Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
Force
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 273 (471415)
06-16-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by IamJoseph
06-16-2008 4:30 AM


Re: Update Your Model
IAJ,
IAJ writes:
The universe is not expanding, but rather, the original point is becoming larger.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I bet this will make quote of the month....
I would love to see some evidence for the rest of your claims in post 54.

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by IamJoseph, posted 06-16-2008 4:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 06-16-2008 11:03 PM Force has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 62 of 273 (471425)
06-16-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by onifre
06-16-2008 1:33 PM


Re: Update Your Model
My statement was that without inflation the BBT was dead.
onifre writes:
Could you point to something in that paper which says that the BBT is debunked??
BRANDENBERGER would not call it debunked even though he pointed out problems with the BBT, that did not agree with the theory.
I will include a quote here that will speak to why anyone would not say anything negetive about the BBT. This comes from an open letter that is signed by over 400 Scientist and Engineers.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Open Letter on Cosmology
You don't shoot the goose that lays the golden egg.
From Message 42
ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER Physics Department, Brown University says,
quote:
Standard cosmology cannot explain the observed isotropy of the CMB.
quote:
The problems I will focus on here - the homogeneity, flatness and formation of structure problems are questions which have no answer within the theory and are therefore the main motivation for inflationary cosmology.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9910/9910410v1.pdf
He says the Standard BBT can not answer the homogeneity problem.
He says the Standard BBT can not answer the flatness problem.
He says the Standard BBT can not answer the formation of structure problem.
The BBT was in serious trouble until Guth proposed Inflation 50 years after the BBT came on the scene.
Now 27 years later Inflation has a lot of problems that have not been resolved. Even to the point there is no theory yet.
But we know it happened like we think it did because it is necessary.
ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER said: the main motivation for inflationary cosmology was that the BBT could not answer those problems.
ANDREW R. LIDDLE
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdf
Flatness problem,
Liddle says the BBT density problem would cause the universe to recollapse or rapidly expand and cool below 3k withing its first second of existence.
The horizon problem
Liddle says it is impossible in the BBT for the Microwave photons to be in thermal equilibrium at almost the same temperature.
The monopole problem
Liddle says, "Modern particle theories predict a variety of ”unwanted relics’, which would violate observations."
The Idea of Inflation
Liddle says, "Seen with many years of hindsight, the idea of inflation is actually rather obvious."
So without inflation the BBT would be in deep trouble.
Both these guys believe in the BBT with inflation added on as a patch to fix it.
Liddle even proposes a hypothesis of Inflation, and talks of many others.
But they are only hypothesis of Inflation. No Theory.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 06-16-2008 1:33 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 06-16-2008 11:22 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 63 of 273 (471431)
06-16-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by onifre
06-16-2008 1:33 PM


Re: Expanding Universe
onifre writes:
How so if we still have the fact that the Universe is expanding?
The Bible predicts and testifies to that fact, so what?
onifre writes:
Inflation is just the name given to the catalist for expantion. But we know it was small and we know it is quite large now, something did this right?
Inflation is the earliest moments of expansion when some weird unscientific things was to have taken place. Like the mass and energy doubling a few hundred times. Creating all the things necessary to fix all the problems of the BBT.
Inflation has to start with no starter.
Inflation has to stop with no brakes.
Nobody talks about the problems of the BBT unless someone brings them up. When they do they get buried.
You mentioned the problems of Inflation that they are known and may be fixed in the future. That is possible.
But the BBT with inflation is presented today as if it is a known fact which it is not.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 06-16-2008 1:33 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 06-16-2008 11:13 PM ICANT has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 273 (471451)
06-16-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Force
06-16-2008 6:18 PM


Re: Update Your Model
When you finish laughing, consider the situation you are laughing at. You will have to conclude the universe is not expanding [where to - in a finite realm?] - but can only be in a mode of self-expansion.
Update your uni model - your error was not considering the uni is finite and thus not factoring this in the equation. It is a commonplace error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Force, posted 06-16-2008 6:18 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 4:02 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 273 (471453)
06-16-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
06-16-2008 8:55 PM


Re: Expanding Universe
quote:
Inflation is the earliest moments of expansion
This factor says the expansion was post-uni, thus an in/within-uni phenomenon.
quote:
when some weird unscientific things was to have taken place.
This factor says there was/had to be - an external triggering impact.
The above factors say the universe is in self-expansion, as opposed expanding, namely the original particle has expanded, while the space bed was and is at all times contained within the original particle; also - that there cannot be parallel or multi universes [the finite factor].
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2008 8:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 11:40 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 273 (471454)
06-16-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
06-16-2008 7:54 PM


Re: Update Your Model
quote:
BRANDENBERGER would not call it debunked even though he pointed out problems with the BBT, that did not agree with the theory.
Reason this cannot be openly and conclusively stated by a scientist today:
1. There is yet no alternative scenario - which does not mean the BBT is correct. IOW, even if there are blatant errors, one cannot make objections w/o offering alternative solutions. Science goes by the best, most reasonable path available to it.
2. Like the ToE premise, a scientist going against the held position will get his min. 15 year career destroyed.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2008 7:54 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 67 of 273 (471523)
06-17-2008 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Force
06-16-2008 6:11 PM


Re: Update Your Model
Force writes:
There is evidence for the BB but however there is no evidence for a God.
I keep hearing there is mountains of evidence. I have not seen any yet that is not questioned.
We have about 230 posts left, put it on the table.
Force writes:
There are issues with a lot of scientific theories but those theories are based on "tangible evidence"
Could you explain where I can touch this evidence. That is what tangible means isn't it.
Force I have questions that there are no answers to in science.
One is where did the little pea sized universe come from?
The answer I am given is it just exists and then expands.
No reason for it existing. No reason for it to start to expand.
It just does.
Where did it come from? Best answer, "We don't Know."
Along come Inflation to fix the problems.
Guth says inflation starts with a smear and it doubles a few hundred times and then expands into the universe as we see it.
Where did the smear come from? It just is.
Then comes the scalar field. Where did it come from? We don't know we have not found one yet.
I put forth questions that scientist say the BBT can not answer and is incompatible with.
The only answer to those questions is Inflation.
Inflation is not even to the theory stage yet. Therefore it does not answer the questions yet.
Will it answer the questions eventually? Maybe, maybe not.
Until then the BBT has serious problems.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Force, posted 06-16-2008 6:11 PM Force has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Force, posted 06-17-2008 4:36 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 273 (471547)
06-17-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by IamJoseph
06-16-2008 11:13 PM


Re: Expanding Universe
IaJ writes:
This factor says there was/had to be - an external triggering impact.
IaJ I have been through several of these discussions about the BBT here at EvC.
I have been assured many times that the universe existed at T=10-43.
Since energy or mass can not be created for the universe to exist today which it does the amount of energy and mass that is in the universe had to exist in some form.
If it existed in some form it had to exist somewhere.
But according to the BBT there was no time space, gravity or anything outside of the universe.
I am told.
Everything was inside the universe.
There was no outside and no before.
It did not exist anywhere.
It is not expanding into anything.
The universe just is.
It began expanding for no reason. It just did.
We had problems with the BBT.
Inflation was a add on to fix the problems.
There was no cause for inflation it just happened.
It did not last very long.
It stopped by itself.
We just know it started and stopped.
We are here that proves it all happened like we believe it did.
The only conclusion from science that I can get is that the universe does not exist and neither do we. We just think we do.
But I just pinched myself and it hurt so I do exist. I walked outside the house and got wet it is raining.
So the universe does exist. If it happened like I have been told here and the universe existed at T=10-43 It had to come from somewhere. The only alternative to it coming from an absence of ANY thing (energy and mass being created ex nihilo) is there was an outside force.
Or there was a huge mass of pure energy which had no beginning that created our universe.
I really believe it was 3 aliens from another universe that created our universe in their universe.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 06-16-2008 11:13 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 12:44 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 273 (471559)
06-17-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
06-17-2008 11:40 AM


Steak Out
The whole premise of your OP and subsequent point of view taken seems to be confusing and conflating questions with refutations.
You say the BB theory is on it's last legs. Yet you have failed to show how any of the evidence on which the theory was formulated or is based has been demonstrated to be false. You have provided no alternative explanations, no alternate methods of predicting cosmological phenomenon and no evidence that contradicts BB theory at all.
Instead you claim that unanswered questions currently being researched (origin of the universe and the issue of flatness that inflation was introduced to resolve) somehow refute the BB theory?
How, in your opinion, do additional questions refute anything?
Does your inability to definitively answer the question as to why God created and tested man somehow refute the existence of God in your mind? Why not?
Lets not get sidetracked on that particular issue in this thread.
The point is - If you are going to propose that unanswered questions should be considered as refutations of theories then -
1) No theory would ever get off the starting block
2) Would you be willing to apply this same requirement of certainty to positions that you suport or is it just theories to which you philosophically object that need to have all related questions answered in order to be valid?
I suggest that your particular obsession with T=0 no more refutes BBT theory than my ignorance of cattle farming stops me from cooking an excellent steak
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM Straggler has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 70 of 273 (471568)
06-17-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
06-17-2008 12:44 PM


Re: Steak Out
Straggler writes:
1) No theory would ever get off the starting block
Did I miss something when I was told that a theory was so well proven that just about everyboy agreed that it was true and at that point it ceased to be a hypothesis?
Straggler writes:
2) Would you be willing to apply this same requirement of certainty to positions that you suport or is it just theories to which you philosophically object that need to have all related questions answered in order to be valid?
My hypothesis is already held to higher standards at EvC.
Straggler writes:
my ignorance of cattle farming stops me from cooking an excellent steak
I pity you if you can not cook a PERFECT steak. You don't know what you are missing.
Straggler writes:
You say the BB theory is on it's last legs. Yet you have failed to show how any of the evidence on which the theory was formulated or is based has been demonstrated to be false.
In Message 42 I provide these quote's from ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER Physics Department, Brown University.
quote:
Standard cosmology cannot explain the observed isotropy of the CMB.
quote:
The problems I will focus on here - the homogeneity, flatness and formation of structure problems are questions which have no answer within the theory and are therefore the main motivation for inflationary cosmology.
If these problems exist the BBT is Wrong.
They do exist.
Unless Inflation is true these problems say the BBT could not be true.
The observations do not match what the BBT requires to be true.
Would you please explain how you can say the BBT is true when it does not match the observations without inflation?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 12:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 1:43 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 273 (471569)
06-17-2008 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
06-17-2008 11:40 AM


Re: Expanding Universe
Since energy or mass can not be created for the universe to exist today which it does the amount of energy and mass that is in the universe had to exist in some form.
Zero energy universe hypothesis?
We also do not know what the laws of physics are prior to T=10^-43.
Everything was inside the universe.
There was no outside and no before.
It did not exist anywhere.
It is not expanding into anything.
The universe just is.
It began expanding for no reason. It just did.
We had problems with the BBT.
Inflation was a add on to fix the problems.
There was no cause for inflation it just happened.
It did not last very long.
It stopped by itself.
We just know it started and stopped.
There are some suggestions that there may have been (or may be) something external to the universe. Branes, multiverse etc. etc. Highly speculative stuff.
Or there may be truly nothing external to the universe. Other than some sort of common sense objection (which we probably all share to a greater or lesser extent) what is your point?
Common sense regarding nature will lead you astray in meany areas of science. Any schoolboy could tell you that an atom is 99.9999999% empty space. You are made of atoms. So is the chair you are sitting on. Physically you are a collection of 99.99999% empty space supported by another collection of 99.99999% empty space.
Does that sit well (pun intended) with your common sense?
Do you refute atomic theory based on your common sense view that you and your chair are solid objects that could not possibly be composed of almost entirely empty space??
The only conclusion from science that I can get is that the universe does not exist and neither do we. We just think we do.
Er no. I think the conclusion of science is very different. This interpretation of the empirically tested conclusion of science is very much your own.
But I just pinched myself and it hurt so I do exist. I walked outside the house and got wet it is raining.
Feel free to keep checking your existence. It sounds like fun.........
So the universe does exist. If it happened like I have been told here and the universe existed at T=10-43 It had to come from somewhere. The only alternative to it coming from an absence of ANY thing (energy and mass being created ex nihilo) is there was an outside force.
Force is the wrong word I suspect but..... If you are saying the universe either came from something (multiverse? branes?) or truly nothing then I would agree that you have got all the bases covered in terms of possibilities.
I really believe it was 3 aliens from another universe that created our universe in their universe.
3 aliens? Why 3? Is 3 the magic number?
Do you think we will ever have the knowledge and technology to create new universes from within our own universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by rueh, posted 06-17-2008 1:44 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 2:18 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 72 of 273 (471578)
06-17-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ICANT
06-17-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Steak Out
Did I miss something when I was told that a theory was so well proven that just about everyboy agreed that it was true and at that point it ceased to be a hypothesis?
No you didn't miss anything. BBT is indeed such a theory. Yes.
If we followed your "all questions must be answered" method of determining veracity there would be no theories and no science.
My hypothesis is already held to higher standards at EvC.
Really? Lets start another thread and examine your hypothesis. Lets see what standards of evidence it does meet and how these compare to BBT and any other relevant conclusions of science.
I pity you if you can not cook a PERFECT steak. You don't know what you are missing.
I look forward to the dinner invite...............
Maybe a steakathon cook-off?
Would you please explain how you can say the BBT is true when it does not match the observations without inflation?
Because the basis on and predictions of BBT theory remain true with or without inflation.
Additional evidence that does not contradict the foundations of a theory can cause theories to be modified. That is how allscience works.
Can you name any major scientific theory that has remained unmodified from conception in the face of evidence or questioning?
Your only reason for imposing this restrictions on BBT is your philosophical bias regarding this matter.
If we pulled fully formed theories that could be subject to no modification out of our arses we would -
A) Not need to do any research, experimentation or further investigation
B) Call it faith not science
If you think scientists are so determined to cling on to a dying theory no matter what, why do you think they keep doing research that (according to you) disproves that theory? Why don't they tick off that pesky question of the universe as sorted and go onto the next thing?
Questions are not refutations.
If you want to refute BBT you need to show how the evidence on which the theory is based and which it predicts, to be false. You are unable to do this.
You cannot answer the question as to why God created man.
Therefore (by your logic) the God creating man hypothesis has been refuted.
If you are going to be consistent you would have to agree with this. Even I would not claim that God has been refuted!
Unanswered questions are not refutations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 3:24 PM Straggler has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 73 of 273 (471580)
06-17-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
06-17-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Expanding Universe
quote:
Do you think we will ever have the knowledge and technology to create new universes from within our own universe?
I think the better question would be. If we do, how do we even know that we have done it. If it is a universe wouldn't it have to exist in a dimension seperate from ours?

"I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish that He didn't trust me so much." Mother Teresa

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM Straggler has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 74 of 273 (471591)
06-17-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by IamJoseph
06-15-2008 5:14 AM


Re: Update Your Model
My prmise is based on a finite universe - which includes space, particles, forces - even nothingness as we know it or dont know it. Your premise is not of a finite universe but a back door to the unscientific infinite resorting - here, anything goes.
quote:
because the fabric of space is either very small matter particles, or an unknown light or field particle,
My prmise is based on a finite universe - which includes space, particles, forces - even nothingness as we know it or dont know it. Your premise is not of a finite universe but a back door to the unscientific infinite resorting - here, anything goes.
thats the problem with science. you are basing your entire science on an untested unknown. and your observations are so tentative it could possibly be considered science fiction.
science should be looking for the truth of the way things are. so what happened?
look at so many of you. even cavediver. who for the sake of science will argue that the theory of the big bang is solid as any theory can ever be. without examining definates, or seeking to understand the unknown by the definite observations of what IS known. which is this:
the equation which the big bang is funded on is unfinished science. its a partial look. there is more to the truth than is available. and that truths should be examined by observations which are by all observations, fact.
a mathematician's apology was a writing by an individual that understood that for all his learning and contributions he was only a stepping stone to hopefully a future generation of greater understanding. the only chance at finding and exploring beyond current theories is to examine the faults, admit them, and seek the truth by observation.
LOOK.
examine what the BBT says: ALL OF THE UNIVERSE IN ITS ENTIRETY EXISTED IN THE SIZE OF A PEA, WAS VERY HOT, AND DENSE.
LOOK
ENERGY AND MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, ONLY CHANGED FROM FORM TO FORM.
simplistically: something cannot come from nothing. all that is has derived from the always was.
tell me; where is the brain of a tree? then how come it can communicate with other trees chemically to aid its kind?
tell me, if a tree has a limited intelligence, what is the probability that a greater existence of intelligence exists, greater than mankind?
look at a an atom.
center, revolving access of charges around the core charges.
star system: revolving planets, with polar charges around a center greater mass with its own charges.
galaxy: center point, with evolving evolutions around the greater center.
SEE? the pattern is the same. the strong force of atoms is the greater force with is mirrored in the larger composites of the base workings.
another words: at the core of all that is, is an unexplainable powerful energy existence, from which all things are held together and sustained by.
its the cornerstone. its the unexplainable great force the "strong" force. that without this, no matter would hold form.
can you explain how that force exists? what sustains it? can you say that the force could not be possible to hold intelligence along its veins?
no? then explain how a brain holds intelligence along its veins. or the tree?
crystals grow when fed. so also does all biological life grow when fed.
how long will you ignore the evidence before you that the world and all the universe is ONE entity coming from a single start? forever?
when you understand, or for those who do understand, the universe and all that is came form a single existence, which evolved, how long til you understand that it had intelligence? because with no outside interactions, no thing can evolve, UNLESS directed.
show me where I'm wrong? call me names. you will. call me stupid. you will. say I'm an idiot and no one should read my words, you will.
BUT SHOW me where I'm wrong! you cant. not without quoting tentative science dreamed up from creative scientists to an ignorant crowd for the sake of obtaining grants to continue research. many of which are not even theories. nor theory worthy. but are just complex words describing an untestable, unverifiable unobservable guess.
now examine what i say: it is based on LAWS of science, and observations occurring in nature everyday. and always the same methodology.
you will be stubborn. God forgive you, and you will be angry with me, but i forgive you. and the world will reap its reward as the infected and diseased cell in the body of God until the time of Gods medicines completion. and then..what is not healed in the body, its cast off from it. so be it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by IamJoseph, posted 06-15-2008 5:14 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lyx2no, posted 06-17-2008 2:25 PM tesla has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 75 of 273 (471593)
06-17-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
06-17-2008 1:20 PM


Re: Expanding Universe
Straggler writes:
Zero energy universe hypothesis?
Ah the ultimate free lunch.
We have to start with a positive energy and a negative energy.
They have to be created ex nihilo. Unless they exist somewhere.
Then these two guys get in a fight and create all the mass and energy in the universe while keeping the zero energy universe.
Now that is truly fantastic. And just as unbelievable.
Straggler writes:
Er no. I think the conclusion of science is very different. This interpretation of the empirically tested conclusion of science is very much your own.
I claimed that as my own conclusion.
Straggler writes:
3 aliens? Why 3? Is 3 the magic number?
That is the number I get from my source that you will not accept.
Straggler writes:
Do you think we will ever have the knowledge and technology to create new universes from within our own universe
I read somewhere that somebody said we will be able to create a universe the size of ours with 20 lbs of matter.
I don't have much faith in him being successful. Because if he made it how would he get it out of our universe so it could get as big as our universe. If it remained in our universe our universe would have to get large enough to contain that universe also. That means it would never get as big as our universe.
So no I don't think we will accomplish the feat of becoming a God.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 06-17-2008 1:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 06-18-2008 7:48 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024