Respecting religion???
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Both statements are true. The universe has an boundary in the sense that it is expanding, and there is a limit represented by the furthest distance that it is possible to travel at the speed of light in the 14.5 billion years or so since the BB.But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
Gaspode said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Category error. The universe is everything there is, there is nothing 'beyond' the universe, because if there was, it would be part of the universe. One may as well ask 'What is further south than the south pole?' Space and time started with the Big Bang, there is no 'before' because time didn't exist.Gaspode said:
Category error. The universe is everything there is, there is nothing 'beyond' the universe, because if there was, it would be part of the universe. One may as well ask 'What is further south than the south pole?' Space and time started with the Big Bang, there is no 'before' because time didn't exist.
Wrong. There may be many universes.Understanding the "boundaries" of them is waaaaay beyond me, though...
Don said:
Wrong. There may be many universes.
Understanding the "boundaries" of them is waaaaay beyond me, though...
Not in the 3-dimensional space way that VK meant though. IF the many-worlds hypothesis is true, it doesn't mean we have an infinite number of universes all lined up next to each other in the same physical space like dried peas in a jar. In any given universe, there is no 'outside'.Understanding the "boundaries" of them is waaaaay beyond me, though...
So if it isn't 3D how many dimensions does it have?
The way I imagine it, it is expanding(I am told this) and the matter furthermost from the epicentre of the big bang is effectively the edge of the universe. But if it is expanding surely it must be expanding into a previously 'nothing' zone which isn't the universe until the universe enters it? So what is this zone called? And how can it be nothing?
The way I imagine it, it is expanding(I am told this) and the matter furthermost from the epicentre of the big bang is effectively the edge of the universe. But if it is expanding surely it must be expanding into a previously 'nothing' zone which isn't the universe until the universe enters it? So what is this zone called? And how can it be nothing?
Gaspode said:
Both statements are true. The universe has an boundary in the sense that it is expanding, and there is a limit represented by the furthest distance that it is possible to travel at the speed of light in the 14.5 billion years or so since the BB.
But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
But would you end up where you started? I'm not saying you're wrong but surely in the 14.5 billion years you were travelling the universe would have expanded by another 14.5 billion years? So wouldn't you need to travel faster than the speed of light or you'd always be 14.5 billion years away from being back where you started?But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
See, I told you it makes your brain hurt. Don't do it for too long!I think the constantly expanding and contracting theory makes some sense - in that respect there was something before the big bang - the same stuff. Solves the problem of something from nothing.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
How many dimensions? Depends which (if any) of the competing superstring models turn out to be correct. And no, the universe isn't expanding into a previously empty volume. The universe is everything there is, all the matter, all the space between the matter, all the dark matter, all the energy, and all the dark energy. Everything. And it's expanding.mygoldfishbowl said:
Gaspode said:
Both statements are true. The universe has an boundary in the sense that it is expanding, and there is a limit represented by the furthest distance that it is possible to travel at the speed of light in the 14.5 billion years or so since the BB.
But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
But would you end up where you started? I'm not saying you're wrong but surely in the 14.5 billion years you were travelling the universe would have expanded by another 14.5 billion years? So wouldn't you need to travel faster than the speed of light or you'd always be 14.5 billion years away from being back where you started?But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
Gaspode said:
How many dimensions? Depends which (if any) of the competing superstring models turn out to be correct. And no, the universe isn't expanding into a previously empty volume. The universe is everything there is, all the matter, all the space between the matter, all the dark matter, all the energy, and all the dark energy. Everything. And it's expanding.
Turns out rather than expanding but slowing down (like a conventional explosion) - the expansion of the universe is actually still accelerating. This may contradict the complementary big crunch theory (i.e. as gravity pulls everything back together again). But then again it might not. mygoldfishbowl said:
But would you end up where you started? I'm not saying you're wrong but surely in the 14.5 billion years you were travelling the universe would have expanded by another 14.5 billion years? So wouldn't you need to travel faster than the speed of light or you'd always be 14.5 billion years away from being back where you started?
Yes, sloppy typing on my part. You wouldn't ever be able to really return to the point you started from, because the universe is expanding at the speed of light. I blame (a) watching Sherlock at the same time and (b) drinking 17 year-old cask strength Glenlivet.TwigtheWonderkid said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
Gaspode said:
Both statements are true. The universe has an boundary in the sense that it is expanding, and there is a limit represented by the furthest distance that it is possible to travel at the speed of light in the 14.5 billion years or so since the BB.
But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
But would you end up where you started? I'm not saying you're wrong but surely in the 14.5 billion years you were travelling the universe would have expanded by another 14.5 billion years? So wouldn't you need to travel faster than the speed of light or you'd always be 14.5 billion years away from being back where you started?But it's not a good idea to think of it like a balloon being blown up, there's no 'outside'. If one was to be able to travel in a straight line at the speed of light, after 14.5 billion years you'd end up back where you started.
///ajd said:
Turns out rather than expanding but slowing down (like a conventional explosion) - the expansion of the universe is actually still accelerating. This may contradict the complementary big crunch theory (i.e. as gravity pulls everything back together again). But then again it might not.
Lawrence Krauss' 'A Universe From Nothing' is a good primer on the subject. Ianonymous said:
[redacted]
I think we have an explanation as to why VK wants to believe in a god. Just accept that the universe might not be susceptible to analogy. You need mathematics to describe it, but for us there is no concept of outside as such.
We cannot get the the edge, except by mathematics, due to the restrictions (laws) of the universe. You can see, I expect, that no one can answer the question: what would happen if I traveled at the speed of light, because you can't. No thing can. So the question you have posed: what is beyond the universe, is in the same league. It can't be answered because for us, there is only universe.
You say: the way I imagine it . . . but you obviously don't understand because even I know that there is no epicentre, and I don't know nothing.
It is reasonable to suggest that there is god beyond the edge, but, as there can be no evidence of this, it is unreasonable to believe it.
At the moment all science can offer is options as to the nature of the universe. There are lots and lots of observations, but very little prediction, which is the test of a theory. Strings and bubbles are merely ways of description, not a method of proof. We have dark energy and dark matter, but no one knows what these are, yet, it appears, they make up the vast majority of the universe.
The answer to know knowing is not to wipe the slate clean and say some bloke (or women, or gender neutral thing) did it. Any explanation must take into account what we we have observed. The fact that even the cleverest scientist and the biggest computers can't go beyond 42 doesn't mean that magic did it.
You have my full permission to believe in whatever you want. However, if what you believe is ridiculous, might I suggest that if you do not want to be ridiculed, you should keep them to yourself.
We have had catholics who do not believe in catholicism suggest that belief trumps observations.
I see no reason to believe farmers' and shepherds' explanation of life, the universe and everything over that of the conclusions from observations. We've moved on.
Ah but Derek you don't KNOW there is no epicentre, all you know is that someone told you that.
So please don't say such ridiculous things if you want to avoid being mocked.
And if we can't know what is outside of the universe are those that believe or support the theories of universe or universes or nothing becoming something that is expanding into nothingness but has no boundaries to be mocked because they make fantastical claims without proof?
So please don't say such ridiculous things if you want to avoid being mocked.
And if we can't know what is outside of the universe are those that believe or support the theories of universe or universes or nothing becoming something that is expanding into nothingness but has no boundaries to be mocked because they make fantastical claims without proof?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 January 23:05
And time too.
I believe time is just a concept we invented to measure and to explain the passage of one moment to the next. Time is only in our heads,.something we made up as.a solution to scientific questions. So to think that time didn't exist at one point and to think that time can be manipulated (when time isn't a 'thing') could be seen as ridiculous. Should people who.prescribe to these beliefs be mocked?
If time travel was possible why haven't we seen time travellers coming to visit us?
I believe time is just a concept we invented to measure and to explain the passage of one moment to the next. Time is only in our heads,.something we made up as.a solution to scientific questions. So to think that time didn't exist at one point and to think that time can be manipulated (when time isn't a 'thing') could be seen as ridiculous. Should people who.prescribe to these beliefs be mocked?
If time travel was possible why haven't we seen time travellers coming to visit us?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 January 23:33
So VK, what do you actually "know"?
And so far as I'm concerned if people have been looking for "evidence" of a god for thousands of years but not a trace has been found - then there probably isn't one. Some people feel the need to believe "just in case" but that seems feeble to me.
Riddle me this,
And so far as I'm concerned if people have been looking for "evidence" of a god for thousands of years but not a trace has been found - then there probably isn't one. Some people feel the need to believe "just in case" but that seems feeble to me.
Riddle me this,
- How did god communicate with humans before they knew how to read and write?
- It appears god decided to communicate in writing once people got the hang of it.
- How come god hasn't moved on to communicating over the internet? Seems a bit of a slip-up for the all-powerful one to steer clear of something which would potentially be far more effective than relying on those old books.
t at that.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff