looking at the start of the universe

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Andbna

OK

The only thing the red shift indicates is that indeed the universe is moving around and changing. Just because we can tell where all VISIBLE galaxies are moving from, does not mean we can say that the ENTIRE universe is like that.

Vast spaces of emptiness seen in telescopes is nothing but technology not being able to see any further into space, by no means does it indicate a finite edge. To say the universe has an edge is like saying the Earth is flat. Its like saying you're an infinite being, when in reality you are not, you were born and you will die.

Can't you see the invertedness? Religion often teaches that we humans have infinite souls and then we see that relativistic (backwards) science teaches that the universe had a beginning. When in reality it is the other way around, the universe had no beginning and is infinitely large, while us humans have a provable beginning and a provable end... Relativity is trying to teach creationism by teaching the other side of the big lie. And I do mean BIG.

I remember something a man once said, going along these lines: When a lie reaches a magnitude of such greatness the populous will believe it since they themselves lie only in small ways. Thus making it incomprehensible for the little man to believe that such a massive lie could be told to the public, so instead of questioning the lies the populous accepts them as truth.

Sorry to break your fantasy, but the "matrix" is real. hahaha

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just because the universe is infinite it doesent mean there was not a bang.


peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is there any reason to suppose what we can't see is different?
Bearing in mind that every time we get to see further than we could before it's "more of the same".

Nope, but the maths does.

No it isn't.

The universe had no beginning?
Evidence?
Infinitely large?
Evidence?

He probably said "populace" rather than "populous".
Stalin?
And this applies how?

Riiight.
Are you real?

 

There are lies and truths and theories and debunked theories. A debunked theory is not a lie unless it was created to deliberately mislead. I feel that few if any scientific theories would fall into the latter catergory. Unless of course someone can prove me wrong.

However to perpetuate something by falsifying evidence or by dismissing, without reasoned argument, what might just be correct is well, churlish!

Does anyone really believe that the universe is infinate? Surely the universe is finate? And isn't there some evidence (albeit mathematical) to suggest there might have been something else before? Not the universe as we 'know' it, something different?

Don't all 'living' things die? Don't all chemical reactions end when the things fuelling them are spent? Some over a very short time span some over a massive time span. Why would the universe be any different? It's just had a veeeeery long 'lifetime' relatively speaking. Is this just too hard for some beings with a life span of 70 odd years to comprehend because the numbers we're speculating about are so huge?

 

You appear to be confusing infinity (unending distance) with eternity (unending time).

 

True, search for terms like Multiverse and False Vacuum and you will find some theories, noteably that the laws of physics are not consitant everywhere. That said however,

Il forget the fact that you originaly said beginning rather than edge (which can have many more interpretations.)
Both your alnalogies are false.
Now. edge can mean many things. For example, I could say there is an edge to the spatial dimension; they are finite in length, like the diameter of the earth, but it wouldnt have a perceivable boundry.
I could say there is an edge to how far we can see (time it takes for information to travel)
And if the universe is expanding faster ot equal to c than there will be for all intents and purposes, and edge, for information cannot travel faster than c and thus, we would never get to see or visit more of the universe than we could now.

Next, 'beginning' or an edge in time. Hawking said that just before the bigbang the universe was a single singularity, in which the laws of physics were nonexistant, causality was meaningles and so was time.
After this, it expanded and first we had the speration of the spatial dimensions and time, and then our 4 fources. This can be said to be the beginning of our universe.
So yes, these telescopes do indicate a "finite edge" in one way or another.

Proof?

Except science has proof. Furthuremore, "a man" is hardly the harbinger of truth. It has been my experiance that the larger a lie gets, the more unbeleivable it is.

For instance, telling you "I flew on an airplane today." is less beleivable than "I swatted a fly today."
Both of which are lies, I did neither.

The whole point of The Matrix was to demonstrate to the masses that the only thing we know is: we know nothing.
Your aguments seem to remind me of this (but dont worry, I never forget), but then say that what you think is the truth really is the truth, contradicting yourself.

-Andrew