"Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

"Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.


"According to New Scientist, the concept is based on something known as conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). What it means is that our universe, rather than beginning with a single Big Bang, goes through continual cycles of Big Bangs and compressions.

While the vast majority of the cosmos would be annihilated from one cycle to the next, these scientists claim that some electromagnetic radiation may survive the recycling process. Their findings have been published on arXiv.

'What we claim we’re seeing is the final remnant after a black hole has evaporated away in the previous aeon,' University of Oxford mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, a co-author on the study and co-creator of CCC theory, told
New Scientist.

The evidence is presented in the form of “Hawking points,” which are named after the late Stephen Hawking. He hypothesised that black holes would release Hawking radiation, which Penrose and his colleagues claim may travel from one universe to the next."


etc.

etc.
source


Could this spell the end to any need of a creator of our universe? It certainly appears so.

.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: "Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Post #2

Post by Miles »

.

Posted to put the thread into the agenda.

.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: "Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Post #3

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

No, not at all. All this would do is push the time of creation in secular theories back further. Roger Pembrose has been advocating for a cyclic universe for some time now.
  • This picture of cyclic brane collisions actually resolves one of the longest-standing puzzles in cyclic models. The idea of a cyclic model isn't new: Friedmann and others pictured a cyclic model back in the 1930's. They envisaged a finite universe which collapsed and bounced over and over again. But Richard Tolman soon pointed out that, actually, it wouldn't remove the problem of having to have a beginning. The reason those cyclic models didn't work is that every bounce makes more radiation and that means the universe has more stuff in it. According to Einstein's equations, this makes the universe bigger after each bounce, so that every cycle lasts longer than the one before it. But, tracing back to the past, the duration of each bounce gets shorter and shorter and the duration of the cycles shrinks to zero, meaning that the universe still had to begin a finite time ago. An eternal cyclic model was impossible, in the old framework. What is new about our model is that by employing dark energy and by having an infinite universe, which dilutes away the radiation and matter after every bang, you actually can have an eternal cyclic universe, which could last forever. https://www.edge.org/conversation/neil_ ... efore%20it.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: "Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Post #4

Post by boatsnguitars »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:55 pm [Replying to Miles in post #1]

No, not at all. All this would do is push the time of creation in secular theories back further. Roger Pembrose has been advocating for a cyclic universe for some time now.
  • This picture of cyclic brane collisions actually resolves one of the longest-standing puzzles in cyclic models. The idea of a cyclic model isn't new: Friedmann and others pictured a cyclic model back in the 1930's. They envisaged a finite universe which collapsed and bounced over and over again. But Richard Tolman soon pointed out that, actually, it wouldn't remove the problem of having to have a beginning. The reason those cyclic models didn't work is that every bounce makes more radiation and that means the universe has more stuff in it. According to Einstein's equations, this makes the universe bigger after each bounce, so that every cycle lasts longer than the one before it. But, tracing back to the past, the duration of each bounce gets shorter and shorter and the duration of the cycles shrinks to zero, meaning that the universe still had to begin a finite time ago. An eternal cyclic model was impossible, in the old framework. What is new about our model is that by employing dark energy and by having an infinite universe, which dilutes away the radiation and matter after every bang, you actually can have an eternal cyclic universe, which could last forever. https://www.edge.org/conversation/neil_ ... efore%20it.
It's true theists will always find a gap to insert their gods, but this would definitely disprove most religions since they don't mention this. But, guaranteed, Christians will start claiming that's what Genesis is all about. God didn't wipe out the first humans with a Flood, he collapsed the first universe to create this one.
Then they'll say, " and this makes perfect sense, because where's all the water? There isn't enough water to flood the earth, so it must be true, checkmate atheists!"

They will always change their story to align with the science. Or, simply reject the science. Or do a hybrid. It doesn't matter to them: whatever they can say that convinces themselves there is a God is all fair game. Then they accuse others of being irrational.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: "Scientists Find ‘Evidence’ of Another Universe Before Our Own"

Post #5

Post by Purple Knight »

You don't need a gap to believe in creator god. Either he made everything to be this way, or he didn't.

A god of the gaps just makes god a bad watchmaker who has to constantly wind, tune up, and fiddle with the watch he made. An omnipotent one would just make the watch perfectly functional in the first place.

So an omnipotent creator god, or no god at all, would leave similar evidence as far as how the universe began.

If there are true gaps, it suggests neither an omnipotent creator nor no creator, but a flawed creator.

Post Reply