Forums > Social Discussion > The Universe

Posted: 4th Nov 2002
I think number 2 is really unlikely. Possible, but unlikely that the balance would work out so well.

I like Number 1 a lot. I think I like the idea that if it all collapses, then maybe a new universe plays out again. I think it's a cool concept.

But just as likely as number 3 in my opinion.

(There's your scientist talking...doesn't care one bit about beliefs, just numbers)

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura

Posted: 4th Nov 2002
Though if you apply logic, non of those theorys could hold a drop of water.

The universe is to vast and to complex for "chance" to have any bearing what so ever.

Now, science has never failed to disprove itself! However, science has never succeded to disprove Creation. Unfortunatly for the sceptics sake it has never proven it either.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 4th Nov 2002
well i like number three, i mean noones been able to find the end yet have they?

Posted: 4th Nov 2002
here's what I think:

I don't believe option one to be true, because if there is all this gravity pulling the universe together, how could it possibly separate from itself.

option two seems unlikely as well. what would the end of the universe be like? a brick wall? force field? how could such a thing exist?

option three seems more likely then any of the other ones. but I still don't think anything goes on to infinity.

I would assume the universe is very much like earth. if you travel in a straight line far enough, you will come back to the point you started at.

of course we haven't explored enough of our universe to come up with any answers. hell, we've only been able to send our people a bit past pluto. maybe we should spend more time figuring out the mysteries of our own planet before tackling the universe.

you can't have a war against terrorism because war IS terrorism.it's not about worshipping fire. its about making the fire want to worship you.

Posted: 5th Nov 2002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
The universe is to vast and to complex for "chance" to have any bearing what so ever.

---

Ray dont rule out chance. Chance has more bearing on the world than people are allowed to believe.

Drome

JUGGLEwithyourmind!

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
i believe option 3.

But we dont know much about the universe...in reality, almost anything could happen!
Maybe the universe is a marble that an alien plays around with, like in the Men in Black movie!

Alice

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
well... having done far too much of this shite before i happen to know that it depends on the amount of mass in the universe, and the amount of energy created at the beginning of the big bang. If the amount of energy given to the particles is sufficient to overcome the gravity pullingt everything back in, then the universe will expand forever (option 3), however if it was not enough, then it will end with option 1.

option 2 pretty much cant happen, cos of all the planets. Even if the energy levels were right, the rotation, and orbiting of the planets would upset any balance that existed, hence causing either 1, or 2...

seeing as we dont happen to know how much mass is in the universe, we aint gonna get very far

bloody hell i should have done astrophysics!



Havoc

you have to let it all go... Fear, doubt and disbelief... Free your mind!

Times like these people wanna get High...
Real High and Real Fast...
This is gonna do it!!

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
anyone here read hawking's new book 'the universe in a nutshell'?
by the sound of this thread you'd all love it.

it doesn't tackle the dark matter mass question raised here cos like havoc said, they still can't measure that yet (although there was something in the hawking birthday lectures about laser gravity wave detectors being used to estimate the total mass at some point in the future) but it does discuss some truly head-spinning subjects.
stuff like the history of the universe in imaginary time, M-theory and the holographic principle (coding information about x dimensions on an x-1 surface) and much, much more stuff that we don't really have a hope of understanding but like to get a glimpse of.

apparently the universe has between 5 and 11 dimensions. anyone up for helping me make a meteor that spins in eight of them...?

ps. chains - i've got a tenner on option 1. what odds are you offering...?

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
some years ago, when someone tried to measure the velocity of objects at the edge of the universe to see at what rate it was slowing down he found out something (since proved by others):

options 1 and 2 cannot possibly be valid as the universe is still speeding up (something to do with einstein's cosmological constant but i can't remember what offhand)

there was a theory a few years ago from a portuguese bloke at imperial college (don't know how to spell his name) which went a bit like this - the pre-universal void (and anything still 'outside' the universe) can hold a certain amount of energy (equal to the cosmological constant, C).
C is dependant on the speed of light and as the speed of light is constant, so is C. unfortunately either the speed of light or time itself can be shown to be variable under certain conditions so perhaps it's possible that at a certain place in the void 15 billion years ago the speed of light, for whatever reason, changed.

a change in the speed of light would change the amount of energy the void can contain so if, all of a sudden, the void can't hold so much energy, something unusual would have to happen (as energy can't be created or destroyed). the only way to accommodate this spare energy would be to convert it into matter (just another form of energy) so, as if by magic, there's a big bang!

so, if that's all true, i'd have to go for option 4 - speed of light changes causing big bang, universe expands at an increasing rate until all matter is spread out over unbridgeable distances, then perhaps the speed of light changes again somewhere in the void causing another big bang. result - repeating universes with no ability to interact with or perceive the ones that went before.

there's more to the theory than that but that's about all i can remember how to explain.
sorry it's so long
Non-Https Image Link

wherever you go, there you are.

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
Drome, the odds of the universe comming from anything other than devine intervention are so remote that the number doesnt even exist. There isnt anything on this earth that could make me pretend to believe that something as complex as a human came from any theory of evolution.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
hang on a minute ray - are you seriously trying to imply that humans were in a better position to come up with a theory for the creation of the universe several thousand years ago than they are now?

in a time and place where there were no means of measuring different aspects of the universe and human philosophy was based on keeping the peasants in their place by force and misinformation, i find it hard to believe that they understood implicitly what we now freely claim to have no firm understanding of.

of course i could be wrong but i'll only believe that when someone provides a cogent argument explaining exactly how they knew.

wherever you go, there you are.

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
aaarghh...my head hurts and i brought up the friggin subject!!

heres another point that will cause waves oin the very fabic of time and space:

what was there before the big bang? what happened so that the big bang happened? Why did it happen?!

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
going back a couple of posts here for a big rant...

mind gap - television is the root of all evil! don't believe everything you see on horizon my friend

i have a big problem with pop science programs that present theory as fact. the one that presented this theory was execellent but mislead many people on the following:

quote:

---

unfortunately either the speed of light or time itself can be shown to be variable under certain conditions

---

now time is a variable which depends solely on an observer's speed and acceleration relative to another observer. ie the faster you are moving compared to me, the more time will slow down for you. this can be proved (atomic clocks in aeroplanes did the trick nicely).
however (as yet) there is no evidence that the speed of light is variable. it is still considered to be a constant and hence the cosmological constant is still considered einstein's biggest mistake - it is not actually required.

the theory was published (as many cosmological papers are) beginning with a big 'if'. in this case it was 'IF we can find evidence that c (the speed of light) is variable over time (by looking very, very deep into the universe) then we can reintroduce C (the cosmological constant) to the general relativity equations as an expression of the energy density across the universe.'

this 'if' still remains. as far as anyone can tell c is constant to any observer, no matter if they are moving or not (which is why time *must* be variable).

quote:

---

options 1 and 2 cannot possibly be valid as the universe is still speeding up (something to do with einstein's cosmological constant but i can't remember what offhand)

---

the cosmological constant (C) was introduced because einstein thought that the universe was static whereas his equations showed it should be expanding. einstein botched it and made up C so that his general relativity equations predicted a static universe. however, we now know that the universe is in fact getting bigger, and the cosmological constant was actually not needed after all. einstein himself called it his 'biggest mistake'.

so...

option 4 is the most unlikely since according to all experiments up until now, the speed of light is a constant. however if you're making a bet on it, this fact could well be on your side mind gap - the odds on it should be massive and the jury is still well and truly out on this subject

of course, now we have ray's option 5 in which there's no point even betting cos the divine being has it all sewed up.

[ 06 November 2002, 03:38: Message edited by: coleman ]

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
um...HUH?

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
sorry.

i'll put a tenner on option 1

[ 06 November 2002, 03:04: Message edited by: coleman ]

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
What I do know is that 2000 years ago lived a man who did things that science can not duplicate!

Though I did not live 2000 years ago I think it is safe to think that the same laws of physics applied in the exact same way as they do today.

Also when you think about it, our minds are rather clouded with technowlogy. Back then things were spimler. You didnt have to worry about trafic or if the lan would be up today.

Personally I think it takes more faith to believe what Darwin recanted (ohh yes, for those avid believers in Darwinisim, he recanted all he ever wrote as lies on his death bed!). To say I came from a fish, takes way more faith than to believe in God.

But if you wish to believe that chance is what made you, I wont stop you.

The fact that there are many different theorys to prove how one theory happend makes it sound so untrue. Its like, have you ever been talking to someone that just kept lieing and lieing? Their story just keeps building and building, to me that is what all scientific theories on the origins of the universe sound like.

Mind gap, in my opinion the day you die, is the day that you will find out everything you ever wanted to know in life. You may not be happy with what you find out or maybe you will be.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
the problem comes when you consider that 2000 years ago, we also knew that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited us, that we were at the centre of the universe, that time was unchanging, and so on.

500 years before that, the planets and stars were gods and we would use sacrifice rather than prayer to plead for a deity to affect the fortunes of ourselves and those around us. like you said ray, things were simpler back then and as a result, people had to choose simple explanations for what they could not understand.

you said:

quote:

---

Its like, have you ever been talking to someone that just kept lieing and lieing? Their story just keeps building and building, to me that is what all scientific theories on the origins of the universe sound like.

---

that is what all science is like - the more we discover, the more complex the picture becomes. yet every now and again, we get a simple result that reinforces the belief that we are on the right track, no matter how weird the world around us seems.
and as far as 'building on a story' goes, the church (i pick christianity here because it seems to be what you are referring to) change their story year on year to fit in with scientific discoveries. so who is really 'lying'?

lastly *please* don't think i am attacking religion here - i would never try and undermine someone's faith just because it is not what i hold true.
i just wanted to point out that your argument was somewhat oversimplified.

scientific theory is just that, theories, until we can test it. religions lead to explanations that can never be tested and so can never be disproved. or proved.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
If it can happen, it will (eventually).

When dealing with infinity, there are infinite possibilities!

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
My sensible answer: I believe that the universe is has, and always will exist. That there are probably many universes, and their reason for being is to complex for the human mind to understand.

My other answer: i still believe its like in Men In Black, with the alien playing with the universe's in the marbles.

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon...

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
coleman - don't have time at the moment to explain myself properly but after watching that tv show i read up on it (i was studying particle and theoretical physics at the time) and my previous post was as much with respect to that as the tv show.

wherever you go, there you are.

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
Actually that was closer to 1000 but anyhow. Look religion and science dont mix. Also you cant bring greek or roman mythology against Christiananity, they are too different religions. See, truth never changes. Truth is not relitive. The Christian faith has never changed. In fact, with the exception of Revilation the Bible can be used as a history book, more accurate than the school books we have all known and loved

Now, lets break it all down, you wont listen to me and I wont listen to you so big deal. Believe what you will, we dont need to bash on eachother (not that anyone has been) or what eachother believe.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
dood,
truth is always relative.

Hey, wait a minute, didn't christians burn numerous women for being witches, when it turns out that Science found out they were poisoned by ergot and not possessed by the devil? What is the definition of truth to those people? Truth has multiple definitions, depending on the user.

And Christianity has changed many times, study the evolution of 'the church' and you will see that there weren't always protestants,lutherans, presbyterians, catholics, baptists, ad naseum. What is truth to them?

And if you think Science and Religion don't mix, please stop taking advantage of science, particularly medicine, as God will save you!

I really hope you're just trying to pick a fight, cause I pity you if you're not.... Ignorance is not bliss...

[ 06 November 2002, 10:45: Message edited by: toneman ]

Posted: 5th Nov 2002
mind gap - i didn't realise you'd studied physics! if i'd known i wouldn't have bothered typing out stuff you blatently already knew (and by the sounds of it have looked deeper into than i have).
i too took physics at degree level (@ imperial) but didn't do a theoretical option.
i'd love to hear more about the variable c theory if you get time but if ya don't wanna bore all the lovely people round here it might be a better idea to email me.

raymund - i can see you don't really want to discuss this and that's cool.
however you can't just state something like "The Christian faith has never changed." and expect us all to think 'okay'!? come on now ray - if that's true, why did copernicus have such a hard time, why, like toneman said, are there over 15 (that i can think of now) different versions of the christian faith? jesus was a jew yet most christian religions don't hold to a large percentage of judaism. why is the same faith that jesus held not held by his followers?

the reason i put greek faith next to christianity was not to directly compare but to contrast them. the level of knowledge gained in 1000 years changed the face of world religion to the point that (like you said yourself) they became almost incomparable. there has now been 2000 years more knowledge gained by our race and the religions have evolved and adapted to the massive advances in science. science has changed a great deal in the last few centuries but that is advancement - we are adapting our 'best description' of the world around us as we find out more about it. it is almost as if science is the new religion but unlike the others, only holds faith in what is tangible. science contains no moral advice and that is where it is of infintely more value to us than science.

however i believe there *is* space for both. science as it is today cannot even attempt to approach some subjects (like the very beginning of the universe, what came before it, what laws hold at the centre of a black hole and so on). philosophers contemplate these things and religions claim to have an explanation for some of them and they very may well be right. however the way i see it, that is no reason for us to not try to test this theory (or faith). maybe one day we will find out that we can never know where we came from for the exact reason that god made the universe that way and doesn't want us to know while we're here. until that day 'faith' will be just that - an unproven yet unshakable belief.

"Now, lets break it all down, you wont listen to me and I wont listen to you so big deal." you're definitely partly wrong there - i'll listen to you if you'll listen to me lets break it all down!

ucof - sorry for this complete hijack! tell us to bugger off somewhere else if ya like

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 6th Nov 2002
All - if you are going to reply to this please make sure you have read all I've got to say so you don't get the wrong end of the stick.

Raymund.
I'd like to point out that nothing of what science says actually tries to disprove the existence of a divine presence. It may imply that the Bible isn't a factual document, (namely it is widely believed that the world was not in fact created in seven days for example) but that doesn't mean that science and religion can't mix.
Also note that religion doesn't really disprove science.
This is what I believe:

The big bang - as scientists say, but where did the original ball of matter come from? Who's to say it wasn't created by God?

Evolution - everything that science says about this stands to reason and has stood up to a lot of criticism over the centuries. I mean the chances of us getting to where we are today are slim but they're not impossible, and it is supposed to have taken millions of years, which accounts for a lot of changes. If conditions had been a little different we might have turned out very different, but although the odds of that would have been slim, they were possible nonetheless. Also it's possible evolution could have been given a helping hand to get to the result of us.

The Bible - I think some of what is said is true, but I don't think it all is. Yes it may have been the word of God but it's also a human interpretation, and we humans are definitely prone to making mistakes. Also I think the main point of the bible isn't as a factual document but as a teaching manual - it tells us how to live well by ourselves and other people, which is often done best by using metaphors.

Again please note that this is just my personal beliefs and I'm not saying this is how it is - in fact I'd go as far as saying that everyone's opinion so far is valid and we shouldn't say that what one person thinks is rubbish because we believe different. We can't actually prove that they are wrong and we are right so we can't enforce such a statement.

- Dave

I am The Dave.Not The Paul and definately not The Geoff, but The Dave

Posted: 6th Nov 2002
Now, not once have I ever said that the Bible hasnt change, and the factioning of the Church is a change but the faith remains the same. Jesus Christ, who is God, came to earth as man, died on the cross and was risen three days later, then assended to Heaven. He died for our sins.

Now creation hasnt changed either, 7 days, 6 not counting the day God rested. The faith hasnt changed. You cant translate the Bible or any book for that matter, into another language and not have to change things to either make sence or just flat out easier to process.

The Church may have changed, I mean look at Catholisism it changes with every Pope. The Faith however doesnt change.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Nov 2002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
In fact, with the exception of Revilation the Bible can be used as a history book, more accurate than the school books we have all known and loved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymund Phule:
Now, not once have I ever said that the Bible hasnt changed.

---

so you're saying the bible is the most accurate history book in the world, as long as you ignore one big chunk and admit that it changes? hmm.
i can see your major point though - the base beliefs in christianity remain whether you read john's gospel direct from his hand in hebrew or read the modern day st john's bible in english.

"You cant translate the Bible or any book for that matter, into another language and not have to change things to either make sence or just flat out easier to process." consider after this that mathematics and the scientific method are entirely independent of language and background. holy texts are filled with metaphor which means in a translation, it is up to the translator to interpret and 'reissue' those metaphors as he/she sees fit. if this was the case with science, you would only be able to make a drug in the country that it was discovered in (or others that speak the language) - we know this is not the case.

in my opinion, the creation as told in genesis is far more implausible than most of the theories put forward by cosmologists today - strangely for the same reason that you prefer it - for me, it is just *too* compact, concise and easy to comprehend. why did it take six days to create just one planet yet it only took one day to create all of the other stars and planets in the rest of the universe?! like you said earlier, the universe is vast and complex - does it not stand that such a simple explanation for the creation of such a complex system is a little unlikely?

i think the major sticking point we have here is something i remembered from a movie - faith is an entirely personal thing. you cannot have someone else's faith - what you hold true will be different from the next man to the next. a religion (eg judasim) is a base set of beliefs which a group of people (eg jews) collectively hold to. every jew will hold to these basic beliefs which make up 'the jewish faith'. i hold to no particular set of beliefs bar my own - i will consider all opinions but those that do not fit with my view of the world i will dismiss. raised CofE i have lost a lot of my 'faith' but still hold many values and beliefs that i learnt through a religious education. like i said - i am not attacking religion - i am questioning its ability to deal with subjects that are best left to philosophers and scientists.

lastly, to dave: you said "The big bang - as scientists say, but where did the original ball of matter come from? Who's to say it wasn't created by God?"

surely this just raises the question, where did god come from? the answer 'he was always there' is no better than saying 'the ball of matter' (as you put it) 'was always there'. it is largely due to this paradox that i am no longer a religious person myself.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 6th Nov 2002
I was talking about grammer wise, not the names places event and times. You took that too literally, and twisted it, you should run for office!

The book of Revelation is proficy of the future, it has not happend.

Sometimes the most complex questions have the smiplest answers.

I know of a riddle, but I will turn it into a story for instructional puposes.

A philosiphy professor at the end of the year gave his students their final exam. The exam was a single problem and the students were to use all that they had learned throughout the year to answer it. The professor leaned on a chair and told the students their exam. The professor told the students to prove that the chair didnt exist. The students spent all of the class writeing and looking things up, all except for one. That student scribbled something down on a piece of paper and walked out. When the grades were posted only one student passed, it was the student that finished early. So what did the student write for the answer? "What chair?"

An example of a complex problem with a symple answer.

So Colemen is that sufficiant reply?

What movie are you speeking of? Dogma? If so that is a poor base for any debate, unless your debating over all time funniest movie.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 6th Nov 2002
/uns unsubtly drags focus back tot heend of the puniverse...
i thought that it was proven last year that the universe was expanding too fast for the universe to ever contract through gravity. I was abolutely haunted for a week at the thought of the End being a blinking out of everything in the blackout to end all blackouts. Time magazine described the finding as confirmation that it'll All end 'not with a bang but with a whimper'
either way, our physical bodies will long be dust and that our eternal astral selves will/have evolved to not have to perceive time in such a linear, finite manner. (timelessnes: there ain't no end if there ain't no beginning!)
isn't the astral perspective so damn positive?!?

Laugh Often, Smile Much, Post lolcats Always

Posted: 6th Nov 2002
the movie that made me think about the nature of faith was stigmata actually.
kevin smith did originally give his 'no beliefs, just ideas' spiel the full treatment in dogma (see the deleted scenes on the train with bethany and rufus for the full discussion on belief)before taking it out of the final cut.
stigmata came out first, covering a similar idea in a much more serious fashion - the 'look under a stone' principle
having said that, the 'no beliefs, just ideas' argument is a valid one i think - just because it was included in a comedy doesn't mean it has no grounds in a debate. it certainly highlights the difference between scientific method in which there are *never* any true laws and religion in which all teachings are held to be true without question.

that was a nice riddle but i don't quite see that it applies here. it is not a complex question that the professor asks - its a seemingly impossible one.
however the key to the riddle is that the question is non specific. maybe if the professor had said 'prove that *this* chair does not exist' that dude that walked out early would have come bottom of the class.
that is unless i misunderstood...
what do you think the riddle shows? is it that if the student truly believes that it doesn't exist, it may as well not? or is it that sometimes our knowledge clouds our view of what we are really looking for ie if the students hadn't ever studied philosophy, they may well have realised the ambiguity in the question from the start.

what we are asking here is not a complex or ambiguous question, it is just a very specific question - how did the universe begin?

i really appreciate you coming back to debate this - its not an easy subject to approach. however you didn't really address my highlighting of the discrepancies in the story of creation yet or the changing of the christian belief system with regards to increasing cosmological knowledge (sun and all the other heavenly objects orbiting the earth etc). care to breach some of the deeper issues...?

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 14th Jan 2003
but where does santa fit into all of this?