Residing deep within an South American valley, God smiles to himself...
Printable View
Residing deep within an South American valley, God smiles to himself...
Food for thought:
http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~shanta/pic/infinity.gif
This is why people have such difficulty with the basics. It's not enough to decide whether a God created the Universe or not. Some people cannot consider how the Universe came about, based purely on logical deduction. Rather than that they ask, "if God exists, then what is his address?".
It is no more ridiculous to suggest that God exists outside of spacetime than it is to suggest that the whole Universe just came into being spontaneously, from nothingness. In fact, it is less ridiculous.
As such, much as I cannot tell you God's postcode, or give you his phone number, it is reasonable for me to say that he exists. It's the simplest way to explain the problem.
Now whether he cares about us, or even know's we exist, that is entirely another story.
I like to think of the "universe" as a sentient being and due to its size we are just a microscopic part of it,as I understand it the universe is expanding form some sort of cosmic center and when the outward energy slows to a stop then we will start contracting back into the center.
When all the matter reachs the center it will again explode and thus the cycle of life will begin again.
You can call it what you like,God ,Goddes whatever,wether it takes notice of us who knows,do we take notice of dead skin cells flaikng off our body,not really it just happens.
So "God" won't notice us until we do enough to upset the cosmic whole,much as we ignore our body till it becomes sick.
I have kinda lost my thread of thought now,so I'll stfu.
That's the most sensible thing you've ever said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedler
JP - I don't think you've chosen the simplest solution, you've just commuted the same problem to a higher level. ::stars:
The thing that we can't seem to get our heads around, is that there was no time before the universe, because time is a property of the universe. There is no space outside of the universe, because space is a property of the universe.
The universe just exists. Maybe it's one of an infinite number of universes occupying the same space, we'll never know.
The way I look at it, is to imagine that the universe was only 2 dimensional, and existed on the surface of a balloon. Now if you inflated the balloon, the universe would expand, if you let some air out of the balloon, then the universe will contract.
Now try to explain to a being that lives in that 2 dimensional universe what exactly is happening :stars:
The concept of another dimension of space would be completely beyond him, as all his knowledge about his universe is limited to 2 dimensions.
This is our problem with our universe. Our knowledge of it will always be limited to what we can observe.
Not very ambitious are we :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
How can we be sure that we can't observe all the dimensions of the universe? Isn't it worth expanding our knowledge of the infinite? (That's the noun infinite).
Not to me. Ambition is for emos.Quote:
Originally Posted by DorisInsinuate
If you find out the answer, then let me know. :mellow:
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarossa
Ah but bear in mind, the emos shall inherit the Earth.
Or was that the cheesemakers?
But how can the universe contract if it doesn't end?
We aren't like our ancestors are we,"look out,the universe is flat if you go to far you'll fall off"
Science, lol.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stm
Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4974134.stmQuote:
A joint UK-US team has put forward an alternative theory of cosmic evolution.
It proposes that the Universe undergoes cycles of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches", meaning our Universe is merely a "child of the previous one".
It challenges the conventional view of the cosmos, which observations show to be 12-14 billion years old.
The new ideas, reported in the journal Science, may explain why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, the researchers say.
"At present the conventional view is that all of space, time, matter and energy began at a single point, which then expanded and cooled, leaving the Universe as it is today," said Professor Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, New Jersey.
"However, this new theory suggests that there's a continuous cycle of universes, with each a repeat of the last, but not an exact replica.
"It can be thought of as a child of the previous universe."
Cosmological constant
The new idea builds on previous work by the same team, and is set to challenge the current model.
Back in the 1920s, when Einstein was developing his general theory of relativity, he introduced a constant, known as the cosmological constant, to explain his idea of a static Universe.
Einstein's equations predicted a Universe collapsing under its own gravitational force, whereas observation showed it clearly was not contracting.
The cosmological constant represented an inherent pressure or force associated with free space, which would be resisting the gravity-drive contraction.
The concept was later abandoned when observations showed the Universe to be expanding - causing Einstein to label the cosmological constant as "the greatest blunder of my career".
In 1998, a form of the constant was re-habilitated when it was found that the Universe's expansion was actually speeding up.
Unanswered questions
Although the re-introduction of the constant enabled calculations to match theory, it also raised the question that there was something in physics that was "missing".
Professor Neil Turok, of Cambridge University, told the BBC News website: "When the value of the cosmological constant was calculated, it was found to be much smaller than expected.
"The explanation as to why this constant is so small has become one of the biggest problems in physics.
"At present, the only explanation for this is that things just have to be that way." This theory leaves many questions unanswered, but now Professors Steinhardt and Turok have developed a new theory to explain why the cosmological constant is so small.
They suggest that time actually began before the Big Bang, meaning there was a pre-existing universe.
This would also mean that the current Universe is much older than presently accepted.
Dark matter
"At present there may be an alternative 'dark matter' universe that exists at the same time as ours, but we could never reach it," explained Professor Turok.
"The best way to think of this is to think of a pane of double glazing with a fly on it. The fly is unable to cross over from one side to another, just like we are unable to get from one universe to another.
"These two universes are drawn together by the force of gravity and will eventually collide.
"This means that things that are happening now will help to create another universe in the future."
Pfft, people started to realise the Earth was round at around 7th century BC (Before God was invented).
:shifty:Quote:
Originally Posted by DorisInsinuate
Probably a rod,but BC stands for Before Christ
It would be wrong to claim a rod. It's more like spanking you on the face with the unsubtlety pole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
:O :cry: :cry1: :emo:
Who's talking about Christ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gripper
How do you know it doesn't end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
I never claimed I did. I was going on the general assumption that everybody seems to agree with; that the universe is infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Are you just randomly asking questions?
Yeah, but it's infinite within a finite space, I thought everyone knew that.
:schnauz:
:dabs:
Like you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
I never claimed you claimed you knew. I was going on the general assumption of the random question you posed.
You wouldn't know.
Are you going for the "I know you are, you said you are, so what am I?" approach here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
he never claimed you claimed he claimed he knew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
I think that's cleared up.
Are you claiming that he claimed I claimed he claimed I knew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Ten to twelve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
:o
No not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
STFUQuote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
wibble
Everything I asked was relevant to points made by others.
Your question was asking me something about I never said, i don't think I said the universe was infinite or had an end, I just questioned others perceptions.
yeah, cocksnot.
h4rsh?
You seem to be equating contraction with ending... that's incorrect reasoning Bo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
I gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proper Bo
Totally unrelated. :crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
Busy, you usually ask stupid questions when you don't know the answer to something. Whenever you do that, it signifies to me (prolly others too) that you don't have a clue how to answer and are trying to misdirect the person or people countering your weak assertions.
Since we're all in the same boat of complete ignorance, this thread must seem like a veritable safe haven, eh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
How can something which is supposedly infinite become smaller?Quote:
v. con·tract·ed, con·tract·ing (kn-trkt, kntrkt)
To reduce in size by drawing together; shrink.
Why do you think it's infinite?
The only thing which would lead me to think it was infinite is the sheer difficulty of trying to picture anything beyond.
edit: but it's also hard to imagine there being a beginning, well, anything before the beginning actually.
Space-time is warped beyond our understanding. :sage: