Universe and beyond

[Kent]

If the universe is expanding/stretching, what is it expanding/stretching into? Is it nothingness? Or rather is it is 'nothingness' only in the sense that we cannot give it a word or a definition?

 

Where did all the mass-energy in the universe came from? Is it from nothing?

 

Since we define the universe as being everything( EX: energy-mass,all the temporal and spatial concepts), then it makes little sense imagine something 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the big bang. Yet, the question still remain, and nothing got resolved.

[cosmo]

This question, in my opinion, goes beyond the "Are we alone?" question and mystery and possibly the greatest mystery of all time. You can't get a "true" answer for this question. You can only get opinions. And since you seem interested, I'll give my opinion, or some of it atleast.

 

I believe the universe is infinite. I don't believe there are any outer regions beyond the universe simply because of my belief, there is no beyond universe. The whole "universe is expanding" theory doesn't make any sense at all to me. That's like saying we are confined into a box, if you will, and eventually our universe will reach the ends of this "box" and stop expanding and thus anything outside of this box is its own universe each confined into its own "box." To me its spiritual. Everything that is created must have a creator. Those words alone have helped me and guided me to better understanding and learning more of our universe and everything within.

 

I could go further into my beliefs on this subject, but instead I will give you this link. It is a speech both typed and spoken on the website given by Dr. Hugh Ross back in 1994. You can listen to the speech or read it or both as you follow along as he gives the speech outloud in the recording. It includes very interesting information on our universe, time and the existance of God.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

 

Enjoy! :lol:

[Harry Costas]

Hello

 

The link:http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

 

Using God as an excuse to explain the Universe is low handed.

 

I'm relgious but! I would not allow myself to use GOD.

 

Science facts and evidence is the only way.

 

We have thousands of religions what makes one right over the other.

[arkain101]

There is too many explanations of god, to disscuss it so cut and dry like that.

 

God is also a word for universe. It is a little low handed too, to think of a person when you think of god.

 

Science and spirituality is like this to me.

 

With science you can forget any purpose to anything, it is like going down a river in a boat. It is actually a nice day, nice scenery, and fun waves. But with science you are unaware of this boat ride you are on, and you are busy try to figure out what this object is that you are on, and the more you study this object (the boat) the more you know about its details, but you will never realise that it is in fact a boat, and you are on a ride in it.

This is not to degrade science, it is wonderful thing and I love it. I was trying more to show the capability maximums.

And on then for spirituality, it is being the person who realises they are on a ride and see they are moving and understand the reason, and what is going with this object of which they are placed.

 

One can find reason and the other can find the workings in the details.

 

And I refer to science and spiritualty on the topic of the universe/existance

 

I hope I described what I mean in a way that you can understand.

[Harry Costas]

Hello arkain

 

You need to get off the boat mate.

 

Keep your religion in your heart.

 

Never use it to convince people of your thoughts. This has been done through history and in many cases resulted in wars.

 

As for God been the other word for the universe. Well what can I say?

If you think that, its in your court.

[arkain101]

No those are not my beliefs..

 

I was trying to explain that it is difficult and almost worthless to discuss the topic of religion and god untill you clarrify exactly what each of you are talking about. It is so far from cut and dry simple that you cant effectly debate or discuss the topic before going through a pretty heavy introduction of how you concieve the topic.

 

I dont have a religion. I dont argue over the topics and I definatly try to avoid convincing others of my thinking and getting them to conform my way. The closest thing to conforming in my intention is to suggest everyone to research things before forming an opinion, or logically your opinion will be of little value. If everyone holds a religion in their heart it will become hurtful when you discuss it and feel as though you are personally being attacked. Anger is a well known way to express a combinations of other emotions. Like hurt, pain, suffering, sadness, etc. Hence religious war, I dont mean to make it that cut and dry either, but it seems to obviously be part of it if you a) hold religion to yourself and :singer: to yourself in your heart. Then your opinions are not expressed and when you express them it can become touchy because of the fact some identify part of themselves with their religion and carry it in their heart. Which is fine and dandy but I just dont see why it can rarely be disccussed calmly and usually ends up in a heated debate.

 

But, for the bleep of it, I think ill share a bit of my story on the subject.

 

Through my entire life I never was hardly once invloved in a single religious or spiritual thing. I was a redneck gearhead.

 

Then one day I owned up to myself and said. Okay if I am going to knock on anyone and any religion or faith, well, I better know exactly what is I am talking about. So I changed my ways, and decided that I better learn the basics and evidence and history before I even form myself an opinion.

 

Also, I decided that if I was ever to make stance and claim that what I know or what I am invloved in is better than anything else in any way, I better know exactly everything about that of which I am comparing it to.

 

So I took the time to read as much of the bible as I could. Study spiritualist information, history, cultures, and other religions. Practice some of the practices and come to know what is everyone is so defensive and proud about.

 

Turns out, I decided all religions are against their purpose in one way or another to some degree and that some religions carried far too much corrupt and ugly history in its wake to consider joining. So I came to learn it on my own and found so much more meaning and understanding doing things in this process. I not only understood things better than I ever could from being taught but I felt capable to put myself into other peoples shoes and see where everyone is coming from, and after all this crap, I see that there is a basic to it all that all versions share. the same general message jesus tries to share and so on. Now I look at what we have today and kind of feel a bit perplexed as to how it came to this, it seems ego took over as it usually does... people dressing up in gowns and making it into a lifestyle, leading it.. blah.. lol...

 

Im much more content walking the mountain of truth at my own pace and checking out the scenery. However, I see where others (you reading this) come from and I respect it. So no offense.

[Harry Costas]

No offence was given or taken.

 

 

But! if you want the discussions on the ongoings of the universe I'm here.

 

If religion,,,,,,leave me a note on my email.

[cosmo]

Why did anyone here even bring up religion? I don't know why people these days all of a sudden assume religion is the subject when they read something about God. Yeah, there are alot of religions out there that follow the word of God and there are alot of them that don't, but that doesn't mean the subject of the case has to be redirected to religion.

 

We are talking about the creator and his part in this subject. As much of a personal belief this may be to me or anyone, it still doesn't have to be confined to a religious debate.

 

What is the universe expanding into?

 

A. It is a mystery known only by the Creator.

 

B. I don't know.

 

There's really no other choices other than these. There is debate, but no other choices.

[Harry Costas]

hello Cosmo

 

Do not limit your self. Man in the past has always limited themselves because of the knowledge at hand. Than without an explanation people used to say. Thats God's will.

 

To begin with the universe is not expanding and as the days go by we are gaining more info on the universe.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960415.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960205.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960109.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960110.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmolCrisis.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg18825305.800

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#expansion

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=68326;article=1473;show_parent=1

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/stuff.html

 

http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbcloc.html#c1

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/bbang.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redshf.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/hubble.html#c0

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/inflat.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/unify.html#c2

 

Just a few links on the expansion and Big Bang.

[lindagarrette]

hello Cosmo

 

Do not limit your self. Man in the past has always limited themselves because of the knowledge at hand. Than without an explanation people used to say. Thats God's will.

 

To begin with the universe is not expanding and as the days go by we are gaining more info on the universe.

[/url]

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

 

Just a few links on the expansion and Big Bang.

You should read your own references. Here's why you are wrong:

 

 

As for the Big Bang Theory, it is NOT only a theory, it's the ONLY theory we have right now that has shown time and time again that it meshes beautifully with seemingly unrelated observations. Did you know, for example, that Big Bang theory provides a logical connection between 1) the expansion rate of the universe, 2) the abundance of Lithium in the universe, and 3) the number of families of neutrinos? The current difficulty with the age problem between globular cluster stars, and the expansion age of the universe ( the stars seem older than the universe), is as much an annoyance for the folks that determine the ages of stars, as it is for Big Bang Theory. We don't yet know which area is at fault: Stellar Evolution theory, or Big Bang cosmology. Both areas of inquiry are fraught with problems in converting a set of observations into a quantity like age. The list of data and observations that are knit by Big Bang theory into a logically self-consistent story of our universe, is not just impressive, but awesome, and is second only to Darwin's 'theory' of evolution in its scope and beauty.

For some reason, perhaps fostered by the 'lets give equal time to every idea' philosophy in news reporting, many of you might believe that there are lots of data that already refute the Big Bang Theory, and that scientists are just being narrow-minded and stubborn about getting rid of the theory and starting over. As we all know, news stories sometimes get reported this way. Even though 99 percent of the vote favors one idea, a reporter will write about the majority view and that 1% fringe, giving equal space to both views. This makes it look like the ideas are shared nearly 50/50 between the two groups.

[lindagarrette]

hello Cosmo

 

Do not limit your self. Man in the past has always limited themselves because of the knowledge at hand. Than without an explanation people used to say. Thats God's will.

 

To begin with the universe is not expanding and as the days go by we are gaining more info on the universe.

[/url]

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q55.html

 

Just a few links on the expansion and Big Bang.

You should read your own references, like web site from astronomycafe. It explains why you are wrong:

 

 

As for the Big Bang Theory, it is NOT only a theory, it's the ONLY theory we have right now that has shown time and time again that it meshes beautifully with seemingly unrelated observations. Did you know, for example, that Big Bang theory provides a logical connection between 1) the expansion rate of the universe, 2) the abundance of Lithium in the universe, and 3) the number of families of neutrinos? The current difficulty with the age problem between globular cluster stars, and the expansion age of the universe ( the stars seem older than the universe), is as much an annoyance for the folks that determine the ages of stars, as it is for Big Bang Theory. We don't yet know which area is at fault: Stellar Evolution theory, or Big Bang cosmology. Both areas of inquiry are fraught with problems in converting a set of observations into a quantity like age. The list of data and observations that are knit by Big Bang theory into a logically self-consistent story of our universe, is not just impressive, but awesome, and is second only to Darwin's 'theory' of evolution in its scope and beauty.

For some reason, perhaps fostered by the 'lets give equal time to every idea' philosophy in news reporting, many of you might believe that there are lots of data that already refute the Big Bang Theory, and that scientists are just being narrow-minded and stubborn about getting rid of the theory and starting over. As we all know, news stories sometimes get reported this way. Even though 99 percent of the vote favors one idea, a reporter will write about the majority view and that 1% fringe, giving equal space to both views. This makes it look like the ideas are shared nearly 50/50 between the two groups.

[arkain101]

I was reading an hypothesis in superstring theory / M-theory, something up in those wierd 11 dimensional sciences lol..

 

Anyway, I read how some are working on the fact there could be these 12 dimensions and it went a bit like this.

It could be possible that the universe could be a function 12 dimensions and with a relativly simple formula could be explained. They said somehow it may be possible that the universe changes realities at times. At the begging of this universe with big bang theory, they suggest what might have happened is the explosion compressed the other 6 or so dimensions into no mans land and the 3 dimensinional matter/ 4dimensional space-time fabric got expelled. and at times the universe goes through these cycles where cirtain dimensional frequencies get compressed and others get expelled..

 

Difficult to explain, but kind of a wonderful thing to ponder on.

[Racoon]

Such an interesting topic!

 

I wish my brain could fathom more dimensions. :singer:

I sure as hell can feel Gravity as the 4th D!

 

I always wondered when we die, if our spirits or souls return to these unexplored/unknown dimensions.....

 

It wouldn't surprise me if there were 12 dimensions.

What could they possibly be??

[EWright]

You should read your own references, like web site from astronomycafe. It explains why you are wrong:

 

 

As for the Big Bang Theory, it is NOT only a theory, it's the ONLY theory we have right now that has shown time and time again that it meshes beautifully with seemingly unrelated observations. Did you know, for example, that Big Bang theory provides a logical connection between 1) the expansion rate of the universe, 2) the abundance of Lithium in the universe, and 3) the number of families of neutrinos? The current difficulty with the age problem between globular cluster stars, and the expansion age of the universe ( the stars seem older than the universe), is as much an annoyance for the folks that determine the ages of stars, as it is for Big Bang Theory. We don't yet know which area is at fault: Stellar Evolution theory, or Big Bang cosmology. Both areas of inquiry are fraught with problems in converting a set of observations into a quantity like age. The list of data and observations that are knit by Big Bang theory into a logically self-consistent story of our universe, is not just impressive, but awesome, and is second only to Darwin's 'theory' of evolution in its scope and beauty.

For some reason, perhaps fostered by the 'lets give equal time to every idea' philosophy in news reporting, many of you might believe that there are lots of data that already refute the Big Bang Theory, and that scientists are just being narrow-minded and stubborn about getting rid of the theory and starting over. As we all know, news stories sometimes get reported this way. Even though 99 percent of the vote favors one idea, a reporter will write about the majority view and that 1% fringe, giving equal space to both views. This makes it look like the ideas are shared nearly 50/50 between the two groups.

 

I was under the impression that the stellar age problem had been resolved. My theory can account for this, but a physics professor told me this was no longer an issue. I thought I had read that it had been explained as well. Can anyone elaborate here?

[Harry Costas]

I do read the links given and know what is written.

 

If you agree with those statements good on you.

 

I for one, see too many problems with the Big Bang as some of those links indicate.

[lindagarrette]

I do read the links given and know what is written.

 

If you agree with those statements good on you.

 

I for one, see too many problems with the Big Bang as some of those links indicate.

If you have many problems with BB, then you are not paying attention.

[EWright]

If you have many problems with BB, then you are not paying attention.

 

If you're not familiar with the many problems with BB, then perhaps you are not paying full attention either.