Origin of world

FOREWORD

Like the other members of last four-five generation I also was taught that:

a) science give all answers and solutions for your questions, follower of science rational persons,
 b) religions are obsolite theories, and useless in the modern societies, and "belivers" are strictly insisted on their old  books.

Like many others I also accepted without any further investigation. Quite later on I had to realize that the real situation is not jus like this.

In this portal I do not want to convince anybody to follow my direction. My offer is only if you are looking for your own direction you will find  some matter that help you to find whar makes you satisfied.

If you liked these ideas you can send away:
The Most Exciting Questions 

THE LAWS OF UNIVERSE

Humans don't have to create the laws of nature - they are already done and are in effect. We just have to FIND that created by someone else or by something else have already created and ordered it into operation. Or just simply exist by own nature.

Our Philosophy                                         

The nothing cannot become something,
and something cannot become nothing.
 
Matter and energy are not interchangeable.
Neither one is created from the other -
 nor the other from the first one.
Energy is released or absorbed when matter
changes state. There is no matter-energy
conversion in nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs.

The origin of the world can be approached primarily
from the philosophical's perspective,




But these statements and conclusions make me doubtful about scientific news ...

1. What is in the empty space?
You may believed that  "empty" is called empty because there is nothing. By official science: There is once upon a time there was “ether”, then we realized that there was no ether yet. Let's have zero-point energy, and vacuum energy. These also have five or six years left to die, and then scientist will find something new out.

2. Date of Big-Bang
I remember that 30 years ago the first official date for the Big Bang was 1.8 billion years. Scientists took that very seriously, it was no right to doubt it. This number has now increased in about five steps to 18.5 billion years - as usual, there is no room for doubt now.

3. How it happened?
     1. Version. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, so a perfectly stable, perfectly static state had to exist and remain unchanged until the end of time.  After all, we are in the motionless - energy and matter-free world, which is the most stable state imaginable.
But why did it tip over?

     2. Version. Before the Big Bang, there was almost nothing, so a perfectly stable, zero-point energy that was the source of matter.  Without matter, energy cannot exist.
But if theme was no matter, how can then energy just float around somewhere?

   3. Version. There was no BigBang    
Dark matter and dark energy are particularly polite partners, there is always just enough in space to make our equations work.


4. The size of universe before BigBang
"before the BigBang all existing material was pressed into a very small place like pinhead."
What does justify this estimation? Why not 1 cubic meter, or 1 cubic kilometer, or tenth part of a pinhead?

But anyway, we are exist here so somehow this world must came to the reality. For this there are three options:

a) since every moment has a preceding moment; the is borderless in back direction and matters just simply there are. How many years old is the World? Nobody do not knows, nobody can not calculate it. Nobody cannot imagine and nobody cannot understand what does it mean: "the word is borderless in back direction".
b)  we can provide a Superior Planner and Creator who is responsible for the whole World. If our choice is this, we have to acknowledge his Absolute Abilities, however if we provide partial abilities, the remaining happenings still wait for explanation.
The collective memory of mankide contains certain elements that may understood then direct connection with the Suprior Planner and Creator.

c) third option is somekind of singularity that means that matter came to reality just his own way from the "Empty Space" or from some energy. This could be excluded at first.

Among the scientific declarations you can find very often similar explanation like this:

"We don't know what dark energy is, but we need to assume it exists in order to explain the Universe's expansion."
  / Hm ..  looking this justification, what do you think?

If we wish to describe the behaviour of institutional science, beside the many highly acknowledged of great act we may realize: it send very quickly changing declarations but it always must be accepted without any contrastatement or questionmark.

Very hard to understand "the World is borderless in back direction". Our brain historically trained that everything has "BEGINNING TIME. We knows how many years we do our occupation, when was born our child, when opened the neighboring bakery. But we are unable to comprehend that something has no Beginning.


If you liked you can send away:
Origin of World