3
   

Edge of the Universe

 
 
Ichthus91
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 08:10 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
so what do you want a written invite? it is a debating forum...bring forth your idea..please..

It's not a debating forum. It's a forum. I don't see the word debating anywhere, nor is it implied. And I did bring the idea forth; I just did not explain it. You obviously weren't interested in it because you mocked it. It's either because you don't see the bible as a reliable historical document (which could attest for evidence) or you want tangible proof for things intangible. Really, I'm not interested in showing you this idea because of your unequivocal disinterest. So, I'll restate this: ideas should never be mocked; and I'll add: for they are the foundation of our knowledge and wisdom through perception. Do you mock the foundation of that which you love?
Yogi DMT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 08:22 pm
@Axis Austin,
Is it not mathematically true within our conjured world, when you talk about fractions and possibilities, if this chance is out of infinity then that number too must be infinite. Space is an indefinite quantity and there is no end to it. Therefore would that mean that will be infinite universes, with infinite possiblites. It is a fact that there are infinite universes that are an exact mimic of ours and infinite universes that are an exact mimic ours except that Obama isn't president but McCain is. My point is that these possiblities may be incredibly low but they are in essence true, am i wrong?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 03:33 am
@Ichthus91,
Ichthus91 wrote:
It's not a debating forum. It's a forum. I don't see the word debating anywhere, nor is it implied. And I did bring the idea forth; I just did not explain it. You obviously weren't interested in it because you mocked it. It's either because you don't see the bible as a reliable historical document (which could attest for evidence) or you want tangible proof for things intangible. Really, I'm not interested in showing you this idea because of your unequivocal disinterest. So, I'll restate this: ideas should never be mocked; and I'll add: for they are the foundation of our knowledge and wisdom through perception. Do you mock the foundation of that which you love?
Im sorry you found it mocking but how else was i to reply? you gave no inclination of your proposal but expected a response.Its not just me here others might be interested in your biblical explanation about the universe being surrounded by water.I dont see the bible as anything other than a book of myths and legends, am i wrong in believing that?
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 06:54 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
I would like to say i dont think we know if it will continue to expand for ever.

Excuse my igonarance and i haven't read all of this thread. But I thought scientists were debating between the universe expanding but it could now be retracting?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 09:46 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Excuse my igonarance and i haven't read all of this thread. But I thought scientists were debating between the universe expanding but it could now be retracting?
I think its still expanding Caroline..the tides still going out.thanks xris
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 01:27 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Excuse my igonarance and i haven't read all of this thread. But I thought scientists were debating between the universe expanding but it could now be retracting?

It is not only expanding, but is expanding at an accelerated rate:

Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 02:45 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT wrote:
It is a fact that there are infinite universes that are an exact mimic of ours and infinite universes that are an exact mimic ours except that Obama isn't president but McCain is. My point is that these possiblities may be incredibly low but they are in essence true, am i wrong?

Sorry, you are.
You are referring to a popular idea. The theory that it is based upon however is one hundred percent unproven.
Sorry about that. You may however claim that there are other theories which are being taken serious, however totally unproven.
String theory for example still lacks any prove even though many serious physicists have made it a basis of their career.
Unfortunately this doesn't make the multiple universe idea more credible. In physics something unproven simply is something unproven.
When it goes down the drain, it goes down the drain.
Or to make it more clear:
The list of unproven theories in physics partially looks bizarre.

---------- Post added at 11:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

Yogi DMT wrote:
. At this point in time, i am strongly for the idea of there being infinite universes because of the infinite amount of space.

You are stuck to the idea that the big bang was an explosion of our universe into space.
The way you imagine the big bang is an area in a pure space that is totally dark and there is nothing around, and suddenly: An explosion, and the expansion of a bubble of matter (and energy).
In a way you might assume some kind of meta-space.
Our universe exploding and expanding time-space inside a superior "area".
Unfortunately it's not so easy.
Hardly anyone can really imagine what it really means, but:
The big bang created space AND time, there was nothing that the big bang could explode into.
Our mind demands an answer to the question:
What did the universe explode into?
You carry the word Yogi in your name:
Then look at it from this perspective:
Our rational mind considers the web of time and space the most basic fundament of the universe.
Actually this apparently solid web of time and space is what far east religions recognised as Maya - the great illusion of reality.
I recommend the book "Tao of physics" by Fritjof Capra.
0 Replies
 
Ichthus91
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 03:54 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Im sorry you found it mocking but how else was i to reply? you gave no inclination of your proposal but expected a response.Its not just me here others might be interested in your biblical explanation about the universe being surrounded by water.I dont see the bible as anything other than a book of myths and legends, am i wrong in believing that?
Christ is Yahweh

So what is this saying? It's quite simple: The law always points to Yahweh. Think about it visually as if arrows are pointing and you'll see. There are many not-so-obvious things like this and there are very obvious things that are given as evidence for the bible historicity and authenticity.

If you won't take my word for it; you can check it out yourself at blueletterbible.org. In fact, I encourage you to check it out. These are how the words are spelt:

TORH: תורה
HROT: הרות
YHWH: יהוה

Hebrew is read backwards (right-to-left). Also, when reading the from the manuscripts you'll see other little markings. These are markings put in by the Massoretes so that we could be able to properly read the Hebrew language for it is a language without vowels. The O that is transliterated is actually the letter for W or V. However, it is otherwise in the word TORH.

So I hope this is enough to show you that this is no book of myths and legends. If not; I hope you'll look for other evidences before dismissing the bible and presuming your current ideas.
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 04:50 pm
@Axis Austin,
So the evidence that the Bible is true and fact is found in the Bible? And this has what to do with the edge of the Universe?
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 05:15 pm
@Ichthus91,
Ichthus91 wrote:

I would say that you are. Many people presume that is what the bible is: a book of myths and legends. In actuality, it's many books with many different scribes from different time periods and places which all fit together to provide us with this valuable history.


All fit together...
I see for example two very precise but completely different myths about the creation of the world in the bible.
Funny how the letters of these myths are totally contradictory.
Maybe the content of these chapters is totally contradictory but at the same time the letters point to precisely the same coordinate in the universe?
Historically it is very well understood that the books of the bible were written at different ages in which people had different opinions about topics like the creation of the world.
Doorsopen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 May, 2009 09:51 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O!;63632 wrote:
So the evidence that the Bible is true and fact is found in the Bible? And this has what to do with the edge of the Universe?


I see where your first question is leading and do not respond. Such a debate should be taken to another thread.

What does this have to do with the edge of the Universe?:

Although our popular beliefs concerning the origins of the Universe have altered drastically since the Torah took its final written form in about 350 BC, its words have remained unaltered. We may, in our era, read Genesis' "separated the waters above from the waters below" as a means of describing the division of WAVES of light or energy which must have emanated from the Big Bang (Remember?: "Let there be light") into those waves which will form existence and those waves which remain in a field of potential existence. The former energy transforms into matter, which is just another form of energy, and visible light (light is not visible without matter to reflect it) and the later, which we are indirectly told is 'without form', exists outside of time and space.

It is possible that time and space expand into a field of potential in which time and space exist only as potential. In such a model, Light will remain a constant, but energy and matter may fluctuate between these fields. I suggest this because energy and matter are understood to be interchangeable, that is they fluctuate from one state to the other, more precisely they fluctuate between a state of existing and a state of potential existing.

This would mean that the "edge" of the Universe is everywhere that this fluctuation between existence and potential existence is occurring. Which, if I haven't lost it yet, is everywhere that energy and matter exist.

And for the record, these concepts come from Genesis.
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 12:06 am
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
It is not only expanding, but is expanding at an accelerated rate:

Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So they've settled on it expanding then as opposed to retracting, i'll read the link.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:39 am
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen wrote:
I see where your first question is leading and do not respond. Such a debate should be taken to another thread.

What does this have to do with the edge of the Universe?:

Although our popular beliefs concerning the origins of the Universe have altered drastically since the Torah took its final written form in about 350 BC, its words have remained unaltered. We may, in our era, read Genesis' "separated the waters above from the waters below" as a means of describing the division of WAVES of light or energy which must have emanated from the Big Bang (Remember?: "Let there be light") into those waves which will form existence and those waves which remain in a field of potential existence. The former energy transforms into matter, which is just another form of energy, and visible light (light is not visible without matter to reflect it) and the later, which we are indirectly told is 'without form', exists outside of time and space.

It is possible that time and space expand into a field of potential in which time and space exist only as potential. In such a model, Light will remain a constant, but energy and matter may fluctuate between these fields. I suggest this because energy and matter are understood to be interchangeable, that is they fluctuate from one state to the other, more precisely they fluctuate between a state of existing and a state of potential existing.

This would mean that the "edge" of the Universe is everywhere that this fluctuation between existence and potential existence is occurring. Which, if I haven't lost it yet, is everywhere that energy and matter exist.

And for the record, these concepts come from Genesis.
It also tells us it was all done in six days.Amazing how the bible can be twisted to fit any modern concept.Im still waiting for this explanation of a universe surrounded by water.xris
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 05:37 am
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen wrote:
And for the record, these concepts come from Genesis.

No dude, they came from an overriding desire to rationalise Genesis with scientific discovery no matter how unreasonable the conclusion. In short, these concepts came you!
0 Replies
 
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 06:27 am
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen wrote:
Such a debate should be taken to another thread.

There is one thing that i agree with:
This should definitely be discussed in a religious thread especially for enlightened people - not in a forum about nature science.
And i will certainly not take part in that debate.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 01:31 pm
@Exebeche,
Exebeche wrote:
There is one thing that i agree with:
This should definitely be discussed in a religious thread especially for enlightened people - not in a forum about nature science.
And i will certainly not take part in that debate.


Astrophysicists do not talk about an edge to the universe, becuase scientifically the universe has no edge and "it is just everything expanding".


Rap your mind around that one.

Into what one might add", nothing is the scientific answer.

To take this debate further one must get rapped up in religious controversy
Exebeche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 May, 2009 03:14 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Astrophysicists do not talk about an edge to the universe, becuase scientifically the universe has no edge and "it is just everything expanding".

Even though i'm wearing glasses, i can read the words without them being so extremely big.
Why do relegious people always have to supersize their words?
In fact it was the author of this thread who came up with a question about "the edge" of the universe, not me.
This might actually be an interesting point at which we could come back to a philosophical discussion, because for an "edge" to exist we have to presuppose, that there is something which it could have an edge to.
An edge by defintion seperates two things, so an edge can only exist if there is at least two "somethings" that can be seperated, may it even be only an ontological inside and outside.

Alan McDougall wrote:

Rap your mind around that one.

How do i do that?

Alan McDougall wrote:

Into what one might add", nothing is the scientific answer.
To take this debate further one must get rapped up in religious controversy

I cannot really follow why "nothing" is a scientific answer.
For sure getting rapped up in religious controversy cannot help in any search for truth.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 02:50 am
@Exebeche,
Exebeche wrote:
Even though i'm wearing glasses, i can read the words without them being so extremely big.
Why do relegious people always have to supersize their words?
In fact it was the author of this thread who came up with a question about "the edge" of the universe, not me.
This might actually be an interesting point at which we could come back to a philosophical discussion, because for an "edge" to exist we have to presuppose, that there is something which it could have an edge to.
An edge by defintion seperates two things, so an edge can only exist if there is at least two "somethings" that can be seperated, may it even be only an ontological inside and outside.


How do i do that?


I cannot really follow why "nothing" is a scientific answer.
For sure getting rapped up in religious controversy cannot help in any search for truth.


I have corrected my huge blue fonts due to your extreme sensitivity, I am not religious, this is just a presumption you pulled out of your hat. My statements were all scientific

A theist like me can be absolutely anti- religion you know,if there is a god I will decide that for myself without the help of any religious indoctrination, dogma and brainwashing which I despise
lovetothink
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:25 pm
@Alan McDougall,
there is a restaurant at the edge of the universe apparently.

For me the universe is the vast collection of galaxies of which the milky way is part of, beyond that is space and beyond that is an indefinite void of true nothingness in which space doesn't exist. if you were to fly a space ship into that void you would exit existence and therefore cease to exist. how the universe expands into this void i don't know, this is just an idea.

p.s.
I read the bit about the bible being a "reliable historical document" and I'd just like to say he's half right, it's a historical document but it's hardly reliable because the main purpose of the bible is to teach the "word of god" not to record history accurately, what you see is an account of history from the scribes point of view and probably edited several times over the years. all the stuff about genesis, god, etc. is quite frankly up for speculation, personally i think it's a load of fairy tales but that's just my opinion.

I know this is a subject best left for the religion section but it just gets on my nerves when people refer to the bible as an accurate source of information.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:38 pm
@Exebeche,
Quote:
Many people presume that is what the bible is: a book of myths and legends. In actuality, it's many books with many different scribes from different time periods and places which all fit together to provide us with this valuable history.


Yeah this is why in every single book in the bible the resurrection story has NO consistency at all. In every book the number of witnesses to seeing jesus changes. In some of the books, Jesus was not actually seen but instead the witnesses were told by angels that Jesus resurrected.

If it is a historical document by many different people through the hand of god, wouldn't the observer who knows for certain of such events get it right through all the books? But it doesn't.

Alan once again you are being dishonest and spreading falsehood. The bible was indeed written by multiple people, through out multiple time periods. But them all saying the same thing, is a lie.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/02/2023 at 08:06:53