Universe Race

Freudian Slip! He meant to say "poof," but he said "proof." It kind of changes the entire meaning of what he was trying to say, doesn't it? Scientific "belief" does follow the "proof," as he wrote, not the "poof," as he meant to write. And, seeing as there isn't yet any "proof" of anything, we therefore do not have a belief on the issue.Actually, the Creationist belief is more akin to the "poof" he's talking about: I have long referred to it as the "Big Poof Theory" because it states very clearly that there is no mechanism for the Creation of the universe (at least, not one we puny, mortal humans could ever understand).

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Thanks Son,

quote:

---

Nonetheless, dark matter is seeming more and more real.

---

Quote from your article.Seems real and being real are two different things.I can not find anything present to change the above statement.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Then what are you arguing about in a thread about cosmology?- Then go to a street corner and pass out leaflets.This is a thread about the science of cosmology. It's purpose is to explain the science as well as it can, with which you claim to agree, and to try to convince people that the science is sound, with which you also claim to agree.There is nothing in this thread about creators or eternal souls.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Does that mean that you refuse to entertain the possibility that dark matter may be real after all?I can only assume that you must have an alternate explanation for what is seen in those pictures. Humor us...

Hi fallacycop, If you would have read the article Son posted the link to you would have found the entire sentence I was quoting from, which says: God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So, we're done talking about Big Bang now?

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

there is no bang without an always was energy for it to "bang" from.if you look at genesis of all things, like big bang, you know because of evolution that at some point inn time, time will equal ZERO. it is inevitable.now because of no time of any relevance, the energy is singular, with no two points, but just multiple parts of a single self that existed for all eternity, with nothing but itself. and from it all things came.T=0 argument: what if it did evolve from another state? ok whats before that. oh! another evolution. k before that. before that. yadda yadda forever 20 billion years of before thats or never ending, eventually it will find T=0. the first of all evolutions which is no evolutions, but its Genesis state. time= zero is inevitable.now, examine T=0.EVERYONE i know on this site just Say's: we cant say nothing about true T=0 because all math breaks down.duh.so what does THAT mean? it means your ignoring the greatest truth of all. T=0 is inevitable, and because of what is now we can say SOME things DEFINATLY about the energy that MUST be present.ie: energy only comes from energy. true.if you say "no" : if no energy, there's nothing there, nothing is, and you cant believe with any faith you are, start taking psycho drugs immediately and meet a psychiatrist 5 times a day or become committed to some hospital, because you are a schizophrenic.ok T=0 energy definitely.now ask yourselves: chaotic? ordered? intelligent? not intelligent?and remember: NO OUTSIDE INTERACTIONS. everything that IS is in ONE spot. TIMELESS. SINGULAR. it came form nothing. only it is.and i ask you, without intelligence, how could it self evolve? hmm?look. ive been here hashing this for awhile, and you are either super arrogant, or super blind to NOT see that the UNIVERSE and all in it, could come from a non directed source.(looking at a single source with no outside interactions in a timeless state. its absurd by all math to even consider it.here's the truth of the big bang:take a sheet of paper, label it "existence/singularity/God. (all synonyms for the same body)in the center draw a circle. that circle is the known universe. shrink it, existence fills up the hole. all the energy folds back into the main body. and then only the main body is. (existence)if you want a more detailed description of this bang as i suggest it, then go to this link:http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You are so focused on this T=0 shtick that you have missed an important point. The beginning of time/universe/previous states does not prove God. Why mention Genesis, or pretend that you are showing something concrete when its just smoke and mirrors? What happened before is unknown, that is the end of it. No, it means your making stuff up and evidence does not support you. Your imagination has produced some form of conclusion and your imagination is not a reason for anyone to agree with your conclusions. Argument from Personal Incredulity You can say that, but you haven't actually shown that. Why not "existence/last tuesday/universe printer"? Next tuesday it prints a different one FYI.

If the admins consider this off-topic I'll drop it, since it is more relevant to cosmology in general rather than the big bang. This is very vague, could you be more clear as to what you are saying. Also you obviously didn't pay attention to the rest of my post. I knew you would pick on this paragraph: Which is why I told you: However this doesn't really relate to the Big Bang, so I'm not sure what you're getting at now. Why have you suddenly decided to switch to criticisms of dark matter?

You think with your heart and you end up thinking hopelessly wrong.Try thinking with your brain: that's what it's for after all.

Hi Son, We were talking about the expansion that was caused by the Big Bang. How the expansion was started by the Big Bang. I was told it just happened and there was no answers.I then moved to the problems with expansion. The first being the Horizon problem.Inflation was added in 1981 to solve the Horizon problem.
This was an adjustment of the numbers to make the predictions of the Big Bang Theory match observations.The Big Bang predicted a smooth, isotropic and homogeneous expansion.
The smoothness of the distribution of the matter of the universe is said to be verified by the smoothness of microwave background radiation (MBR) that is received from all directions of space.However, the observed irregularities of the universe, which include vast galactic formations, gigantic voids and sheets of galaxies, and the "Great Wall", which spans 500 million light years say different.Inject inflation problem solved.Gravity problem holding things together not enough mass.Inject dark matter problem solved.All of this would effect our race across space. Which is caused by expansion.The OP talked about the clusters and the different speeds things are moving at and how we got strung out over such a vast amount of space.Especially since everybody started in the same place and the speed was preset. Everybody should still be neck and neck.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Since there is now a subtopic on dark matter, maybe I'll offer a comment on it before it's ruled off-topic.First of all, dark matter can be detected -- through its gravitational interactions. After all, that is why it was postulated to begin with.Let me remind our readers that there has been precedent (and successful precedent!) for "dark matter". Namely the perturbations of the orbit of Uranus in the 19th century. Newton's Laws of Motion and the Universal Law of Gravity gave a way of precisely calculating the orbits of the planets. When Uranus was discovered, its orbit was worked out according to the known laws of physics. Yet, it was eventually noticed that it did not follow the correct orbit.According to ICANT, scientist should have decided that they don't know anything at all about the universe or about planets or about how planets should move. Heck, they probably should have resurrected the old planets-pushed-by-angels theory.But, instead, these silly scientists came up with a fudge -- they proposed that the gravitational effects of an as-yet undiscovered planet was causing the anomalies in Uranus' orbit. What a bunch of maroons!An interesting thing happened, though: it turns out that a planet of the right size at the right positions could actually cause the observed perturbations in Uranus' orbit. Now this is a bit odd -- there was no reason that this should have been possible. The anomalies in Uranus' orbit could have been such that there was no way to place any planet in any kind of orbit in such a way that its gravitational effects would actually cause what was observed. But, as ICANT will undoubtably point out, a fudge is a fudge.Except that a planet (which we now call Neptune) was actually discovered by looking in the areas where it was proposed it should be. Ooh! Embarassment for the 19th century ICANTs! That's gotta hurt!Now we observe that the motions of stars moving within galaxies (the rotation of the galaxies) do not fit the calculated motions based on our understanding of the laws of motion. So obviously, scientists should just give up on trying to understand the universe and go back to church.Except those silly scientists, puffed up by their wholly accidental "success" in the discovery of Neptune, decide that there might be more mass in these galaxies than we can see. And they have proposed actually distributions of this mass that can account for the anomalies.Hmm. Again this is interesting. There is no reason that any distribution of any mass would result in correctly prediction the motions of the stars in these galaxies. It could be that no matter how scientists tried to distribute mass within these galaxies, the motions would still all be off! So it is interesting that this is even possible....But no matter. A fudge is a fudge. After all, how often can ICANT be wrong?

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

That's good, right? There was a problem, a solution was proposed, and it worked. And ICANT thinks that this is a problem.People who want to learn a little something about inflation can read about it on Wikipedia.First of all, there was no guarantee that anything could have solved these problems. That such a simple solution worked is remarkable in itself. But the interesting thing is that inflation actually solved several problems: the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the lack of magnetic monopoles; the Wikipedia article describes these problems. So, a single proposal actually explained several different observations.Another point to make is that inflation wasn't just thrown in ad hoc. There are theoretical explanations for this period of inflation.Finally, I should point out that scientists don't just propose theories or solutions, and then claim that all the problems are solved as the creationists do. Rather, scientists continue to probe the limits of the theories. Cosmologists continue to make observations to try to find out if there is anything that seems to contradict the inflation theories, and to try to adjust the theories to construct the best possible theories to explain our universe. I find it amusing that the so-called problems that the creationists and other nay-sayers use against the standard scientific theories of our universe are actually discovered and discussed by the scientists themselves. But that is what scientists do -- they construct theories only to try to test them beyond their limits.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Good for inflation then.That IS how science is supposed to work. We have a model that explains a lot of things -- good. But it has problems too. Someone comes up with an improvement for the model that fixes some of the problems and still explains a lot of things -- even better.Science doesn't get stuck with the old model just because someone said so 20 or 30 years ago. It progresses. getting stuck with old ideas that don't work anymore is more ike how religions work.

its inevitable. you just choose to ignore the evidence for your dogmatic views.the end of it is we dont know? thats like saying "Goddidit" so we may as well not look for the answer. my imagination? so all the laws of science is imagination? its observation. by scientific reason. its the truth, you just cant handle it. question for reasonable people with reasonable intelligence to examine the evidence. if you dont fit the bill, just ignore it, it is beyond your comprehension, or your schitzophrentic. maybe in your universe. but true reality is what it is whether you like it or not. if tomorrow we find more evidence through technology, then so be it. but by all technology math and understanding and all observation of today, this is the truth. it explains the vacuum of space, existing, black holes, and the purpose of existing.i don't expect you to understand. but if you stop and quit arguing a position, and LOOK at what is telling you, you'll discover there can be no other conclusion.unless your schizophrenic, in which case; yes your being observed. no it isn't me. if you wait a few minutes the voice in your head will tell you what the truth is so you can have coffee with your imaginary friend bob who doesn't exist.Edited by tesla, : html

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides