is it not illogical to believe in something without solid proof? there is no room for theory and faith right, because you cant believe in god because its not proven its only a non scientific theory and belief right?


prove to me that the universe has not always existed at half its current size and at some point in time it started to expand, but was never at a singular point.


you cannot prove it with theory, only solid hard evidence "ofcourse".

peace.

is it not illogical to believe in something without solid proof? there is no room for theory and faith right, because you cant believe in god because its not proven its only a non scientific theory and belief right?


prove to me that the universe has not always existed at half its current size and at some point in time it started to expand, but was never at a singular point.


you cannot prove it with theory, only solid hard evidence "ofcourse".

peace.

If you have four marbles in your hand it would be difficult to give a proof of any thing other, now let some one take two away out of your sight, can
you prove four marbles still exist?
Maybe not a good analogy but (prove) is ambiguous if not impossible with
cosmology.

is it not illogical to believe in something without solid proof?

No.

For most things we believe in there is no absolute "proof". Try to prove that silent objects behind you actually keep existing when you're not looking at them. You can't.

What we look for in science are regularities in behaviour of systems, objects and so on. We build up patterns we think can be relied upon, like the sun rising in the morning. There's no way to prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but everything we know about science says it will.

there is no room for theory and faith right, because you cant believe in god because its not proven its only a non scientific theory and belief right?

You can believe what you like. Whether your belief is justified by the available evidence is a separate question.

prove to me that the universe has not always existed at half its current size and at some point in time it started to expand, but was never at a singular point.

Can't be done.

But it would make no sense in light of everything we know about physics. For example, you'd need to explain why the universe would suddenly start to expand from half its size. What started the expansion? And why didn't gravity cause it to collapse before that?

See, your explanations will have to fit in with everything else we currently know. You can't just come up with ad hoc explanations for everything. At least, that's not science.

James R,
For most things we believe in there is no absolute "proof". Try to prove that silent objects behind you actually keep existing when you're not looking at them. You can't.
I once backed into a light pole in a parking lot, James R. I didn't see it, but damn, it was sure there. It didn't make a peep until I hit it either. :D

prove to me that the universe has not always existed at half its current size and at some point in time it started to expand, but was never at a singular point.


Dude, go read some Cosmology web sites, there's too much for us to explain here. Start with 'Cosmic Microwave Background' in Google, and you see that it's 'temperature' matches with the predicted value from a big bang. Also google COBE, and see that the background is not totally uniform, which gives an indication as to why discrete matter formed.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

:bagpuss:

Try to prove that silent objects behind you actually keep existing when you're not looking at them. You can't.

What is there to prove?

If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it- does it make a sound?

I would say -----YES.

read the entire page. and i have also read many other articles on and off the web about this theory.


but i come to the same conclusion that i came to a year or 2 back, so much brickwork is layed upon this foundation, and it might not be true.

i thought science was about hard facts not placing our eggs in a single basket because its the best we can come up with for the time. scientists are always debunking ideas because it has no solid proof to back it up and they make the same mistakes, but because a scientific theory is layed down it somehow gets twisted into a type of fact when in fact it is not,


too many people work under the impression that the theory is fact and so inturn they base more theory ontop of the old theory, untill a succession of theories are strung together all heading down the same path, and we believe it is called progression, but it is not true progress unless we have solid fact to back each claim up each step of the way.


we never learn its the same thing in every generation from past to present, we behold greater technology than the previous generation and then begin to think we know it all, look what happened to all of the scientific theories from the past right up untill the last centuary. they all get alughed at. i fear that in 500 years time that generation will look back at us and laugh at our expense also,


but the people of this generation know best ofcourse because we are state of the art right. i think we should reconsider bieng open to other ideas and not just assume that we hold the answer because our current theory is the best we have come up with so far. i can name many flaws in the big bang theory as a whole and you guys know its true. im not saying it wasnt the truth, but i am saying it might not have been the truth.


we currently believe in a single 'uni'verse, that started at a singular point and started expanding and now we have what we have today, (thats what it boils down to without the mumbo jumbo isnt it)

but a multiverse with an underlying infinite energy structure, wich this universe is a part of could just as well be the truth, scientific logic actualy rules out something coming from nothing, so by its own logic the theory is nulified, and people dont seem to grasp this.


it takes a scientist with a scientific theory and a reputation to lead the mass thought, a regular guy wont get through to anybody will he ofcourse not. the world isnt flat and the earth is not the center of the universe. remember past mistakes or we are doomed to repeat them,

keep an open mind it is far more logical than assuming you are right about something without actual evidence, just because it seems the "best idea based on a few factors".


for all you know the science that governs the creation of pre universal history is completely different to the science and physics that we know of, dont be so pompus.


peace.

quote from bigbangtheory.com


Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


what a crock of shit, seriously you guys hold real belief around this idea, its totaly illogical. and i dont care if i sound like a nut for not believing what i am told.


peace.

Dude, you only think it's a crock of shit because you don't understand it.

Now, go read some more, it's the only way you will get educated. I'm not going to spend my time teaching you, when you should have payed attention in science class. All I can say is, if you doubt this theory, and don't understand the supporting evidence, you were let down by your school.

i got bad test scores in science class for offering a multiverse theory and saying i dont agree witht he big bang theory, a question was asked "how was the universe created" i answered "i dont know but i have a few theorys one of those is a multiverse with an underlay of infinite energy" and i went on to explain this.


the teacher said no the big bang created the universe so you are wrong, im not bieng fed the food of ignorant people. i do understand the premise, but i dont agree with it, is that so hard to grasp.


i dont think its true i am oppose to it, regardless of how it makes me look i dont care, stop getting hissy because i am contesting your scientific foundations. show me some solid facts and real evidence and i will consider changing my views to 100% believing it.


did you not read my posts? all you see was insolence because i dont agree? the big bang theory actualy states that something came from nothing, strip away alll of the psychobabble and thats what you have, something from nothing, and that is illogical.

some people go one further trying to explain that a singular point existed for an unknown amount of time, but there is no proof of this. you only have your 3 pillars of theory to back up the claims and that my friend is not good enough as to call it evidence.


peace.

quote from bigbangtheory.com


"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."



do you people actualy understand what this is saying? because i 100% do and i do not agree with it, if it defies physics then what the hell? where is the evidence and logic in basing it on scientific physics.


the key statement "we dont know, we dont know" exactly so stop telling me that you do know and that my theorys are 100% wrong, :)

peace.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/


theory means theory, just because its a scientific theory does not make it proof, dont get me started with black hole physics either because you cannot even justify them existing let alone know the actual function of them,

yes they might exist they might not, yes they might do what it states they do they might not, just like all theory we dotn know otherwise it wouldent be a theory, scientifc or not it would be hard evidence and fact.


why isnt an apple tree called an apple tree theory? because its a freakin apple tree fact thats why :)

peace.

Chi, you clearly DON'T understand it, or you wouldn't disagree with it. No, go read some science books.

.................................................. . i seriously cant believe you just said that. if i understood it i wouldent disagree with it?


i do understand it and i do not agree with it, does that boggle your mind or something? it does not compute system overload?

maybe you should read the big bang theory some more,

peace

Moderator note: Post deleted because it consisted of nothing but a long cut-and-paste from another site.

In future, please post a link. Do not spam sciforums.

Thankyou!

yes i have read it and i understand the premise as i stated before, but i dont think it is undisputed fact,

By what basis are you judging this? Just because it doesn't make sense to you?

if the big bang theory is correct then there must have been other factors at play outside of this universe, witch contradicts the word universe, explaining that there is more to exisitence than the current universe, wich means that the creation of this universe was not the creation of everything and universe means all in existence.


so it is flawed.

peace.

By what basis are you judging this? Just because it doesn't make sense to you?

for many reasons that i have already stated and people dont seem to be reading,


what i am asking for is actual hard evidence, and it cannot be supplied so i am saying keep an open mind because it might not be right, i didnt say the big bang was 100% wrong i have stated many times it might be true, but it also might not be.

why do many of you ask for actual proof with certain subjects, but when you are asked to produce proof you fail to deliver?


peace.

Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science of everything (in more recent times it has even invented the 'idea' of parallel universes in order to accommodate things that do not exist).
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density). Because of this, cosmologists decided to tamper with the forms of existence and make space itself an object in some imaginary hyperspace. However, even with this unphysical 'model', there remains the paradoxical consequence that not only the distances between galaxies but also the size of the latter should increase. Even atoms should become larger, altering therefore the fundamental frequencies for radiative transitions and resulting in an apparent blueshift for distant (young) galaxies.
It is obvious that space (as well as time) can not be a subject of scientific investigation as we ourselves are objects within them.
The observed redshift of galaxies is therefore not a consequence of space expansion but only of (intergalactic) distance and one should look for a physical effect that delivers this redshift rather than try to involve 'known' physics by bending the rules of logic and common sense. A good candidate for the actual cause of the redshift is the intergalactic plasma electric field (see the page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies on my site plasmaphysics.org.uk; regarding the argument by Big-Bang cosmologists that other than recessional redshifts would not yield the observed time dilation of supernova lightcurves, see the page Galactic Redshifts and Supernova Lightcurves).
However, cosmologists can be accused of not only lacking a grasp of conceptual principles, but also of experimental expertise, as demonstrated by a crucial flaw in the WMAP data analysis.

The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because it assumes that the distance between two points in a given (curved) metric is the shortest possible distance, which however is only the case for the Euclidean metric (as the shortest distance between two points is by definition a straight line). Mathematicians frequently try for instance to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of gravity being due to a space curvature, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects (see the Relativity page for more).

One should also note here the inconsistency that cosmologists are making when assuming a resultant gravitational force in their models despite adhering to the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy (which should logically imply a zero gravity force everywhere throughout the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel). This obviously completely invalidates their conclusion regarding the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
But as indicated above, the primary mistake is of course to assume an expanding universe in the first place.

now you are going to tell me i dont understand that either,


peace.

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.

Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us. [See sidebar titled “Dark Thoughts.”]

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. [See “Connected Galaxies” and “Galaxy Clusters” on page 37.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.f

Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features inconsistent with the Doppler effect. If redshifts are from objects moving away from Earth, one would expect redshifts to have continuous values. Instead, redshifts tend to cluster at specific, evenly-spaced values.g Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.h

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.j [See pages 320–322.]

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.k Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars)l and the presence of boron and beryllium in “older” starsm contradicts the big bang theory.

A big bang, for all practical purposes, would produce only hydrogen and helium, so the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars should still exist, but despite extensive searches, none has been found.n

Other Problems. If the big bang occurred, we should not see massive galaxies at such great distances, but such galaxies are seen. [See “Distant Galaxies” on page 317.] A big bang should not produce highly concentratedo or rotating bodies.p Galaxies are examples of both. Nor should a big bang produce galaxies with the spacings among them that are actually observed.q Also, a large volume of the universe should not be—but evidently is—moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of apparent expansion.r

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.t



Dark Thoughts
For decades, big bang theorists said that the amount of mass in a rapidly expanding universe must be enough to prevent all matter from flying apart; otherwise, matter could not come together to form stars and galaxies. Estimates of the universe’s actual mass always fell far short of that minimum amount. This “missing mass” is often called dark matter, because no one could see it or even detect it. Actually, “missing mass” had to be “created” to preserve the big bang theory. [See “Missing Mass” on page 28.] The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man.

The big bang has struck again. The big bang theory also predicts that the universe’s expansion must be slowing, just as a ball thrown up must slow as it moves away from the Earth. For decades, cosmologists tried to measure this deceleration. The shocking result is now in—and the answer has been rechecked in many ways. The universe’s expansion is not decelerating; it is accelerating!v To preserve the theory, something must again be invented. Some energy source that overcomes gravity must continuously accelerate stars and galaxies away from each other. This energy, naturally enough, is called dark energy.

Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) can be seen, measured, or tested.w We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.”x Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty? Of course. But big bang theorists want to preserve their reputations, careers, and worldview. If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists. (Pages 320–322 give an explanation for the expansion, or “stretching out,” of the universe.)


If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?u

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Because this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect.y All these observations make it doubtful that a big bang occurred.z

how about you guys actualy take each paragraph of what i just posted and prove otherwise, or is that to much of a daunting task wich obviously any real scientist wouldent waste his time with.


peace.

how about you guys actualy take each paragraph of what i just posted and prove otherwise, or is that to much of a daunting task wich obviously any real scientist wouldent waste his time with.

Take a number hoss.

I gotta get to Vern first, then I'll be back.

How is next week for you?

if you guys think you know it all, then prove it actualy show some hard evidence to back up your claims otherwise its not proof.

i have posted a very elaborate article (2 actualy) showing flaws int he current premise and theory, now do the honor to your theory by actualy defending it each step of the way, otherwise your theory lacks true substance under the barrage of questions,

peace.

Take a number hoss.

I gotta get to Vern first, then I'll be back.

How is next week for you?

next week is fine take aslong as you like,

cya later i have to run myself, have a good day .

peace.

quote from bigbangtheory.com


Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


what a crock of shit, seriously you guys hold real belief around this idea, its totaly illogical. and i dont care if i sound like a nut for not believing what i am told.


peace.

U r on fire, Keep it up EFOC, i am with you.

Together we can rock their boat that not even god can sink , just like titanic. ;)

if the big bang theory is correct then there must have been other factors at play outside of this universe, witch contradicts the word universe, explaining that there is more to exisitence than the current universe, wich means that the creation of this universe was not the creation of everything and universe means all in existence.


so it is flawed.

peace.

Actually problem with these PsychoScientists is that they blindly follow the theories without questioning their basis and then start boasting that what they know is correct.

now you have all these negatives for BB theory why not try to formulate your
own, i for one would love to read a 100% testable paper.

Chi, a cut and paste deluge doesn't change the facts; that you clearly do not understand enough.

Read this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

and try and take it in.

Oh,and please, some of the shit you are posting is from 'Creation Science' web sites, ie, Christian Propaganda. Stop that if you wish to be taken seriously.

big ban
is it so hard to understand!?! first you have nothing, and then a star exploded. and god came because nothing exploded, and god doesn't exist, so it came from nothing, ex nihilo deus fit. 1+1=2 it's proven by science.

..and suddenly Chi's flawed sources are exposed, and it all goes quiet.

if you guys think you know it all, then prove it actually show some hard evidence to back up your claims otherwise its not proof.

i have posted a very elaborate article (2 actually) showing flaws int he current premise and theory, now do the honor to your theory by actualy defending it each step of the way, otherwise your theory lacks true substance under the barrage of questions,

peace.

That's not the point. Please let me back up to your basic premises and explain something about what science says, how it works, and how that relates to items of religious faith.

is it not illogical to believe in something without solid proof?
No, it is not illogical.
Proof is nice, but evidence and indications can be quite compelling. Scientists believe in the Big Bang Theory not out of blind faith, but because of the evidence. Their belief is not like religious belief, since if contrary evidence emerges, they will abandon old theories and take up with better ones. The evidence to support the Big Bang Theory describes an expanding universe. It is deduced that in the past, the universe must have been smaller, denser, and therefore hotter. These facts are almost irrefutable. In this sense, the theory isn't even very controversial, and has gone beyond the colloquial definition of "theory" to be accepted as scientific fact, like evolution. Note that the Big Bang Theory is not and never has been an explanation for the proposed singularity from which everything expanded. It starts at around a nanosecond after the beginning of the expansion.

But this theory doesn't have to be right in order to prove the existence of a supreme being illogical. What is the proof for a supreme being? It mostly takes the form of personal experiences which can't be verified. If you want to say that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of God, you have no more proof of that than if scientists say (as of this date), that it came from a collision between two multiverses. When carefully considered (under the venerable Occam's Razor protocols), the idea that a magic man did it is on the least likely end of the scale.

Scientists actually do take multidimensional theories of the universe quite seriously, to the point of trying to craft models of them.

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe.
You can.
This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories.
Then the evolutionary theories to explain certain cosmic structures was wrong.

... The evidence to support the Big Bang Theory describes an expanding universe. It is deduced that in the past, the universe must have been smaller, denser, and therefore hotter. These facts are almost irrefutable.....

I know what u r doing, u r taking EFOC on a ride to nowhere.

BB theory should have been scraped years ago but the faith of people like u clinging on to it and not letting it go is really amusing.

When it was discovered that there is acceleration in expansion, all hell should have been broken loose, but alas, your primitive genetic instinct said dont let it go , ignore, dont think, be ORTHODOX.


Its obvious now that there is a need to find out whats the repulsive force fueling the expansion of our universe but ...

EmptyForceOfChi:

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

what a crock of shit, seriously you guys hold real belief around this idea, its totaly illogical. and i dont care if i sound like a nut for not believing what i am told.

Explain why it is "totally illogical". A bald assertion is useless.

did you not read my posts? all you see was insolence because i dont agree? the big bang theory actualy states that something came from nothing, strip away alll of the psychobabble and thats what you have, something from nothing, and that is illogical.

Actually, you are wrong. The big bang theory doesn't even deal with what the universe "came from". Nor does it deal with anything that occurred prior to about 10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning.

quote from bigbangtheory.com


"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."


do you people actualy understand what this is saying? because i 100% do and i do not agree with it, if it defies physics then what the hell? where is the evidence and logic in basing it on scientific physics.

Nowhere does it say that anything "defies physics". Read it again.

if the big bang theory is correct then there must have been other factors at play outside of this universe...

And if God created the universe, what then? Is that hypothesis flawed, too?

The big bang theory, now known to be seriously flawed,a was based on three observations: the redshift of light from distant stars, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and the amount of helium in the universe. All three have been poorly understood.

Redshift. The redshift of starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect;b that is, stars and galaxies are moving away from Earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wavelengths of light they emit. Space itself supposedly expands—so the total potential energy of stars, galaxies, and other matter increases today with no corresponding loss of energy elsewhere.c Thus, the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy, probably the most important of all scientific laws.

This is incorrect. The concept of potential energy applies differently in general relativity than in Newtonian gravitation. The author clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here.

Conservation of energy is violated in another important way. If there was a big bang, distant galaxies should not just be receding from us, they should be decelerating. Measurements show the opposite; they are accelerating from us.

This problem is solved by "dark energy".

Many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and remain connected for long. [See “Connected Galaxies” and “Galaxy Clusters” on page 37.] For example, many quasars have very high redshifts, and yet they statistically cluster with galaxies having low redshifts.d Sometimes, quasars seem to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas.e Many quasar redshifts are so great that the massive quasars would need to have formed too soon after the big bang—a contradiction of the theory.

What have you read about proposed solutions to these difficulties?

CMB. All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.

No, they correctly believe that, since that is in fact what the theory predicts.

Matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters—as far as the most powerful telescopes can see.i Because the CMB is so uniform, many thought it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang. But such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies and much larger structures would not evolve. In other words, the big bang did not generate the CMB.

The author is obviously not aware of the fluctuations in the CMB observed over recent years, which perfectly explain the observed "clumping". This guy really needs to do his homework.

Helium. Contrary to what is commonly taught, the big bang theory does not explain the amount of helium in the universe; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.

No explanation here. How convenient. I must assume the author is simply mistaken, as usual.

If a big bang occurred, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been made. For every charged particle in the universe, the big bang should have produced an identical particle but with the opposite electrical charge.s (For example, the negatively charged electron’s antiparticle is the positively charged positron.) Only trivial amounts of antimatter have ever been detected, even in other galaxies.

And yet, certain findings in the standard model of particle physics show that asymmetries of this kind do exist in particle physics. Probably the author is uninformed on particle physics.

...The media’s frequent reference to “dark matter” enshrined it in the public’s consciousness, much like the supposed “missing link” between apes and man. ...

The author is a Creationist as well as a Bang-denier?

Neither “dark matter” (created to hold the universe together) nor “dark energy” (created to push the universe apart) can be seen, measured, or tested. We are told that “most of the universe is composed of invisible dark matter and dark energy.” Few realize that both mystical concepts were devised to preserve the big bang theory.

It is incorrect that dark matter cannot be measured. The distribution of dark matter in galaxies can be and has been mapped. It is observable by its gravitational effects.

Rather than cluttering textbooks and the public’s imagination with statements about things for which no objective evidence exists, wouldn’t it be better to admit that the big bang is faulty?

What alternate theory does the author propose that works better?

If the big bang is discarded, only one credible explanation remains for the origin of the universe and everything in it. That thought sends shudders down the spines of many evolutionists.

Ah yes. Here we go. The author is indeed a Creationist.

Of course, ruling out the Big Bang doesn't in any way rule in God. There are hundreds of alternatives. If the Big Bang theory is proved false tomorrow, that does not mean that there is "only one credible explanation" remaining. Perhaps the big bang is false, and the universe was really sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. So much for the Christian God.

If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang? Stars with enough mass become black holes, so not even light can escape their enormous gravity. How then could anything escape trillions upon trillions of times greater gravity caused by concentrating all the universe’s mass in a “cosmic egg” that existed before a big bang?

Again, a basic familiarity with the theory would be nice.

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. This age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories.

So, the author believes the big bang when it agrees with his Bible, but disbelieves it when it contradicts.

How convenient (but unscientific) for him.

How about you, EFOC?

the expansion of the universe was invented to explain the redshift.
and the bang was invented to explain the nonexistent expansion.

Actually, you are wrong. The big bang theory doesn't even deal with what the universe "came from".

when the bb was first invented, they said that the universe came from absolute nothing, a singularity, but later they changed that because they couldn't explain it. just like they changed the "explosion in space" to "explosion of space" because the universe was expanding too fast for their brains. space can't expand because it doesn't consist of anything. and even if it could expand it couldn't expand because, according to big bang scientists, there is no space outside to expand to.

I know what u r doing, u r taking EFOC on a ride to nowhere.

BB theory should have been scraped years ago but the faith of people like u clinging on to it and not letting it go is really amusing.

When it was discovered that there is acceleration in expansion, all hell should have been broken loose, but alas, your primitive genetic instinct said dont let it go , ignore, dont think, be ORTHODOX.


Its obvious now that there is a need to find out whats the repulsive force fueling the expansion of our universe but ...

Um, actually, the accelleration in expansion has been carefully considered. Although the cause is debated, it doesn't alter the fact that the universe is expanding. Good theories aren't just scrapped, but updated in light of new information.

The truth is, of course, that there are umpteen Big Bang theories, with certain common factors. I think it is worth bearing in mind that because you find evidence which may be interpreted as showing that the universe used to be smaller, more dense, and perhaps hotter, it does not follow that you can extrapolate the process indefinitely. So called "logical conclusions" from indefinite extrapolation have often been shown to be fallacious.

As an example, consider the global human population. It is greater now than a century ago, and it was greater a century ago than a century earlier. Indeed, we may make the same statement in terms of millenia rather than centuries. It follows that there were originally just one man and one woman. The Bereshit/Genesis story of Adam and Eve is the Big Bang version of Human Origins. Most of us, these days, think we can do better in terms of explanation.

I feel pretty sure that in due course physicists will find a more satisfactory version of the early history of the universe that does not involve an act of creation that lies outside the bounds of the "normal".

wanna show me some dark energy. or 'matter' /

peace.

the expansion of the universe was invented to explain the redshift.
and the bang was invented to explain the nonexistent expansion.

Er... no.

when the bb was first invented, they said that the universe came from absolute nothing, a singularity, but later they changed that because they couldn't explain it.

Do you know what a "singularity" actually is? Look it up.

just like they changed the "explosion in space" to "explosion of space" because the universe was expanding too fast for their brains.

The big bang theory was ]i]never[/i] about an explosion in space.

space can't expand because it doesn't consist of anything. and even if it could expand it couldn't expand because, according to big bang scientists, there is no space outside to expand to.

Brilliant! I think you've noticed something that no scientist has thought of in the last 100 years. You ought to publish. You're like Einstein.

space can't expand because it doesn't consist of anything. and even if it could expand it couldn't expand because, according to big bang scientists, there is no space outside to expand to.

Oh dear. You seem to not understand the difference between 'space' and a 'void'. Space is a medium where energy and matter can exist, and has measurable parameters, such as permeability and permittivity. A void however, is beyond the scope of physics, and we cannot measure it, because we have no idea about it's dimensions.

The biggest question which we wont be able to answer ever is how the universe started and why.Because as we know nothing comes from nowhere even if there are multiple universes or dimensions something had to happen.
Any ideas who placed a first dot in space :) ?

Never say never. We don't know that nothing comes from nowhere.

Do you know what a "singularity" actually is? Look it up.

a singularity is nothing, but Dicktionaries like wikipedia say it's sumthing because they don't understand what a singularity is.

Oh dear. You seem to not understand the difference between 'space' and a 'void'.

well, it's pretty hard cuz there's no difference.

because we have no idea about it's dimensions.

space has no dimensions, only things can have dimensions and space is a no-thing.

and because scientists say that 99.?% of matter is space, nothing can be matter and everything must be space.

The biggest question which we wont be able to answer ever is how the universe started and why.

i answered it long ago. just imagine nothing and you realize that it can't be imagined so you have to imagine everything, a universe.

Because as we know nothing comes from nowhere even if there are multiple universes or dimensions something had to happen.

it's the opposite: EVERYTHING comes from nothing because 0/∞=1 (and that is 1 because 1/∞=0)

1=0. it can't be anything else.

a singularity ....

space has no dimensions, only things can have dimensions and space is a no-thing....

Sorry Yorda, there is a slight problem in that statement.

ie. If space had no dimensions then there would have been no fixed distances.

ie. If space had no dimensions then there would have been no fixed distances.

space has no dimensions in a dream but there still appears to be "fixed distances".

dimensions and space/distance are just thoughts, like time.

well, it's pretty hard cuz there's no difference.

space has no dimensions, only things can have dimensions and space is a no-thing.
.

Then how can space have measurable properties? Explain this away;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/f/0/5f0a315916b8aad484e32bff592b3671.png

Explain this away;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/f/0/5f0a315916b8aad484e32bff592b3671.png

what's there to explain away? it's just a bunch of greek letters and numbers?

Think this , if theres nothing between to objects then there should be no distance between them. But there can be distance and it can be kept fixed.

Void = Nothing

but is Nothing = Distance ?

I mean there is space between two object so there is something that maintains the distance and that is space.

So Space = Something :rolleyes:

EVERYTHING comes from nothing because 0/∞=1 (and that is 1 because 1/∞=0)

Holy shit. This is incredible.

Crackpot += 1.

Think this , if theres nothing between to objects then there should be no distance between them.

there just appears to be distance. just like there appears to be distance/separation between things in a dream although there is only thoughts, awareness, nothing...

I mean there is space between two object so there is something that maintains the distance and that is space.

space maintains space?

So Space = Something :rolleyes:

something can't be anything but nothing because 'something' means that we don't know what it is, and the only thing we can know is nothing because everything is something/unknown.

Holy shit. This is incredible.

the first equation explains why/how the universe comes from nothing, zero. the other equation explains that the infinite universe (1/something) is actually just a big nothing (until it hallucinates the everything it wants to be).

EmptyForceOfChi:



Explain why it is "totally illogical". A bald assertion is useless.



Actually, you are wrong. The big bang theory doesn't even deal with what the universe "came from". Nor does it deal with anything that occurred prior to about 10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning.



Nowhere does it say that anything "defies physics". Read it again.



And if God created the universe, what then? Is that hypothesis flawed, too?



This is incorrect. The concept of potential energy applies differently in general relativity than in Newtonian gravitation. The author clearly doesn't know what he is talking about here.



This problem is solved by "dark energy".



What have you read about proposed solutions to these difficulties?



No, they correctly believe that, since that is in fact what the theory predicts.



The author is obviously not aware of the fluctuations in the CMB observed over recent years, which perfectly explain the observed "clumping". This guy really needs to do his homework.



No explanation here. How convenient. I must assume the author is simply mistaken, as usual.



And yet, certain findings in the standard model of particle physics show that asymmetries of this kind do exist in particle physics. Probably the author is uninformed on particle physics.



The author is a Creationist as well as a Bang-denier?



It is incorrect that dark matter cannot be measured. The distribution of dark matter in galaxies can be and has been mapped. It is observable by its gravitational effects.



What alternate theory does the author propose that works better?



Ah yes. Here we go. The author is indeed a Creationist.

Of course, ruling out the Big Bang doesn't in any way rule in God. There are hundreds of alternatives. If the Big Bang theory is proved false tomorrow, that does not mean that there is "only one credible explanation" remaining. Perhaps the big bang is false, and the universe was really sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. So much for the Christian God.



Again, a basic familiarity with the theory would be nice.



So, the author believes the big bang when it agrees with his Bible, but disbelieves it when it contradicts.

How convenient (but unscientific) for him.

How about you, EFOC?

it is illogical to believe it as total fact so that you rule out other ideas, it is not illogical to believe it might be true but still be open to other theory,


there is as i see it a flaw with this wich you stated "Nor does it deal with anything that occurred prior to about 10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning" because you state that the universe had a beginning wich you have no proof for. so i am not actualy wrong on that one.


the big bang theory does defy physics until physics alters slightly to allign with the theory. we could call this evolution of a theory, we could also call it changing current physics to meet with the theory.



"And if God created the universe, what then? Is that hypothesis flawed, too?"
i am not saying yes or no to this, i dont know what created the universe.



i was not aware that potential energy is different within general relativity than in newtonian gravitation.


yes the theoretical problem is solved with theoretical dark energy, wich happens to be proven by watching gravitational pull in space, thats convenient to the theory i must say, just like black holes are proven i guess..


i am reading proposed solutions to many of the problems yes,


and as far as i was aware the clumping is explained in theory wich is also far from proven scientific fact am i correct?


yes the author seems to be mistaken alot,


partical physics? i might be wrong here because i do not read up on things before i reply, but isnt that the new theory and lab testings where positives create negatives in exacts? space and distance are not relevant are they to this? i believe someone started a thread along the lines of particle consciousness?


yes he seems like a creationist, and he does say things that i do not condone, especialy involving evolution of man, i cringe when i read that but nevermind, i do still think he holds some good points,


i do not know what theory the author likes better and think works better, i obviously cant answer that for him, but i personaly am reading up on many multiverse and string theory, also many others wich i think hold as much ground as the big bang and single 'uni'verse theory.


i did not say that ruling out the big bang theory rules in god, i am saying that the big bang theory might not be true, i just dont see sense in saying "yes i believe this 100%" the truth is i dont know, i value lots of theorys, many different ideas catch my attention and time, i just cant bring myself to sticking to a single idea as solid proof,


the bible is a book and has no place in my thread, take that to the religion or philosophy forum.





i am familiar with the big bang theory, but it is flawed as i stated before. "10^-43 seconds after the universe's beginning" that is stating that the universe did start at a point, and that is not proven yet,


peace.

the first equation explains why/how the universe comes from nothing, zero. the other equation explains that the infinite universe (1/something) is actually just a big nothing (until it hallucinates the everything it wants to be).

No, the first equation explains why you shouldn't be allowed to breed.

EVERYTHING comes from nothing because 0/∞=1 (and that is 1 because 1/∞=0)

It's obvious that you can't understand why I think you're an idiot.

The first equation says that
\frac{0}{\infty} = 1

Let's just check the consistency there. Add 1 to both sides:

\frac{0}{\infty} + \frac{0}{\infty} = 1 + 1

Thus

\frac{0}{\infty} = 2.

You are an idiot. QED.

Note: You may be upset about using infinity as a common denominator. So then just say

\lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 1

Then multiply both sides by two:


2 \times \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{2 \times 0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 2,

justifying the asertion that you are a dumbass.

The last line above doesn't hold, of course, if you don't accept that 2x0 = 0. Are you disputing that?

Chi, somehow I doubt your prowess in Physics when you struggle to spell simple words.

what's there to explain away? it's just a bunch of greek letters and numbers?


If you don't understand it, I understand why you make such erroneous posts as you have.

Start with a Physics 101 book, and work up. Get back to me in say, three years and see if you grasp the implications of the formula. If you don't, just shut up and read some more until you do.

Chi, somehow I doubt your prowess in Physics when you struggle to spell simple words.

so what your saying is, i cannot question the theory. because i have not earned the right to contest with it yet?


i am going over the scientific theory of the big bang right now, and will continue to do so, i am learning about cosmic inflation, the horizon problem, the oldness problem, magnetic monopoles and the penrose hawkings singularity theorems at the moment,


like i always stated though the big bang theory might be correct, but it also might be wrong, all i can do is more research and try to understand as much as i can, every debate i have here helps me learn more and motivates me to learn different things.


peace.

so what your saying is, i cannot question the theory. because i have not earned the right to contest with it yet?

What's the problem with this? I don't speak Chinese. But I also don't go to my Chinese colleagues and correct their pronunciation.

was that a metaphore/comparison for saying your a native and i am a refugee telling you how to run your country?


i didnt say there was a problem i obviously have alot to learn and i will learn.

peace.

was that a metaphore/comparison for saying your a native and i am a refugee telling you how to run your country?


i didnt say there was a problem i obviously have alot to learn and i will learn.

No worries---nothing makes me happier than to hear people say they want to learn physics. But you challenged the current cosmological theory in the original post. If you want to challenge the theory, then you should understand it first.

People who claim that all of physics should be challenged are completely right---this is how physics works. But people who try to challenge the physics without first understanding it are just foolish:) You are not foolish, because you understand that there is much to learn. Other members at SciForums do not share this admirable trait.

No worries---nothing makes me happier than to hear people say they want to learn physics. But you challenged the current cosmological theory in the original post. If you want to challenge the theory, then you should understand it first.

People who claim that all of physics should be challenged are completely right---this is how physics works. But people who try to challenge the physics without first understanding it are just foolish:) You are not foolish, because you understand that there is much to learn. Other members at SciForums do not share this admirable trait.


physics is the hardest thing i have ever tried to learn, its fun though.

peace.

No, the first equation explains why you shouldn't be allowed to breed.

breeding is pointless. you just keep perpetuating all problems for eternity. it doesn't matter how many times you multiply 0, it can't become 1.

0 can only become 1 by division. (interestingly, many creatures, like cells, seem to multiply by dividing)

It's obvious that you can't understand why I think you're an idiot.

i'm a much bigger idiot than scientists will ever understand. you're probably not even as smart as einstein, so what hope do you have to grasp my infinity?

But people who try to challenge the physics without first understanding it are just foolish:)

you're very foolish to think you're unfoolish..

Start with a Physics 101 book, and work up.

physicists are no more right than anybody else, physics is just one philosophy among many others.

These experts have no idea how Gravity works and they are not shocked by Dark energy.

But they are always right.


If u r interested in knowing if Space can actually bend then try this and dont forget those two questions there, http://sciforums.com/newthread.php?do=postthread&f=33

Ask these questions to the Crakpot physicist if they ever insult u.

sorry i mean this link, http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1387441#post1387441

maybe it is a simular effect to light bending as it enters water. i dont know i will go and research it now.

peace.

so what your saying is, i cannot question the theory. because i have not earned the right to contest with it yet?

Yup, you got it. We experience Physics at a Newtonian level, nothing odd happens. Everything appears to follow simple formulae, and we can make good predictions; that if we throw a ball so fast at a certain angle, where it will land, etc.

But at smaller scales, things get weird. At larger scales, things get weird. There's a lot of learning to be done here, we cannot take our everyday logic garnered from understanding Newtonian relationships to the quantum or relatavistic realm, as it fails us, and badly.

To start challenging the status quo, you need to be working on a PhD at the very least. My mathematical prowess dried up at degree level, and I struggled with QM. I know my limitations therefore, and do not challenge people who are better at that stuff than me.

Yup, you got it. We experience Physics at a Newtonian level, nothing odd happens. Everything appears to follow simple formulae, and we can make good predictions; that if we throw a ball so fast at a certain angle, where it will land, etc.

But at smaller scales, things get weird. At larger scales, things get weird. There's a lot of learning to be done here, we cannot take our everyday logic garnered from understanding Newtonian relationships to the quantum or relatavistic realm, as it fails us, and badly.

To start challenging the status quo, you need to be working on a PhD at the very least. My mathematical prowess dried up at degree level, and I struggled with QM. I know my limitations therefore, and do not challenge people who are better at that stuff than me.



people who you see as better might have over looked a more simple approach to the problem though, i agree that research must be done for you to oppose something,


i get people all the time questioning self defence tactics and techniques, so i show them that it works.


peace.

how did all of this mass in the universe come from a singularity?

peace.

people who you see as better might have over looked a more simple approach to the problem though, i agree that research must be done for you to oppose something,

Sadly, there are no shortcuts. The simple approaches have been tried, and are just too simple to describe the way things are.


i get people all the time questioning self defence tactics and techniques, so i show them that it works.


Indeed, if you got a student that reckoned they could shoot you dead with 'mind bullets' but daren't demonstrate because it was too dangerous, you aren't going to believe them are you? Whereas if you have a student that says he has a good left hook, you're gonna pad up and have some.

how did all of this mass in the universe come from a singularity?

peace.

That is THE question! Physics starts to break down when we back track to very near the event itself, as it was very energetic and dense, and we cannot fully understand how everything interacted.

BUT, as we know that E=mc^2, therefore that matter is energy, and that energy can be described as a wave, and a wave is comprosed of both positive and negative aspects, ... what was actually created?

Surely, nothing more than an imbalance. Like ripples on the surface of a pond, the volume of the pond doesn't change, so the sum of everything in the Universe is quite possibly still zero, it's just not evenly distributed.

Sadly, there are no shortcuts. The simple approaches have been tried, and are just too simple to describe the way things are.




Indeed, if you got a student that reckoned they could shoot you dead with 'mind bullets' but daren't demonstrate because it was too dangerous, you aren't going to believe them are you? Whereas if you have a student that says he has a good left hook, you're gonna pad up and have some.

touche,

peace.

That is THE question! Physics starts to break down when we back track to very near the event itself, as it was very energetic and dense, and we cannot fully understand how everything interacted.

BUT, as we know that E=mc^2, therefore that matter is energy, and that energy can be described as a wave, and a wave is comprosed of both positive and negative aspects, ... what was actually created?

Surely, nothing more than an imbalance. Like ripples on the surface of a pond, the volume of the pond doesn't change, so the sum of everything in the Universe is quite possibly still zero, it's just not evenly distributed.


so the further we backtrack the harder it is to understand.

would you say it is more likely that the universe or existence as a whole is infinite just constantly undergoing different changes and transformations?


peace.

so the further we backtrack the harder it is to understand.

Yes, we make formulae partly based on what we can observe, but the more we stretch it, the less accurate it can be. It's hard to use models based on how things are now, to try and see the Universe 14 billions years ago.

would you say it is more likely that the universe or existence as a whole is infinite just constantly undergoing different changes and transformations?


Well, beginnings just beg more questions, don't they? A neater idea, is a cyclic Universe. Maybe there is a big bang, but for whatever reasons, (the fundamental constants don't allow it) it cannot sustain itself and collapses, to try again, until, after the umpteenth attempt, it lasts for a while, and collapse takes thousands of billions of years. Then it happens again.

Of course, physics cannot prove this, but it's fun to muse on!

yeah finite universal theories always confuse the hell out of me, i have spend hours at a time busting my brain trying to figure out how nothing can turn into something,


and an equal amount of time trying to comprehend true infinity with no start, its equally confusing, brain malfunction. :runaway: i give up. :truce:


yeah those ideas and many others are fun to play around with, this is the real reason cho seng hui went on a rampage he tried to figure out how something can be infinite or finite,




peace.

i'm a much bigger idiot than scientists will ever understand.

You can say that again.

you're very foolish to think you're unfoolish..

And you're very foolish to think that you can divide zero by something and get anything other than zero.

Why dont you point to the problem with this:

\lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 1

Then multiply both sides by two:

2 \times \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{2 \times 0}{a} = \lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \frac{0}{a} = 2.

Therefore 1 = 2 .

Show me where I have made a mistake in showing your logic to be grossly inadequate.

Well, beginnings just beg more questions, don't they? A neater idea, is a cyclic Universe. Maybe there is a big bang, but for whatever reasons, (the fundamental constants don't allow it) it cannot sustain itself and collapses, to try again, until, after the umpteenth attempt, it lasts for a while, and collapse takes thousands of billions of years. Then it happens again.

The only problem is that it seems that our current epoch of accelerated expansion doesn't have an end. The universe ends in a big rip as opposed to a big crunch---there is so much space between individual particles that they can't communicate. The universe ends a cold and dark death, sixty billion years in the future.

Then the flying spaghetti monster starts again.

The only problem is that it seems that our current epoch of accelerated expansion doesn't have an end. The universe ends in a big rip as opposed to a big crunch---there is so much space between individual particles that they can't communicate. The universe ends a cold and dark death, sixty billion years in the future.

Then the flying spaghetti monster starts again.

Yeah, ... heat death, or big crunch,... I prefer the crunch idea, but we may never know. I guess it depends if we can deternine the value of the Cosmological Constant to any degree of accuracy.

The problem I have with heat death, is what happens to the matter formed, I don't like the idea of cold dark lumps floating around, it means the laws of physics still apply. Unless radioactive decay eventually sees all the matter slowly unravel over a very long period of time, the liberated energy dissipates, and we are back to a blank canvas. What are the half lives of 'stable' elements? Would they suffer radioactive decay given sufficient time? Surely nothing last for ever in the quantum world, there must be a chance of them decaying?

And you're very foolish to think that you can divide zero by something and get anything other than zero.

if you divide zero with something you get zero, except when you divide with infinity you get 1 (because infinity is not something).

Let's just check the consistency there. Add 1 to both sides:

\frac{0}{\infty} + \frac{0}{\infty} = 1 + 1

Thus

\frac{0}{\infty} = 2.

\frac{0}{\infty} = 2 is not true

but

\frac{0}{\infty} + \frac{0}{\infty} = 1 + 1 is true

But since 0+0 = 0 and infinity + infinity is infinity then Ben's equation holds true, your way: 1 = 2 and you're wrong Yorda.

So is the notion here that there is, in fact, only one universe (as the name suggests) and that it is infinite? Or many "universes" comprising a multiverse? If we consider our universe infinite, then the theory/concept of a big bang or expansion becomes impossible since then it would take an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of energy to reach the size ∞. Since it's likely the universe is still expanding it can't be expanding to ∞ + x

So is the notion here that there is, in fact, only one universe (as the name suggests) and that it is infinite? Or many "universes" comprising a multiverse? If we consider our universe infinite, then the theory/concept of a big bang or expansion becomes impossible since then it would take an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of energy to reach the size ∞. Since it's likely the universe is still expanding it can't be expanding to ∞ + x

We need to get some definitions straight first. What do you understand by 'Universe'?

"Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated "

So, by the very definition, the Universe is everything. Therefore, there can be only one Universe. A 'multiverse' is what then? A Universe cut up into arbitrary chunks?

The Universe is not infinite, btw. It's 14Bn light years across, give or take. Big, but not infinite. Relativity states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and things moving opposite directions at c from any reference point can only move away from each other at c too. Therefore, no matter how you figure it, the Universe is as 'wide' in light years, as it is old in years.

We need to get some definitions straight first. What do you understand by 'Universe'?

"Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated "

So, by the very definition, the Universe is everything. Therefore, there can be only one Universe. A 'multiverse' is what then? A Universe cut up into arbitrary chunks?

The Universe is not infinite, btw. It's 14Bn light years across, give or take. Big, but not infinite. Relativity states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and things moving opposite directions at c from any reference point can only move away from each other at c too. Therefore, no matter how you figure it, the Universe is as 'wide' in light years, as it is old in years.Well then, there ya go! But the hypothesis that a universe outside our own makes the usual definition obsolete when used in those circumstances. What if outside our own little bang and resulting distribution of energy, exists other bangs with repective resultant distributions. I've never read of or heard someone speak of these other universes as part of our own universe. Often we find our knowledge or theory expands beyond the simple definition of a word. While I appreciate the grammar lesson, there is no way you could have overstepped the term multiverse in your studies of cosmology and that which pertains to what may exist outside our known universe, as indeed there are likely many universes.

Well then, there ya go! But the hypothesis that a universe outside our own makes the usual definition obsolete when used in those circumstances.

No it doesn't. Universe is all that exists, so if something else exists, it's part of our Universe, period.


What if outside our own little bang and resulting distribution of energy, exists other bangs with repective resultant distributions.

Where is the boundary, for things to be 'outside', you seen a fence up there anywhere?

I've never read of or heard someone speak of these other universes as part of our own universe.

What other Universes? There are none.

there is no way you could have overstepped the term multiverse in your studies of cosmology and that which pertains to what may exist outside our known universe, as indeed there are likely many universes.

The only way there could be more than one universe (small U) is if somehow there were different physical rules, with completely different, non-overlapping dimensions, except maybe one, that we could detect an anomaly through, but were unable to actually travel into the other universe due to the dimensional contraint. It would still be part of the 'Universe' however, because it would be taken care of by the definition of Universe being the sum of everything that exists.

Now, I know some people feel clever bandying around such terms as 'multiverse' and it's very popular amongst Marvel comic fans to bring the dead back to life, but please, have a think about how something could qualify as not being part of our Universe first eh?

No it doesn't. Universe is all that exists, so if something else exists, it's part of our Universe, period.

No. Not period. Because you said so, does not make it "period".

Where is the boundary, for things to be 'outside', you seen a fence up there anywhere?

We can't se it so it isn't there kinda thing?

What other Universes? There are none.

Really? I feel like Galileo.

The only way there could be more than one universe (small U) is if somehow there were different physical rules, with completely different, non-overlapping dimensions, except maybe one, that we could detect an anomaly through, but were unable to actually travel into the other universe due to the dimensional contraint. It would still be part of the 'Universe' however, because it would be taken care of by the definition of Universe being the sum of everything that exists.

Or there could be evidence of other universes which begin from singularities much like bubbles forming in a pot of boiling water, or perhaps two branes interacting together. Or... wait. Have you even read Hawking?

Now, I know some people feel clever bandying around such terms as 'multiverse' and it's very popular amongst Marvel comic fans to bring the dead back to life, but please, have a think about how something could qualify as not being part of our Universe first eh?

Marvel comic fans? In actuality, the fact that you know what that means says something about you (because I have no idea what that even means). Wow. I have only been here a few days and came here to talk about science and science-related issues. I'm not here to get anyone's dander up. the notion that something exists outside our known universe is nothing new. Maybe I just hit a few bad first notes or something but the close-mindededness and arrogance so far is unbelievable. You must be one of those nerdy little guys/girls that had sand kicked in your face and now use the internet to slam others with your intelligence, poking fun at them in the process. Well anyway thanks for laying down the law there on the whole cosmological idea of multiple universes. You heard it here first!

Now, I know some people feel clever bandying around such terms as 'multiverse' and it's very popular amongst Marvel comic fans to bring the dead back to life, but please, have a think about how something could qualify as not being part of our Universe first eh?

If the two regions of space are causally disconnected (i.e. not causally connected), would they not qualify as "different universes"?

That is, if I can never talk to a region of space, shouldn't it qualify as it's own universe? (I don't know the answer to this question.)

If the two regions of space are causally disconnected (i.e. not causally connected), would they not qualify as "different universes"?

That is, if I can never talk to a region of space, shouldn't it qualify as it's own universe? (I don't know the answer to this question.)So are you asking whether or not the universe (or what we refer to as THE Universe) is a closed system?

Because if it's not, or there are additional systems out there, we need to invent some new words it seems.

If the two regions of space are causally disconnected (i.e. not causally connected), would they not qualify as "different universes"?

That is, if I can never talk to a region of space, shouldn't it qualify as it's own universe? (I don't know the answer to this question.)

OK, first how do we detect this region of space? Set up some definitions and we can talk.

The problem I have is with a boundary, some impass, where space changes, and we cannot go. There has to be a boundary change between Universes, but quantum mechanics tells us what about boundaries?

No. Not period. Because you said so, does not make it "period".

I didn't say so, the dictionary did. I'm just trying to get a common frame of reference for debate, and using the established terms seems the best approach. If you want to use a different terminology, do so, but don't misappropriate accepted words.

We can't se it so it isn't there kinda thing?

Have you noticed a phenomena that can only be explained by a relationship with another Universe? Even if postulations about there being a singularity at the centre of a black hole are correct, physics breaks down at a singularity, and we cannot see through it. So we cannot prove anything beyond. This is just another example of the boundary problem.

Or there could be evidence of other universes which begin from singularities much like bubbles forming in a pot of boiling water, or perhaps two branes interacting together. Or... wait. Have you even read Hawking?

Physics breaks down at a singularity. What is the boundary condition between bubbles? And yes, I have read Hawking.

Marvel comic fans? In actuality, the fact that you know what that means says something about you (because I have no idea what that even means). Wow. I have only been here a few days and came here to talk about science and science-related issues. I'm not here to get anyone's dander up. the notion that something exists outside our known universe is nothing new. Maybe I just hit a few bad first notes or something but the close-mindededness and arrogance so far is unbelievable. You must be one of those nerdy little guys/girls that had sand kicked in your face and now use the internet to slam others with your intelligence, poking fun at them in the process. Well anyway thanks for laying down the law there on the whole cosmological idea of multiple universes. You heard it here first!
[/quote]

Nice rant, but you still haven't explained how something can be 'outside' our Universe, but detectable from it. I think it's just your lack of eloquence leading to frustration, so I'll let this ad-hom go this time. If you want to talk physics, talk physics, leave the pop-psychology for another day.

If the two regions of space are causally disconnected (i.e. not causally connected), would they not qualify as "different universes"?

...

And what if theres a wormhole between them :D

And what if theres a wormhole between them :D


With different laws of physics at either end, that meet in the middle?

What do you think would happen if you tried travelling along this wormhole, and came out at the other end?

With different laws of physics at either end, that meet in the middle?

What do you think would happen if you tried travelling along this wormhole, and came out at the other end?

you would turn into an inside out pink sock puppet.

peace.

you would turn into an inside out pink sock puppet.

Well, maybe not. I think what would happen is that every atom in your body would just disentigrate. Quarks would stop interacting inside neucleons, electrons would float away from neuclei. Things would literally dissolve like sugar in water, I think.

Nice rant, but you still haven't explained how something can be 'outside' our Universe, but detectable from it. I think it's just your lack of eloquence leading to frustration, so I'll let this ad-hom go this time. If you want to talk physics, talk physics, leave the pop-psychology for another day.Now you insult my intelligence by equating me to some ranting pop-psychologist? Not without first reducing me to some comic book-reading revivalist. Well I'll concede then. You'll let it go? I have a better idea. How about I let you go...

From another user:

"wow, 5 post's and he says what i could not in 2k+...good job...

...Bravo.-hiyo"

Remove my membership and any post I ever contributed. I no longer have any desire to be a member of whatever this is (psiforums being a misnomer). But I'll be sure to direct everyone I meet that desires to ridicule and be ridiculed to come here straight away.

Oh come on H4, we got your back.

Remove my membership and any post I ever contributed. I no longer have any desire to be a member of whatever this is (psiforums being a misnomer). But I'll be sure to direct everyone I meet that desires to ridicule and be ridiculed to come here straight away.

So you haven't got an answer to the boundary question? You could admit that before you cower off.

OK, first how do we detect this region of space? Set up some definitions and we can talk.

By definition it's not detectable...that's what causally disconnected means. But if the inflationary paradigm is right, and evidence from WMAP suggests that it is, it seems that we may be led to such a conclusion.

The problem I have is with a boundary, some impass, where space changes, and we cannot go. There has to be a boundary change between Universes, but quantum mechanics tells us what about boundaries?

Well it doesn't matter because we'd never get anywhere near a boundary, unless we were to find some way to travel faster than light.

You people are all wrapped up in the semantics, I think.

By definition it's not detectable...that's what causally disconnected means. But if the inflationary paradigm is right, and evidence from WMAP suggests that it is, it seems that we may be led to such a conclusion.

Well, without experimental proof, where are we?

Well it doesn't matter because we'd never get anywhere near a boundary, unless we were to find some way to travel faster than light.

Exactly, and untestable hypothesis at best. We need a grand unified theory, and then examine it for anomalies.

All we could say, is that it's not impossible for another universe with different dimensions to exist. We could not prove one does. It's a thought experiment at best. For any proof, we need some dimensional overlap, an observable ramafication in our Universe, that cannot be explained by what we know to exist here. If you think that may be inflation, that could be exciting, or we may just find something mundane to explain it. I'd prefer excitement, but somehow think it's going to be a simpler answer, if soluble at all.

So you haven't got an answer to the boundary question? You could admit that before you cower off.Had to take that last jab? Get that last word huh? Who could have predicted that? Like a wind-up toy! Well, before I even waste another moment of my time discussing universal wavefunction, MWI, or any approach to solving some of these greater problems, you have to answer a question for me, phlog.

You have over 3000 posts here. Even at a paltry 3 minutes per post, that's over 150 hours of posts alone, not including reading other posts and thinking on them: 2-3 posts per day per year for at least three years! Other than coming here to offer a sarcastic quip or insult, what the bloody hell else do you do?

This must be a huge part of your life. So unless you're saving all your posts to eventually compile something that might actually be published, you couldn't have much else so you can have it. It's alllll yours tiger.

So answer that question and then I will cower away.

I will cower off. I WILL COWER OFF IN FEAR! Not just because I can't afford to waste another moment of my time on your disrespectful, self-involved internet ramblings but because I am indeed afraid. AFRAID, of becoming something, ANYTHING resembling yourself. That is something I will not do. So just do what I asked, and remove my username and posts. I don't wish to be a part of whatever this is. You're still king.

I have the time to be involved in intelligent, thought PROVOKING (not shattering) discussion, but I can find abuse and insults anywhere. To the members I did talk with briefly, thank you for your time and discussion. If we talk about many worlds or anything regarding multiverse theory, we are on philosophical ground. Which is okay because philosophy is the father of all sciences and most of what exists today in quantum theory is philosophical in nature. Make no mistake about that.

And to you phlog, all I will give you is a variation on a very old line - "I don't want to be a part of any club that would have YOU as a member."

Well, without experimental proof, where are we?

It's not even clear that we can do experiments that will definitively tell us what the early universe was like. Inflation answers a lot of questions, and gives testable predictions, which are confirmed. If inflation also implies that there is a multiverse and not a universe, it is an implication of the theory. To argue against it definitively you'd have to come up with a new theory.

Exactly, and untestable hypothesis at best. We need a grand unified theory, and then examine it for anomalies.

What type of anomalies are you referring to? Surely not the axial vector anomaly?

All we could say, is that it's not impossible for another universe with different dimensions to exist. We could not prove one does. It's a thought experiment at best. For any proof, we need some dimensional overlap, an observable ramafication in our Universe, that cannot be explained by what we know to exist here. If you think that may be inflation, that could be exciting, or we may just find something mundane to explain it. I'd prefer excitement, but somehow think it's going to be a simpler answer, if soluble at all.

If one is led to the existence of a multiverse by a string of consistency checks, we have no choice but to accept it, unless another theory comes along which better explains the data.

is it wise to accept a theory as fact because its the best we can come up with and then having to change it when a new discovery is made?


also i think the longer we hold onto a theory the harder it is to break away from it.

peace.

is it wise to accept a theory as fact because its the best we can come up with and then having to change it when a new discovery is made?

Yes. This is how science is done.

is it wise to accept a theory as fact because its the best we can come up with and then having to change it when a new discovery is made?


also i think the longer we hold onto a theory the harder it is to break away from it.

peace.

Hey good now we can see how u look, Nice Avatar :)

Had to take that last jab? Get that last word huh? Who could have predicted that? Like a wind-up toy! Well, before I even waste another moment of my time discussing universal wavefunction, MWI, or any approach to solving some of these greater problems, you have to answer a question for me, phlog.

You have over 3000 posts here. Even at a paltry 3 minutes per post, that's over 150 hours of posts alone, not including reading other posts and thinking on them: 2-3 posts per day per year for at least three years! Other than coming here to offer a sarcastic quip or insult, what the bloody hell else do you do?

This must be a huge part of your life. So unless you're saving all your posts to eventually compile something that might actually be published, you couldn't have much else so you can have it. It's alllll yours tiger.

So answer that question and then I will cower away.

I will cower off. I WILL COWER OFF IN FEAR! Not just because I can't afford to waste another moment of my time on your disrespectful, self-involved internet ramblings but because I am indeed afraid. AFRAID, of becoming something, ANYTHING resembling yourself. That is something I will not do. So just do what I asked, and remove my username and posts. I don't wish to be a part of whatever this is. You're still king.

I have the time to be involved in intelligent, thought PROVOKING (not shattering) discussion, but I can find abuse and insults anywhere. To the members I did talk with briefly, thank you for your time and discussion. If we talk about many worlds or anything regarding multiverse theory, we are on philosophical ground. Which is okay because philosophy is the father of all sciences and most of what exists today in quantum theory is philosophical in nature. Make no mistake about that.

And to you phlog, all I will give you is a variation on a very old line - "I don't want to be a part of any club that would have YOU as a member."

I agree with u. Actually i have changed a lot after joining this forum and sometimes i too become abusive towards others. Clearly these people have a negative effect on us due to relaxed attitude of moderators on personal attacks.

Had to take that last jab? blah blah blah
You have over 3000 posts here. Even at a paltry 3 minutes per post, that's over 150 hours of posts alone, not including reading other posts and thinking on them: 2-3 posts per day per year for at least three years! Other than coming here to offer a sarcastic quip or insult, what the bloody hell else do you do?

Oh, you are so better than me 'cos you just got here! You haven't spent much time here, which makes you a better person! NOT!

This must be a huge part of your life. So unless you're saving all your posts to eventually compile something that might actually be published, you couldn't have much else so you can have it. It's alllll yours tiger.

And you have much better use for your time, which is why you wrote such a long ad-hom and dodged the question!

blah blah blah So answer that question and then I will cower away.

I will cower off. I WILL COWER OFF IN FEAR! Not just because I can't afford to waste another moment of my time on your disrespectful, self-involved internet ramblings but because I am indeed afraid. AFRAID, of becoming something, ANYTHING resembling yourself. That is something I will not do. So just do what I asked, and remove my username and posts. I don't wish to be a part of whatever this is. You're still king.

I have the time to be involved in intelligent, thought PROVOKING (not shattering) discussion, but I can find abuse and insults anywhere. To the members I did talk with briefly, thank you for your time and discussion. If we talk about many worlds or anything regarding multiverse theory, we are on philosophical ground. Which is okay because philosophy is the father of all sciences and most of what exists today in quantum theory is philosophical in nature. Make no mistake about that.

And to you phlog, all I will give you is a variation on a very old line - "I don't want to be a part of any club that would have YOU as a member."

More ad-hom diversion. Post something of substance.

What type of anomalies are you referring to? Surely not the axial vector anomaly?

Anything consistent that points towards there being a force in nature that we cannot explain without introducing external factors, really. Inflation could be that, maybe whatever caused the anisotropy, who knows?

If one is led to the existence of a multiverse by a string of consistency checks, we have no choice but to accept it, unless another theory comes along which better explains the data.

I'm still trying to get my head around how this could could work, how smaller universes could interact and affect each other early on, and then effectively become hidden as inflation pushes them apart. I'm still tripping up on that boundary though. See if you can come up with a good analogy there, it might help.

I'm still trying to get my head around how this could could work, how smaller universes could interact and affect each other early on, and then effectively become hidden as inflation pushes them apart. I'm still tripping up on that boundary though. See if you can come up with a good analogy there, it might help.

Well, I've never worked through the details, but the picture I have is like a piece of styrofoam. If you look at the styrofoam, it's made of a bunch of little pockets. Imagine the early universe being made of a bunch of little volumes, all about the Planck size (10^-33 cm on a side, or something like that). Now before inflation, those little bubbles are slowly growing. Immediately before inflation, they're about the size of an orange, or so. AFTER inflation, they're much bigger, like the size of the solar system or something. So the universe began as a bunch of little Planck sized bubbles, but these bubbles have expanded, so that the end product is a bunch of really big bubbles, that can't talk to each other.

The bubbles can't interract with each other, and the only way we could detect their existence is through gravitational waves, or something. I think Oli said something about the laws of physics being different in the other bubbles---this is very plausible, because we don't understand the higgs particle very well.

As for the boundaries, I don't know. What I can say is that, even travelling at the speed of light, we would never encounter a boundary. I think the phrase to google is "domain wall", but again, I'm not sure.

Again, this is the picture that I have in my head, and someone can feel free to correct me---I've never worked through the calculations, and I am not an expert. If I have time, I will talk to some cosmologists (who live down the hall) and maybe they can correct my picture.

Hi Ben, I don't like the bubble analogymuch, because it's spacial. I prefer the idea that it could be possible for different universes to exist in the same space, but their interaction is limited because they have maybe just one common dimension. They overlap but do not interact much, some weak force manages to perturb the matter of the other expression.

But anyway, if they did occupy the same space, and did kind of interact at some level, they would still be part of the 'Universe', we'd just know that parts of it were intangible.

What I can say is that, even travelling at the speed of light, we would never encounter a boundary.

i once saw a video (on youtube) of a car which accelerated to 2,147,483,647 mph.

Well, I've never worked through the details, but the picture I have is like a piece of styrofoam. If you look at the styrofoam, it's made of a bunch of little pockets. Imagine the early universe being made of a bunch of little volumes, all about the Planck size (10^-33 cm on a side, or something like that). Now before inflation, those little bubbles are slowly growing. Immediately before inflation, they're about the size of an orange, or so. AFTER inflation, they're much bigger, like the size of the solar system or something. So the universe began as a bunch of little Planck sized bubbles, but these bubbles have expanded, so that the end product is a bunch of really big bubbles, that can't talk to each other.

The bubbles can't interract with each other, and the only way we could detect their existence is through gravitational waves, or something. I think Oli said something about the laws of physics being different in the other bubbles---this is very plausible, because we don't understand the higgs particle very well.

As for the boundaries, I don't know. What I can say is that, even travelling at the speed of light, we would never encounter a boundary. I think the phrase to google is "domain wall", but again, I'm not sure.

Again, this is the picture that I have in my head, and someone can feel free to correct me---I've never worked through the calculations, and I am not an expert. If I have time, I will talk to some cosmologists (who live down the hall) and maybe they can correct my picture.

I don't try to imagine universes existing in the same space. Why would they need to? We have absolutely no reason to assume they would. Why would they need a common dimension at all? Well maybe because if they didn't, the other universe would not effect us on any level whatsoever right? Well not if that dimension was invisible to us in every visible and observable way.

I try picturing universes expanding outward on a 2-dimensional surface (each surface containing all the data for that universe). Maybe this surface is only a Planck length in thickness. Perhaps something not observable, for instance, dark energy may pass unimpeded from one sheet to the next. While we can not see it directly, we can see it's effects. The universe seems too uniform to have happened naturally and it's now looking likely that dark energy had a large role to play in this uniformity. We have to consider the possibility that it may be impossible to establish a unified testable theory since our minds cannot abstract the concept of additional dimensions without a frame of reference. Space is not empty. It only APPEARS empty. I can't ask you to conjure up an image of something you haven't already abstracted from something you've seen before. That would be like asking a neanderthal to imagine an Airbus A380. Since all our thoughts, instrumentation, etc. exist within this small 5% of visible matter in the Universe (the rest being dark or invisible) how could we possibly test something else? It would have to have a measurable effect on our 1/20th of the universe. And it's fairly well accepted that something is. So I do agree with phlog in that unification is necessary if for no other reason than to be able to say that for a fact, this or that is NOT coming from within our universe. I'm at least 90% certain that anything we accomplish towards that particular end will be purely by accident.

I prefer the idea that it could be possible for different universes to exist in the same space, but their interaction is limited because they have maybe just one common dimension. They overlap but do not interact much, some weak force manages to perturb the matter of the other expression.

Well, no matter how you cut it, gravity has to live in all of the dimensions, whether you have four or eleven or N. So in your picture, the universes would interact gravitationally, so we could detect them.

I don't try to imagine universes existing in the same space. Why would they need to? We have absolutely no reason to assume they would. Why would they need a common dimension at all? Well maybe because if they didn't, the other universe would not effect us on any level whatsoever right? Well not if that dimension was invisible to us in every visible and observable way.

See my previous comment to Phlog. The point is, one has to be careful adding matter to other dimensions---it is not an easy thing to do.

Perhaps something not observable, for instance, dark energy may pass unimpeded from one sheet to the next.

But we can observe dark energy by its effects on the space between galaxies. And it's not even clear to me that dark energy can "flow". It may be a fundamental property of the vacuum, in which case it is present everywhere at all times.

The universe seems too uniform to have happened naturally and it's now looking likely that dark energy had a large role to play in this uniformity.

If you believe in inflation, you have no problems with this uniformity.

We have to consider the possibility that it may be impossible to establish a unified testable theory since our minds cannot abstract the concept of additional dimensions without a frame of reference.

This is a metaphysical statement, at best. There are good reasons to believe that we can't understand our universe completely, I completely agree. But you must also accept that it is completely plausible that one equation, with apropriate boundary conditions, will specify the life of the universe.

Since all our thoughts, instrumentation, etc. exist within this small 5% of visible matter in the Universe (the rest