Second is up but take all the time you need. I can't say I am right, but if you find a way to get the big bang as a single event to go along with the idea of an infinite universe, let me know. If you're going with a finite universe, then I can see the big bang as being a thing. Way I see it, there will always be a limit as to how far out we can see. Right now that sits at about 14 billion light years.. but that doesn't mean there isn't anything passed that. Anything passed that would of had at least 14 billion years to develop. So if you were to travel 100 billion light years out, you'll find galaxies and stars and planets. If you were to travel 3,629,572,749,372,648 trillion light years out, there would be galaxies and such. If you were to that large number and square it by itself that many times, there would be galaxies there. If you then take that new, insanely huge number and square it by itself again, there would be galaxies. Any insanely huge amount of distance you can think of.. if you were to travel that far there would be the universe. That's what it means to be infinite. I just can't get behind the big bang as the beginning cause I believe in an infinite universe and no matter what I try, I can not get the 2 to click.
I see exactly what you are saying. Singularity IS the wrong word. Starting from a singularity would be a paradox because then the universe would be infinitely small. Let me rephrase and ditch the word singularity. The universe popped into existence (Big Bang). Like I said, things pop into existence in quantum mechanics all the time (look up Lawrence Krauss: something from nothing if ur interested). The reason an infinite universe falls short is because we can measure the rate at which galaxies are moving away from us and they're all moving away at exactly the same proportional rate because there's no one part of the universe that's growing more than the rest. It's, for lack of a better word, "universally" growing. (Every single galaxy moving away from us is evidence that the universe is growing. That's how we know the universe is growing and if it's growing there must have been a starting point). Then we use that rate/formula to work backwards and see how long it would take those galaxies to get back to us (remember working backwards). Doing this we can determine how long it would take for the galaxies to get from where they are now to our location, and that's the age of the universe. No need to go beyond 14 billion light years. And no need to bring in god. A creator is not necessary; we see "something come from nothing" all the time in particle physics. I wish I could explain it better. I hope I did a good job. It's prob best to youtube something like thing so you have visual aids to help explain. and shit I may be wrong too, I don't think I am, but hell I like being wrong. It means I learned something new. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalka
Ehehe well i said it like that because, all though some people come to this idea through just weed. More often than not minds need more than the gentle cannabis push to reach it. All though, yeah, I came to take that stance by only using cannabis and some deep thoughts.
Especially since we see the universe expanding in all directions. If the universe was infinite, than damn were we lucky to be close to the epicenter of the big bang that created an infinite universe. Which is all but less than likely. Of course you gotta get behind the idea of an infinite universe. However the other theory to arrive is multiple, finite universes. This would explain both, how we observe an expanding universe and, how an infinite universe's gravity hasn't collapsed itself yet. Thats not to say that it would. Just a thought though.
You're viewing the expansion of the universe from our relative place in the universe though and as if we are in the center of the universe, hence you thinking they'd all make their way back to us if expansion was reversed. With us sitting here in the Milky Way, it appears as if everything is expanding away from us.. and it is, just our relative place though. Now say you were to travel to another galaxy that is 10 billion light years away and then looked at the universe, it would appear to be expanding away from that galaxy, as if it were the center as well. Basically, you pick any point in the universe and it will appear as if the universe is expanding away from that point. I don't disagree that something can come from "nothing", its just that nothing is actually something.. just on a level we can't observe directly yet.
See above. Because it is expanding all over, it only appears that we are in the center because its expanding away from us. If you were in a galaxy that is 100 billion light years away, it would appear to be the center as well with everything expanding away from it.
This I'll admit I don't know this for sure but I would imagine if you factored in red shift and blue shift we would know for certain, not 99.9999%, that there was a Big Bang. All we would have to do is measure the speed at which stars orbit the center of the Milky Way and compare that with the rate of the expansion. Or just the mere fact that we orbit the Milky Way is proof that we're not at the epicenter Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Red and blue shift are already factored in, the universe is expanding.. but there is no center of expansion. Since it is expanding pretty much equally throughout, any point that you are located.. whether it be the Milky Way or a galaxy billions of light years away, will appear to be the center of expansion.
But I wonder if there was a big bang, would we see a sort of Doppler Effect of how the universe is expanding. In an infinite universe, no, you probably wouldn't. However there seems to be, or so last i've heard but I might need to follow up, a Doppler Effect in which the furthest galaxies we observe are expanding faster than nearer galaxies relative to us. However, it still is unlikely that were at the center. A Doppler Effect does raise questions though and does suggest some point of origin for the expanding. Perhaps it has nothing to do with where the universe started and has more to do with the frequency of dark matter in different areas, sort of like, invisible tectonic plates. I don't know. Lol. The more I think about it the less I know.
Yeah I think me n u, all of us, are on the same page. It'd be foolish to think we're at the epicenter of an infinite universe as opposed to being part of the Big Bang. I was more wondering if there is any way to achieve 100% certainty instead of the 99.999999 repeating percent certainty we're at now. Gotta love science Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I think his page was that there is no center. Which means there's no big bang. However if the galaxies in the universe weren't expanding at even speeds than certain questions arise. They don't necessarily suggest a big bang but it is favorable and suggests something.
It would still be the same no matter what point you pick.. with the rate of expansion increasing the further you look out. Like right now, galaxies that are around 14 billion light years away from us are expanding away from us near the speed of light. They aren't actually traveling at the speed of light though.. just relative to us. Now if you were located in a galaxy that is 14 billion light years away and pointed your telescope at the Milky Way, it would appear to be expanding away from your near the speed of light. Due to how it is expanding, it appears that we are in a bubble of expansion radiating out and increasing the further you look out.. but any other galaxy that you pick out, whether it be the Andromeda galaxy beside us or a galaxy 100 billion light years away, it will appear to be in it's own bubble of expansion radiating out with the rate of expansion increasing the further you look out. If I am not making sense, let me know cause I do have a diagram imagined on how to explain it better if need be.
You lost me a little. Theoretically there is a center if you take the legnth of the universe and divide by two. What I was sayin is the universe is not Growing from the center, it's growing uniformly. So instead of growing from one point in space, each point in space is growing. I'm a little confused by your post. Do you agree? If so, what are you saying could this could mean? Wouldn't a growing universe mean Big Bang? It had to start growing at one point. No offense I'm just not sure what u meant. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, so this isn't like "you're wrong.. I am right", but this is my understanding of how expansion is going on and why it will only appear to be expanding from a center. I only did a single line, but I can do it going up and down as well if needed. We, in the Milky Way, are 0. The rate of expansion is uniform throughout, 1 space at a time. Each point is expanding away from each other.. so 1 expanding away from us at a relative rate of 1 space, but the further you look out, the faster the rate of expansion (relative to us) is. So 4 is expanding away from us at a rate of 4 spaces, even though the uniform rate of expansion is 1 space. Now in the second set, 4 is the galaxy we are on and 0 is still the Milky Way. 4 appears to be the center because everything is expanding away from it.. so to them, the Milky Way is expanding away from it at a rate of 4 spaces. Yet the rate of expansion is still only 1 space. Basically, the rate of expansion is uniform.. but as you peer out further, it compounds. So something can be getting expanded away from us at insane speeds, even faster than light, but that is only relative to us.
Like we were saying the Big Bang is extremely probable because of all of the evidence. Christianity, Hinduism, Mormonism, whatever, is a hypothesis that can not be proven nor disproven. God, Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith, whoever is no more or less probable than Sasquatch. **There's just simply no evidence.** So I'll agree, if you cherry pick only the relevant good stuff out of the bible, and disregard Noah's arc and the other ridiculous stuff like biology allowing someone to rise from the dead after 3 DAYS, your statement is correct. The odds are improbable that Christianity is true since it's a shot in the dark, but yes Christianity COULD be true. Then again maybe Christianity is false and the church of the flying spaghetti monster is true. There's no evidence swaying us in either direction as to which, if any, religion is correct. Maybe we're stuck in the matrix or just dreaming. There's no way to know. See: http://www.venganza.org/about/ That's my take on it for what it's worth. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with pretty much everyyhing in your post. I am a Christian and some would say that is only because my parents and close family are all mostly the same, and that obviously does play a role, but I have seen/felt experiences that I believe confirm my faith. I don't think you have to cherry pick anything. The Bible isn't a science book. The Bible is a religious holy book. Same as the Quran with the simple caveat that I believe the Bible to be the only real one. My main point is Christianitys main purpose isn't to tell us how the Earth was created. Christianity isn't trying to compete with science. Both thiests and atheiests commonly try to force the two against each other and that simply doesn't need to be done. Science is for the natural world, it doesn't make points as to a Supernatural being existing or not. Christianity is independent of the truth of The Big Bang Theory and Evolution. The Christians pinning the two against each other acting as if evolution or the big bang could somehow prove God false are actually in the wrong because they are limiting our(theirs and my) limitless God by saying he couldn't have made these things happen. Atheists are wrong when they pin the two against each other because they are claiming science makes points towards supernatural facts which is not true, just look at science's definition. I can even go as far as too admit their is no proof a supernatural world even exists. You have to choose whether you believe in it or not, but you can't use science too disprove a supernatural world as it only looks at natural things.