I’ve never been able to understand this animosity between religion and science on this topic.

If you assume there is a prime mover, which would certainly be called God, Yahweh, Allah or whatever, would have created the universe. With each creation, which he would have done as he wished, he would have created laws of physics that must be followed henceforth, just as he set down the laws of kosher or the 10 commandments. Being an honest and loving God, he would not have tried to hide these laws from us. The books studied by the various religions reflect this creation, as best as the scribes could understand them at that time, not knowing the language of physics or higher math.

Scientists look at nature and try to understand what the laws are under which nature operates in order to find our origins and to understand how things work.

It seems to me that both sides are working toward the same goal so that confuses me. Why the problem?

Now I have a problem with the Big Bang that I would like to ask. I’ve been reading an article in Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...=1&catID=2, that postulates an infinite universe. Does that imply a localized Big Bang? Or is our universe as a subset of a larger universe? Or is infinite used incorrectly in the article?

An infinite universe means that it would take an infinite amount of time to pull the entire universe into a singularity, so that doesn’t work. That doesn’t work even for a half, a quarter or a thirty-second. Each would still be infinite.

If one accepts the premise a localized Big Bang would be acceptable I would think. Am I way off base here?

Marty, (just a patzer)

Depending on its curvature, the universe may be either finite or infinite, and at the moment we're not sure which. If it's finite, then it's easy (well, relatively ) to conceive. If it's infinite, that means that it was always infinite. Even the singularity that the Big Bang came from was infinite in extent. I can never really visualize an infinitely large space that then starts to expand, it's just too hard for me to imagine. But there's nothing wrong with it mathematically or physically, so it remains a viable possibility. As I've said many times before, the universe is under no obligations to be easily visualizable to us. :-?

Something that is infinite has no beginning and no end. But what would something with a beginning and no end be called? Perhaps the universe had a beginning but will have no end?

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

Hmm, now we might be confusing something that's infinite in space with something that's infinite in time. Again, it's hard to get your head around, but there's nothing wrong mathematically or physically with a universe that's infinite in size, but just appears at some point, hangs around for a few billion years, and then goes away.

From an abstract perspective, something with a beginning but no end is indeed still infinite. If you look at the set of positive integers versus the set of all integers, you can show mathematically that they're even the same "degree of infiniteness".

Hmmm, I can't seem to make the link work.

One thing, though. One major idea is that the big bang was violent enough to blow the universe flat (and therefore infinite) even though it may still end in a big crunch (or "gnab gib").

Or, that may be the article that you linked to...

There are problems with the big bang theory, but so far it is our best explaination of the universe and is mostly accepted as almost-exactly correct, it does have some little flaws, problems, some of the explanations for these flaws or irregualrities are kind of crazy, but should be examined nonetheless.

Chaps, I make this posting tentatively.

I really don't have time to read the whole of the thread yet, which is a shame because all the postings I have read are excellant.

Will try to get through some more.

A number of months ago I posted a theory of my own..or at least a link to it.. as to where the matter in the Universe came from.

Bear in mind that I am a NON-scientist, so this might just fall down as pseudo-science at best, and crap at worst.

But at least it's a try.

Chaps..

Matter exists because the non-existence of matter does not exist.

Existence exists.

Non-existence does not exist. It's that simple.

I did not get one single response to this posting except on peripherals.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I'll go along with half of that, more or less. Everything that you can think of and imagine exists, otherwise you couldn't think of it. It exists at least as an idea, one that may extend beyond conventional reality, but exists nonetheless. Now, there may be something unthinkable that does not exist (otherwise we could think of it). Obviously, don't try to think of an example beacause that would contradict its nonexistence. But, in fact, I would argue that there are an infinite number of "things" that don't exist. It's everything that we can't conceive of. And it's still simple.

That was his Great Uncle.

Besides, everyone knows that it's turtles, all the way down.

__________________
Keep Cool, But Do Not Freeze
----------------------------------
http://cerdipity.no-ip.com/book/cover_small.jpg
Click cover image for more info.

Thanks, Normandy 6644, that's a very interesting observation.

Will try to factor it into my theory.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

I haven't been able to get through the whole thread yet but I'm just dying to ask some questions about the BB theory and some other matters. First off, I must say that I don't like the idea of the BB at my gut level and prefer the Steady State model for mostly esthetic reasons. Also, I don't know how to use the site's search engine (or where it is for that matter) so I might be asking some redundant questions... sorry ahead of time. Some of these question and ideas are just daydreams that sorta bug me but I was hoping some of the brains on this site might throw some info at them. These are crazy ideas, I admit, but his forum seems like about the best place I've ever found to get some info so here it goes.

How can globular clusters be as big as they are if their formation require timescales greater than the age of the universe? What is the dominant theory explaing this seeming conflict with the BB theory? I was reading Hawking's Brief History and it was full of all sorts of BB voodoo but when he when he started talking about blackholes at the tips of our noses it really made me uneasy. I guess I shouldn't damn the whole book for a few of its ideas. I've got my crazy parts too...

If the universe is infinite would this condition invalidate the second law on a macroscopic scale? What I mean to say is, isn't an infinite universe
completely open and therefore outside the application of the 2nd Law's, "in a closed system" qualifier? If the universe is infinite something else is at work against entropy but I'm looking more from just the perspective of open vs. closed systems.

Please bear with this longwinded question...When a star explodes it creates elements heavier than Iron. In a steady state system I would imagine that you would eventually reach a state where the production of trans-Fe elements by novas would eventually equal the rate at which trans-Fe elements were consumed by accreting suns. I would imagine there would be a way to predict what stable isotopic abundances (or at least the range) would be in a steady state system or in progressive generations following the BB. I've heard that there have only been a few generations of stars since the BB and this says to me that trans-Fe abundance might still be going up. So the questions are: When a star novas does it fling itself into the cosmos or does most of the mass stay in the neighborhood and re-accrete? Also, can we make valuble insights into the history of the former star generation by examining trans-Fe elemental distributions? Also, are there any methods or theoretical methods for measuring elemental distributions throughout the universe? For example, by examining astroids or comets.

The main thing that bugs me about the BB theory are its addendums like inflation and whatnot. Now I know the universe is beyond my understanding but doesn't it seem a little odd that we keep coming up with stranger and stranger schemes to prop up the BB theory. I've read that pre-coppernician astonomers were able to predict eclipses and whatnot because they had plotted out corkscrew orbits to make all their data come out. I know it's unpopular to say but I get a definate corkscrew vibe from some of the BB theory stuff. I'm not saying BB is wrong... it just gives me a bad vibe. Physicists assume symmetry so for every new particle we have an anti-particle even if we don't have any evidence. This is just a principle but it works pretty well. I guess the BB theory somehow bothers my idea of symmetry.

The thing about all the points in the sky being full of light with an infinite universe really bothers me too. Wouldn't the inverse square law and interstellar matter suck up enough light to eventually result in a sort of average light density for any given part of a steady state system?

Has anyone heard of this will of the cosmos idea? I really like this idea. I like to think of it as sort of an anti-entropy effect. Not so much a consciousness but a will. My friend was telling me about Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who talked about this will of the cosmos idea. Has anyone heard of any similar ideas. Once again, I know this is a crazy idea but I'm fond of it.

Oh and what's this stuff about Voyager speed anomalies and what are the implications. Can someone give me a link I can't find a thing...

Thanks for any replies...

Lee,



Not that your questions were redundant or anything, just FYI. It's a handy tool.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

Ha... Thanks

Normandy6644, I don't know if you're still looking at this thread.

I was doing my terrible job last night..pushing pallets on the supermarket night shift..when I had a few thoughts as I passed the soup.

You're right in many ways, of course, but what is interesting about what you say is that you are looking at things as they are percieved by humans.

And the concept of 'things we cannot concieve or imagine' is something that we as humans are propounding here..so we're on the first rung of the ladder to percieving them.

When I was passing the pretzels, I thought that whereas a worm in my garden probably has no idea about me sitting on my computer or pushing my pallets at least I have an idea that there might be something Out There, or elsewhere which I can't concieve of.

Passing the sausages it occurred to me that there are some people on this world who can't get what we know or understand round their heads..religious people in particular. They just cannot concieve of any other idea than that the Universe was created and is controlled by a deity.

The toilet rolls made me think that popular science writers often write about higher, or further dimensions, further to the three we are familiar with (I personally contest the notion of 'time' being a dimension) and use diagrams and concepts to illustrate them such as drawing triangles on spheres. I reckon this is a misnomer as what we see..the stretched triangle, is in fact still in our three dimensions so it doesn't really show how any more could exist except in some higher maths somewhere.

Down the crumpet aisle was a tasty bit of crumpet (British slang for gorgeous female) so I got distracted from my muses and went back to shoving crisp boxes through the flaps into the warehouse, whilst you chaps peered through your telescopes.

__________________
You cannot create a truth by believing in a falsehood.

Or as that Marxist-Lennonist put it:

There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can make that can’t be made.
No one you can save that can’t be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

Nothing you can know that isn’t known.
Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.