinite.

 

One more thing, singularity cannot exist.

 

Harry, it takes only one word to say INFINITE. It is much simpler to say that GOD created this infinite universe. We presume the eternal existence of INFINITY and GOD in both the statements. However, the real issue of origin cannot be addressed. My interpretation of zero resolves this problem. It mathematically explains the existence of infinity (from negative infinity to positive infinity).

 

I am surprised that you find this complicated. If anything, I had expected the scientific community to say that it is too simplistic. However, as I believe, the real issues can actually be explained in very simple manner.

 

 

Paul H

While I applaud durgatosh'spost in general, I think I see many logical faults within it.

 

Thanks for the applause! But it is very difficult to reply to your comment. Could you be more specific on what logical faults you are talking about. I would be very happy to clarify my thoughts about those issues.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

God is another issue.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Where Did The Universe Come From?

 

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

================================================

 

If you limit yourself to one option, you will never ever know the truth and the functioning of the universe.

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/PASP./0108//0001065.000.html

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1996PASP%2E%2E108%2E1068G

http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#meaningquantized

 

thats some info

 

Do not use God's name to serve your purpose.

[durgatosh]

Hello All

 

God is another issue.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

Where Did The Universe Come From?

 

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

================================================

 

If you limit yourself to one option, you will never ever know the truth and the functioning of the universe.

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/PASP./0108//0001065.000.html

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1996PASP%2E%2E108%2E1068G

http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#meaningquantized

 

thats some info

 

Do not use God's name to serve your purpose.

 

Dear Harry,

 

I am astonished at your reaction and it is therefore imperative that I reply to you quickly so that other viewers do not misunderstand the issue. I am trying to explain the existence / origin of universe with a theory that seems to be most plausible and scientific to me. I am not using God's name to suit my purpose. If you have got that impression, you have not understood my point at all.

 

What I mean is that all the other theories of origin of universe are essentially similar to the "Creation by God" theory because they fail to answer to the endless question of "where it came from". I have tried to address this issue in my way of "split of zero" and infinite instability of zero". If you are not convinced, well, my purpose is not to convince everybody but to put forward my understanding about the truth.

 

I hope other readers will understand my point. Whether they agree with my theory is a different matter altogether. It is the quest for truth, my friend, and in this quest, adverse opinions do not matter to me.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Jay-qu]

It is the quest for truth, my friend, and in this quest, adverse opinions do not matter to me.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

Well they should, and you will find you wont get far anywhere if you are not considerate of your compeditors.

[durgatosh]

Well they should, and you will find you wont get far anywhere if you are not considerate of your compeditors.

 

I value the alternative and competitive opinions a lot. One learns a lot from one's adversaries and competitors. But, the adverse and occasionally abrasive comments and opinions do not detract me from my position so long as I am convinced about it.

 

Can we have more discussion about the merits and (demerits if you wish) of the paper rather than discussing about the personal prejudices.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Harry Costas]

Hello Durgatosh

 

Mate,,,,,,,,,,,stay cool,,,,,,,,,words make people emotional.

 

I'm religious, but I never use my beliefs to influence others.

 

We are just discussing the issues.

 

You asked where did it all come from.

 

Mate its always been here in one form or another.

You cannot create matter from nothing.

and

Matter cannot go to nothing.

 

So we have an Ongoing Universe with all the bits and pieces just recycling.

The deeper we look into space the more we find existing galaxies similar to the close galaxies.

We study evolution within stars and galaxies and their varies forms.

 

Some people think along the lines of the Big Bang and others like myself do not. So be it.

[durgatosh]

Hello Durgatosh

 

Mate,,,,,,,,,,,stay cool,,,,,,,,,words make people emotional.

 

I'm religious, but I never use my beliefs to influence others.

 

 

Hi Harry!

 

Never mind, lets be friends. In my own way, I am a very deeply religious person too. However, I do not have a conventional view about religion and God. We can discuss issues about God and religion but I don't think this is a right forum for that. Maybe you or I start a thread in Philosophy or Religion section and we can discuss there.

 

You cannot create matter from nothing.

and

Matter cannot go to nothing.

 

So we have an Ongoing Universe with all the bits and pieces just recycling

 

Very true. I would urge you to read my first post once again. I think you got this message from my "split of zero" theory which is a mathematical explanation of origin from nothing. But if you read further, I have explained problems with this theory and then my thoughts have evolved to the impossibility (infinite instability) of zero: I have explained this with the help of quantum theory and the problem of overtaking vehicles.

 

Yes, the universe has been ever-existing and infinite; but with a sum total of zero (zero being an all-encompassing entity from negative infinity to positive infinity).

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Little Bang]

When a collision occurrs between two vehicles the police come to the scene and try to figure out what caused the accident. They do this by analyzing the clues left before the collision. The beginning of the universe, if there was one, is a like this collision except that there were no clues left before it happened. The only thing that might be considered a clue is the quantum foam which probably was here before the universe. I can not understand how a split zero can shed any light on our quest for an answer. Of course that's my humble opinion.

[InfiniteNow]

One more thing, singularity cannot exist.

care to back that up harry? It is a very valid and possible theory, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind it.

I suppose not...

 

Harry,

 

Perhaps you could answer the question posed to you with your own voice? While it's useful to support the claims you make using links, posting links with no particular reference to how it supports your claim is pretty much useless.

 

 

Example: Poor response:

"In response to your question, see the following:

Link1

Link2

.

.

.

Link n"

 

 

Example: Better response:

"You asked why I stated that a singularity cannot exist. It really is more of a personal hypothesis, but I base my opinion on the work of NameX, NameY, and also partially on concurrent work of NameZ. In NameX's work, he showed that.... and you can find a link to the rest of his work at the following for verification.

Link to X's work...

 

Now, while NameY took a different approach, she seems to have reached a similar conclusion, demonstrated by her results on ExperimentA...

Link to Y's work..."

 

 

 

Cheers. :)

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Durgatosh

 

I always say keep it simple, the darn things are out there and we can see close to 14 billion light years. Soon even further with the new scope they are building.

 

We can see varies stages of star formations, and have placed varies theories as to how the elements were formed by the stars and black holes.

 

We can see varies stages of galaxies and have placed varies theories as to their evolution.

 

Some theories are conventional and others unconventional.

 

But! if we base it on observations and scientific principles than we may be on track.

 

Stay cool mate

 

=====================================================

 

Hello Infinity now

 

Singularity in the past had two meanings to me.

 

1) That matter compacts to an inifinite point.

Science tells us how dense we can get Neutron stars 10^15 - 10^18

Qark stars 10^18 to 10^ 22 or there abouts

Theoretical Preon stars 10^22 - 10^35 there abouts

Once it goes past a crirical point the ultra dense plasma matter will not allow light to escape.

 

2) Singularity where matter breaks down to subatomic particals and the pool contains the same partical a "singular uniform plasma matter". Where the density is over 10^35. One may say this is getting close to infinity but! not NOW. Smile I had to put this in.

 

 

===============================================

Some links that I post may not support my ideas thats fine. Thats cosmology for you. Who is right and who is wrong?

 

We are at the door step of new found observations and scientific break throughs. Theories are changing, what we thought correct today is old news the next day.

[Jay-qu]

Who is right and who is wrong?

 

That is a good point and taking such a way of thinking you should never state anything as fact, instead only as point of view that fits with the data.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

At this point in time. We all offer our opinions and very little facts.

 

That goes without saying.

[durgatosh]

Little Bang

When a collision occurrs between two vehicles the police come to the scene and try to figure out what caused the accident. They do this by analyzing the clues left before the collision. The beginning of the universe, if there was one, is a like this collision except that there were no clues left before it happened. The only thing that might be considered a clue is the quantum foam which probably was here before the universe. I can not understand how a split zero can shed any light on our quest for an answer. Of course that's my humble opinion.

 

The assumption that origin of universe would leave behind trail which we could definitely understand seems to me as a gross overestimation of our abilities as humans and a gross underestimation of the grand design of the cosmos. We may or may not be able to provide experimental or observational evidence to the reality of origin: my attempt at explaining the origin is purely based on logic and reasoning. I hope my hypothesis of the "infinite instability of zero" can get a mathematical proof some day.

 

Please try to understand that the "split of zero" was a concept thought by me when I was trying to explain origin from nothing. It is an interim concept to put forward my final theory about the origin. The infinite instability of zero is the key to my understanding of the origin of universe.

 

 

Harry Costas

Singularity in the past had two meanings to me.

 

1) That matter compacts to an inifinite point.

Science tells us how dense we can get Neutron stars 10^15 - 10^18

Qark stars 10^18 to 10^ 22 or there abouts

Theoretical Preon stars 10^22 - 10^35 there abouts

Once it goes past a crirical point the ultra dense plasma matter will not allow light to escape.

 

2) Singularity where matter breaks down to subatomic particals and the pool contains the same partical a "singular uniform plasma matter". Where the density is over 10^35. One may say this is getting close to infinity but! not NOW. Smile I had to put this in.

 

Hi Harry!

 

Great explanation of singularity. To me, singularity means infinity in an infinitesimally small point. If you extend this concept further, singularity would mean infinity in zero. Hence, zero is the singularity. This explains origin from nothing.

 

But, as I mentioned earlier, my interpretation of zero is that it cannot exist by itself, rather it is an all-encompassing number: from negative infinity to positive infinity. I believe that an ever-existing universe can be explained by the concept of "infinite instability of zero".

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Harry Costas]

Hello Durgatosh

 

 

Mate if you think that your theory is correct, than keep at it. You may see something that we cannot.

 

Oh! I made a funny in the last post. Nobody picked it up

 

 

One may say this is getting close to infinity but! not NOW. Smile I had to put this in.

[durgatosh]

Harry Costas

Hello Durgatosh

 

 

Mate if you think that your theory is correct, than keep at it. You may see something that we cannot.

 

 

Hi Harry,

 

Nice way to close a discussion. I am not seeing something which others cannot.

 

For the sake of making things simple, I shall try to discuss only a few points at a time rather than to repeat the whole discussion.

 

1. What is the definition of origin in the context of the universe?

2. If one keeps on asking "where did it come from", where do you end?

3. If you say that universe started with big bang, what is the origin of the infinitely dense complex which exploded as the big bang?

4. If you say that universe is ever-existing, how do you explain it in terms of origin?

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

PS: Once we are decided about these issues, I would later like to move towards the re-interpretation of zero.

 

DP

[C1ay]

Once we are decided about these issues....

What is "decided"? Man does not currently have the ability or the information to prove or disprove any theory or speculation on the origin of the universe as we know it. Man can only continue to explore and gather information. If you have other issues you want to discuss I would open threads and discuss them now for the topic of this thread will probably never be decided....