How did the Universe come to be?

[Ozzy]

I like how the poll is expecting me to provide a straightforward answer as if I really know the question. It is called a theory for a reason, no one really knows what was created from nothingness.

Its an online forum, no one expects you to know anything.

That explains all the trollish threads with rhetorical topics.

[The Type II Gods]

I like how the poll is expecting me to provide a straightforward answer as if I really know the question. It is called a theory for a reason, no one really knows what was created from nothingness.

You are right for the most part with the exception of your usage of "theory." But yes, I don't understand how anyone here hopes to answer flaws that the greatest physicists could not understand.

[Sun Wukong]

I like how the poll is expecting me to provide a straightforward answer as if I really know the question. It is called a theory for a reason, no one really knows what was created from nothingness.

Well, a theory is the highest level of confidence science can achieve, so I'm not sure what you're on about there.

But no, obviously we are not expecting all that much from the random plebiscite of an internet forum.

[Mandicoria]

A giant green alien from the 55th dimension had the sniffles one day, and when he sneezed the first time the universe was born.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I like how the poll is expecting me to provide a straightforward answer as if I really know the question. It is called a theory for a reason, no one really knows what was created from nothingness.

You are right for the most part with the exception of your usage of "theory." But yes, I don't understand how anyone here hopes to answer flaws that the greatest physicists could not understand.

The universe doesn't have flaws, it just fucking exists.

That's like saying the sun rotates in the wrong direction.

[The Type II Gods]

You are right for the most part with the exception of your usage of "theory." But yes, I don't understand how anyone here hopes to answer flaws that the greatest physicists could not understand.

The universe doesn't have flaws, it just fucking exists.

That's like saying the sun rotates in the wrong direction.

I was referring to "flaws," as in flaws pertaining to scientific hypotheses, not the "universe."

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The universe doesn't have flaws, it just fucking exists.

That's like saying the sun rotates in the wrong direction.

I was referring to "flaws," as in flaws pertaining to scientific hypotheses, not the "universe."

Oh, thank hypothetical god.

[Grave_n_idle]

A curious assertion, given that there are human artifacts easily 3 or 4 times that age. What species were we when we created those, and what marks the point where we stopped being that species and started being this one?

We always were human. We never were anything else.

Can't have it both ways. Either our species has existed longer than your original number (based on much older human artifacts) -and thus your original claim was wrong, or we are now a different species than the one who created the artifacts.

All the material evidence suggests the former is true.

[United Christian America]

But no, obviously we are not expecting all that much from the random plebiscite of an internet forum.

Um, don't we all follow that criteria?

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

But no, obviously we are not expecting all that much from the random plebiscite of an internet forum.

Um, don't we all follow that criteria?

I'm not random at all.

[New Waterford]

I don't see why the existence of the Big Bang and that of God are mutually exclusive. I mean, one of the central figures in the creation of the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The Big Bang created this universe. I don't know how the big bang ever happened. Perhaps there was a lot of hydrogen and other elements in the Universe waiting to be released, and it got released.

Perhaps it is god which created the Big Bang?

I don't know.

[Nervium]

The Big Bang created this universe. I don't know how the big bang ever happened. Perhaps there was a lot of hydrogen and other elements in the Universe waiting to be released, and it got released.

Perhaps it is god which created the Big Bang?

I don't know.

Maybe it was a spacesphip from the previous Universe that exploded and thus created this one?

[Myrensis]

I love the argument that the universe we've evolved to be perfectly suited to... is perfectly suited to us.

Technically we've evolved to be reasonably well-suited to particular portions of a single planet.

That chain of logic always baffles me, "99.999999% of the known universe is inimical to life as we know it, vast swathes of our own planet are inaccessible to us without expensive technological aid that still only lets us dabble...yup, clearly a Benevolent Creator God designed everything to perfectly suit us."

[Breadknife]

Let's sum up here:
Most of you believe Earth is going to get cooked by the Sun getting into a red giant, humanity and all life will get wiped out, Earth will get swallowed by the Sun, then after a long time Sun will die, and a really long time after that Universe will end and then you have no idea. How optimistic you are!

Oh no, no at all. I think humanity on Earth will get wiped out long before the Earth gets cooked.

(Or, more optimistically, that at least some of us will volountarily vacate the place well in advance. Then the Earthbound remnants of humanity will die out. Still well before the Sun becomes a major natural factor in that. Unless someone deliberately blows up the Sun, of course, which would be a whole new ball-game. - See! That's a far more optimistic prediction!)

[L Ron Cupboard]

The Big Bang created this universe. I don't know how the big bang ever happened. Perhaps there was a lot of hydrogen and other elements in the Universe waiting to be released, and it got released.

Perhaps it is god which created the Big Bang?

I don't know.

Hydrogen and other elements didn't exist, those appeared later.

[Nervium]

The Big Bang created this universe. I don't know how the big bang ever happened. Perhaps there was a lot of hydrogen and other elements in the Universe waiting to be released, and it got released.

Perhaps it is god which created the Big Bang?

I don't know.

Hydrogen and other elements didn't exist, those appeared later.

Seconds later.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Hydrogen and other elements didn't exist, those appeared later.

Seconds later.

Well timing is the secret of good cosmology.

[The Archregimancy]

I woke up one morning and saw that the universe was without form and void, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep.

So I decided to do something about it.

The rest is, I believe, history.

[Grave_n_idle]

I love the argument that the universe we've evolved to be perfectly suited to... is perfectly suited to us.

Technically we've evolved to be reasonably well-suited to particular portions of a single planet.

That chain of logic always baffles me, "99.999999% of the known universe is inimical to life as we know it, vast swathes of our own planet are inaccessible to us without expensive technological aid that still only lets us dabble...yup, clearly a Benevolent Creator God designed everything to perfectly suit us."

Right. I was just talking about our little corner. It's the story of the puddle deciding that the hollow in the ground was made specifically for it, because the puddle and the hollow are miraculously the same shape.

[Czechanada]

I like how the poll is expecting me to provide a straightforward answer as if I really know the question. It is called a theory for a reason, no one really knows what was created from nothingness.

You do know that the term theory has a different definition in science than that of the vernacular?

[Breadknife]

It's an effective system because sixty has so many divisors.

so do many other numbers,

But it's one of the useful high-points...

Plotting number of divisors per number, per log (natural) of that number (to moderate the 'usefulness' quotient as the value itself gets less managable)...

What you could do, when looking for a nice major division with a number of useful divisions, is choose a number with a large number of prime factors. In that case numbers that are 2^N would be expiditious choices (the absolute largest number of prime factors for any given magnitude, all of them being '2'). But the problem with such choices is that the non-prime factors are limited. 8 has PFs of 2, 2 and 2. And non-prime factors of 4, 4 and 4 and 8 (1st two times second two, 1st two times 3rd two, 2nd two times first two, then finally all the factors rerecombined), but those three fours are effectively just one four, so it doesn't give us quite as many options as it could have.

So maybe you want single-instance prime-factors? Take each prime. 2 (gives 2), 3 (with the 2, gives), 5 (=30), 7 (=210), etc. Except that multiplying by the seven (especially) does give you a large number that can be split into... 15? possible combinations. But sevenths/fourteenths/21sts/35ths, etc? *shudder* Human maths doesn't work too well with that.

But an eight, instead, is very nearly the same as seven (when it comes to the large number it gives you) but combined with a three (or a couple of threes) gives a number of other useful NPFs along the way. Factors of two (easily), three (barely) and five (a handful) are much more useful components than the increasingly larger primes. (Perhaps eleven is somewhat useful, but you can also wonder if ten contributing 2 and 5 to the mix for slightly less magnitude might be better, when building your perfect larger number...)

60 factors into 2, 2, 3 and 5, which would give 4+6+4^a intermediate factors (between from 1/1ths and 1/60ths themselves) if it weren't for the duplicated '2'. Instead it has 3+4+3^b of them, which is still quite a lot.

12 is handier (for inches in feet, or hours in half-a-day^c) for counting, being barely beyond a couple of handfuls. 360 is less handy for everyday use but gives a lot more integer divisions (from three '2's, two '3's, one '5', at its core) so made itself useful for degrees-in-a-full-circle, in classroom geometry especially. 240 has been used in other applications (adding an extra '2' and, perhaps more usefully, a '5' to the factors that 24 natively posesses... or two '2's to 60's compliment), but I think perhaps has a little too much magnitude given its effective "factor load".

So... yes... what was I saying? I forget. But aren't numbers interesting? (Even if I am not!)


^a (First-only, Second-only, Third-only, Fourth-only)+(First-and-second, First-and-third, First-and-fourth, Second-and-third, Second-and-fourth, third-and-fourth)+(1^st2^nd3^rd, 1^st2^nd4^th, 1^st3^rd4^th, 2^nd3^rd4^th)

^b (First-only, Second-only, Third-only, Fourth-only)+(First-and-second, First-and-third, First-and-fourth, Second-and-third, Second-and-fourth, third-and-fourth)+(1^st2^nd3^rd, 1^st2^nd4^th, 1^st3^rd4^th, 2^nd3^rd4^th)

^c As I recall, the 24-hours a day arose from the night-time sky (roughly half a day) being administratively (by the Egyptian priest order, or whoever it was again) split into not-necessarily-even twelfths, which eventually became twice that for the full day, then eventually regularised. But that was what I was taught several decades back, so doubtless it's a fact that's crucially wrong in some key way.

[Sociobiology]

so do many other numbers,

But it's one of the useful high-points...

Plotting number of divisors per number, per log (natural) of that number (to moderate the 'usefulness' quotient as the value itself gets less managable)...

What you could do, when looking for a nice major division with a number of useful divisions, is choose a number with a large number of prime factors. In that case numbers that are 2^N would be expiditious choices (the absolute largest number of prime factors for any given magnitude, all of them being '2'). But the problem with such choices is that the non-prime factors are limited. 8 has PFs of 2, 2 and 2. And non-prime factors of 4, 4 and 4 and 8 (1st two times second two, 1st two times 3rd two, 2nd two times first two, then finally all the factors rerecombined), but those three fours are effectively just one four, so it doesn't give us quite as many options as it could have.

So maybe you want single-instance prime-factors? Take each prime. 2 (gives 2), 3 (with the 2, gives), 5 (=30), 7 (=210), etc. Except that multiplying by the seven (especially) does give you a large number that can be split into... 15? possible combinations. But sevenths/fourteenths/21sts/35ths, etc? *shudder* Human maths doesn't work too well with that.

But an eight, instead, is very nearly the same as seven (when it comes to the large number it gives you) but combined with a three (or a couple of threes) gives a number of other useful NPFs along the way. Factors of two (easily), three (barely) and five (a handful) are much more useful components than the increasingly larger primes. (Perhaps eleven is somewhat useful, but you can also wonder if ten contributing 2 and 5 to the mix for slightly less magnitude might be better, when building your perfect larger number...)

60 factors into 2, 2, 3 and 5, which would give 4+6+4^a intermediate factors (between from 1/1ths and 1/60ths themselves) if it weren't for the duplicated '2'. Instead it has 3+4+3^b of them, which is still quite a lot.

12 is handier (for inches in feet, or hours in half-a-day^c) for counting, being barely beyond a couple of handfuls. 360 is less handy for everyday use but gives a lot more integer divisions (from three '2's, two '3's, one '5', at its core) so made itself useful for degrees-in-a-full-circle, in classroom geometry especially. 240 has been used in other applications (adding an extra '2' and, perhaps more usefully, a '5' to the factors that 24 natively posesses... or two '2's to 60's compliment), but I think perhaps has a little too much magnitude given its effective "factor load".

So... yes... what was I saying? I forget. But aren't numbers interesting? (Even if I am not!)


^a (First-only, Second-only, Third-only, Fourth-only)+(First-and-second, First-and-third, First-and-fourth, Second-and-third, Second-and-fourth, third-and-fourth)+(1^st2^nd3^rd, 1^st2^nd4^th, 1^st3^rd4^th, 2^nd3^rd4^th)

^b (First-only, Second-only, Third-only, Fourth-only)+(First-and-second, First-and-third, First-and-fourth, Second-and-third, Second-and-fourth, third-and-fourth)+(1^st2^nd3^rd, 1^st2^nd4^th, 1^st3^rd4^th, 2^nd3^rd4^th)

^c As I recall, the 24-hours a day arose from the night-time sky (roughly half a day) being administratively (by the Egyptian priest order, or whoever it was again) split into not-necessarily-even twelfths, which eventually became twice that for the full day, then eventually regularised. But that was what I was taught several decades back, so doubtless it's a fact that's crucially wrong in some key way.

actually the Egyptians carried the length of an hour to keep 12 hours during night and day throughout the year.
higher division ability is secondary to being small enough for human grouping ability to work, 12 would be far better than 60.

[Mavorpen]

Hydrogen and other elements didn't exist, those appeared later.

Seconds later.

Actually it took over 300,000 years for hydrogen and other light atoms to appear. Before then, the universe was too hot for the forces to seperate.

[New Zreuche]

Seconds later.

Actually it took over 300,000 years for hydrogen and other light atoms to appear. Before then, the universe was too hot for the forces to seperate.

Well, the forces split apart in less than a second, though we have an incredibly detailed account of the history of the first second. Past that ye had the little electrons and quarks, and a gigantic hunk of anti matter we've never found