Born Hunter 17,783 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Well, not strictly true mate. Even if you take all the matter out of the universe you are still left with the dimensions of space and time which are very real boundaries for any matter or energy that might be present. So the universe still exists, it's just empty. The big bang was an expansion of space with the progression of time. All the energy in the universe today was present then, no less no more. Following the expansion of the space dimensions, post big bang, that energy 'evolved' into matter following the laws of physics and eventually billions of years later into the universe we see today. Does time exist though, or is it just a figment of the human imagination? Even hawking cannot say for certain that it exists which is why he's unsure that the speed of light is a boundary. If time doesn't exist there theoretically should be no boundaries. As he says, we may be seeing something that's not there or is completely different to what we think we see.. The problem is, we cannot look, we only see what we see. We need to be able to see what we cannot see ....yet. As for the dimensions of space, that's only relative to the matter in space. Just because the matter we see behaves in a particular manner we assume it's the rules of the universe that cause it, there could well be things we don't see far outside what we think of as boundaries. Quantum physics being an example Time is a measureable quantity like space. To say it doesn't exist I find very hard to accept, you might as well just say everything is bollocks and we live in the matrix! Fully understanding it is another thing again though. With or without the energy and matter of this universe, the universe itself still exists. It has to for the big bang theory and expansion to be explained and understood. It's not the physical constituents of the universe (galaxies/stars/planets etc) that are expanding, it's the spatial dimensions that they reside in that is expanding! Edited March 12, 2015 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well, not strictly true mate. Even if you take all the matter out of the universe you are still left with the dimensions of space and time which are very real boundaries for any matter or energy that might be present. So the universe still exists, it's just empty. The big bang was an expansion of space with the progression of time. All the energy in the universe today was present then, no less no more. Following the expansion of the space dimensions, post big bang, that energy 'evolved' into matter following the laws of physics and eventually billions of years later into the universe we see today. Does time exist though, or is it just a figment of the human imagination? Even hawking cannot say for certain that it exists which is why he's unsure that the speed of light is a boundary. If time doesn't exist there theoretically should be no boundaries. As he says, we may be seeing something that's not there or is completely different to what we think we see.. The problem is, we cannot look, we only see what we see. We need to be able to see what we cannot see ....yet. As for the dimensions of space, that's only relative to the matter in space. Just because the matter we see behaves in a particular manner we assume it's the rules of the universe that cause it, there could well be things we don't see far outside what we think of as boundaries. Quantum physics being an example Time is a measureable quantity like space. To say it doesn't exist I find very hard to accept, you might as well just say everything is bollocks and we live in the matrix! Fully understanding it is another thing again though. With or without the energy and matter of this universe, the universe itself still exists. It has to for the big bang theory and expansion to be explained and understood. It's not the physical constituents of the universe (galaxies/stars/planets etc) that are expanding, it's the spatial dimensions that they reside in that is expanding! Time doesn't exist - at least not in the sense that planets,trees and oceans exist. Time is a man-made concept. We invented time, to quantify our existence. When dinosaurs lived, there were no humans, so no one was there to observe how the earth had changed over 'time' ! We live on the same planet, continually orbiting the same sun. If you think about it,what we actually live is the same day over and over again........... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well, not strictly true mate. Even if you take all the matter out of the universe you are still left with the dimensions of space and time which are very real boundaries for any matter or energy that might be present. So the universe still exists, it's just empty. The big bang was an expansion of space with the progression of time. All the energy in the universe today was present then, no less no more. Following the expansion of the space dimensions, post big bang, that energy 'evolved' into matter following the laws of physics and eventually billions of years later into the universe we see today. Does time exist though, or is it just a figment of the human imagination? Even hawking cannot say for certain that it exists which is why he's unsure that the speed of light is a boundary. If time doesn't exist there theoretically should be no boundaries. As he says, we may be seeing something that's not there or is completely different to what we think we see.. The problem is, we cannot look, we only see what we see. We need to be able to see what we cannot see ....yet. As for the dimensions of space, that's only relative to the matter in space. Just because the matter we see behaves in a particular manner we assume it's the rules of the universe that cause it, there could well be things we don't see far outside what we think of as boundaries. Quantum physics being an example Time is a measureable quantity like space. To say it doesn't exist I find very hard to accept, you might as well just say everything is bollocks and we live in the matrix! Fully understanding it is another thing again though. With or without the energy and matter of this universe, the universe itself still exists. It has to for the big bang theory and expansion to be explained and understood. It's not the physical constituents of the universe (galaxies/stars/planets etc) that are expanding, it's the spatial dimensions that they reside in that is expanding! Good point mate, I agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,783 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Blackbriar, I'm not sure how to respond to that. Time is a real measureable quantity, it very much exists! You don't study psychology to understand time, you study physics! Time existed before humans, just like gravity did. Time is NOT dependant on human existence. Edited March 12, 2015 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Well, not strictly true mate. Even if you take all the matter out of the universe you are still left with the dimensions of space and time which are very real boundaries for any matter or energy that might be present. So the universe still exists, it's just empty. The big bang was an expansion of space with the progression of time. All the energy in the universe today was present then, no less no more. Following the expansion of the space dimensions, post big bang, that energy 'evolved' into matter following the laws of physics and eventually billions of years later into the universe we see today. Does time exist though, or is it just a figment of the human imagination? Even hawking cannot say for certain that it exists which is why he's unsure that the speed of light is a boundary. If time doesn't exist there theoretically should be no boundaries. As he says, we may be seeing something that's not there or is completely different to what we think we see.. The problem is, we cannot look, we only see what we see. We need to be able to see what we cannot see ....yet. As for the dimensions of space, that's only relative to the matter in space. Just because the matter we see behaves in a particular manner we assume it's the rules of the universe that cause it, there could well be things we don't see far outside what we think of as boundaries. Quantum physics being an example Time is a measureable quantity like space. To say it doesn't exist I find very hard to accept, you might as well just say everything is bollocks and we live in the matrix! Fully understanding it is another thing again though. With or without the energy and matter of this universe, the universe itself still exists. It has to for the big bang theory and expansion to be explained and understood. It's not the physical constituents of the universe (galaxies/stars/planets etc) that are expanding, it's the spatial dimensions that they reside in that is expanding! Time doesn't exist - at least not in the sense that planets,trees and oceans exist. Time is a man-made concept. We invented time, to quantify our existence. When dinosaurs lived, there were no humans, so no one was there to observe how the earth had changed over 'time' ! We live on the same planet, continually orbiting the same sun. If you think about it,what we actually live is the same day over and over again........... Thats your opinion mate, an not a very good one imo, your saying time doesnt exist, well science a physics says it does. An the dinosaur thing, as you say you werent there, so how do you know your correct, Man lived with dinosaurs imo an still do, sure is the crocidile not a perfect example, according to the mainstream, the croc has survived unchanged for 60 millions, :-) whistle What about the komodo an ot reptiles, sure thats all dinos are big reptiles, are they not? Edited March 12, 2015 by Quarter bull Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Well, not strictly true mate. Even if you take all the matter out of the universe you are still left with the dimensions of space and time which are very real boundaries for any matter or energy that might be present. So the universe still exists, it's just empty. The big bang was an expansion of space with the progression of time. All the energy in the universe today was present then, no less no more. Following the expansion of the space dimensions, post big bang, that energy 'evolved' into matter following the laws of physics and eventually billions of years later into the universe we see today.Does time exist though, or is it just a figment of the human imagination? Even hawking cannot say for certain that it exists which is why he's unsure that the speed of light is a boundary. If time doesn't exist there theoretically should be no boundaries. As he says, we may be seeing something that's not there or is completely different to what we think we see.. The problem is, we cannot look, we only see what we see. We need to be able to see what we cannot see ....yet. As for the dimensions of space, that's only relative to the matter in space. Just because the matter we see behaves in a particular manner we assume it's the rules of the universe that cause it, there could well be things we don't see far outside what we think of as boundaries. Quantum physics being an example Time is a measureable quantity like space. To say it doesn't exist I find very hard to accept, you might as well just say everything is bollocks and we live in the matrix! Fully understanding it is another thing again though. With or without the energy and matter of this universe, the universe itself still exists. It has to for the big bang theory and expansion to be explained and understood. It's not the physical constituents of the universe (galaxies/stars/planets etc) that are expanding, it's the spatial dimensions that they reside in that is expanding! Time doesn't exist - at least not in the sense that planets,trees and oceans exist. Time is a man-made concept. We invented time, to quantify our existence. When dinosaurs lived, there were no humans, so no one was there to observe how the earth had changed over 'time' !We live on the same planet, continually orbiting the same sun. If you think about it,what we actually live is the same day over and over again........... Thats your opinion mate, an not a very good one imo, your saying time doesnt exist, well science a physics says it does.An the dinosaur thing, as you say you werent there, so how do you know your correct, Man lived with dinosaurs imo an still do, sure is the crocidile not a perfect example, according to the mainstream, the croc has survived unchanged for 60 millions, :-) whistle What about the komodo an ot reptiles, sure thats all dinos are big reptiles, are they not? OK,Mr Pedantic, maybe I should have said the original dinosaurs....and, since we're being pedantic, not all dinosaurs are or were reptiles, but that's by the by........ My point is that time only comes into existence once humans define a way to measure it. Humans are the only animals that understand the concept of time.........because we 'invented' it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,783 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 For anyone interested in the big bang, expansion and cosmological understanding of the Universe and spacetime I have just found this site full of short Q&As. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#s1 A few topical questions; Did the Universe expand from a point? If so, doesn't the universe have to have an edge? No. The Big Bang was not an explosion IN space. It was a process that involved ALL of space. This misconception causes more confusion than any other in cosmology. Unfortunately, many students, teachers, and scientists(!) mistakenly picture the "Big Bang" as an explosion that took place at some location in space, hurtling matter outward. In reality, ALL of space was filled with energy right from the beginning. There was no center to the expansion, and no magical point from which matter hurtled outward. The confusion arises in part because of the amazing conclusion that the OBSERVABLE portion of the universe was once packed into an incredibly tiny volume. But that primordial pellet of matter and energy was NOT surrounded by empty space... it was surrounded by more matter and energy (which today is beyond the region we can observe.) In fact, if the whole universe is infinitely large now, then it was always infinite, including during the Big Bang as well. To put it another way, the current evidence indicates only that the early universe - the WHOLE universe - was extremely DENSE - but not necessarily extremely small. Thus the Big Bang took place everywhere in space, not at a particular point in space. Does the term "universe" refer to space, or to the matter in it, or to both? Just a hundred years ago, scientists thought of the universe in terms of matter. Space was just the "emptiness" in which matter lived. Today, the situation is reversed. During the twentieth century, scientists learned that space is not "nothingness." First, Einstein showed that space has structure: It is flexible and can be stretched. (In fact, when astronomers talk about the "expansion of the universe," they are referring to the stretching of space between clusters of galaxies - NOT to the motion of galaxies through space.) Later, scientists found other properties of space. For example, matter and anti-matter are routinely created in the laboratory from space itself (and an energy source); the kinds of particles that can exist reflect the structure of space. In fact, there is now evidence that space itself MAY possess some slight amount of energy of its own, of a form previously unknown. If so, space may actually have weight! Discovering the properties of space remains one of the deepest and most important problems in modern science. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,783 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) My point is that time only comes into existence once humans define a way to measure it.Humans are the only animals that understand the concept of time.........because we 'invented' it. Did we also 'invent' the rest of the physical laws? Forces? Mass? Energy? I'm sorry fella, but you're just wrong. Edited March 12, 2015 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Seeker 3,048 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Iit's easy to knock and ridicule because the alternative is to become un-cool so it's much easier not to really question what is taught. As a young lad I was the same. Wonder how many will mock before departing this planet. Said it before there are no atheists on a burning aeroplane. That's all I have to say on this post as it's becoming tedious now. Praying to god in the face of death is a sign of desperation that many of us may experience, doesn't necessarily mean enlightenment......I'm more interested in the atrocities committed by the religious.....whether it's child rape or all out war, what do their prayers consist of then? Catholics, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc etc.....just seems like a facade to me, a 'get out of jail card'.....Sorry, I don't buy the first part. I've been in harms way more times than I can even remember. I don't call on God out of desperation. I call because I know what he can do for me. For the crimes, wars, and all the rest. That is human beings doing what human beings do. If you do evil you are not all that religious are you? ATB Tell that to the Vatican.....Accip, that's weaker than no comment at all.Really???......The Vatican...a place where corruption is endemic & many of its residents have a penchant for child sodomy & you say there not 'all that' religious there?But hey, I'm not singling out Catholics here, that's just one example.......whether it's a jihadist about to blow up a shopping centre full of innocent folk or a catholic priest who's just raped a child, both would appear EXTREMELY religious to me, but the decent folk, probably like yourself, who have a similar faith choose to bury their heads in the sand & ignore it. So it's only decent folk that are 'really' religious? It's been suggested on here before, that we used to live as a society in a golden era of 'good Christian values', but so far I've failed to find this 'golden' time in recent history, where there was no child sodomy, rape, murder, robbery, extortion, human neglect, racism, political corruption etc etc etc etc........... A family member of mine, in the late 1940's as a 6 year old, was sexually abused by a family friend, he apparently had good 'Christian values', a regular church attendee, but I guess he wasn't 'all that' religious either, right? Then as a teenager she was raped by an irish soldier, just a guess here, but I bet he'd had a fair dose of god fearing shite shoved down his throat from an early age as well, or maybe not? Maybe this wasn't during the golden era of 'good Christian' values' either? Maybe someone can enlighten me? From where I'm standing I can see plenty of decent religious folk, doing decent things, but evil is committed by folk with a faith just as strong, some say fanatical.......all under the facade of religion, the good folk just don't want to see it. Don't talk to me about weak pal, I'm not the one going through life with a 'comfort blanket'. ATb Its terrible if you or your relative have suffered child abuse, it's not excuseble in any circumstance. You do however want to focus on crimes such as these as a reason for being against religion and in this instance Christianity. I'm not going to deny these things have not occurred within different religions however this is not a fault of Christianity this is a fault of man. That generalisation is rediculas and is as ludicras to suggest you don't like the NHS because Harold Shipman or Beverly Allitt were part of it. If you have an opinion why you don't have faith then that's fine however to focus on this point is a bit ignorant to be honest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,783 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 The most significant point and the one the vast majority on the street do not understand! Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe? It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature. The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 How complex do you think the universe is mate? OK,Mr Pedantic, maybe I should have said the original dinosaurs....and, since we're being pedantic, not all dinosaurs are or were reptiles, but that's by the by........ My point is that time only comes into existence once humans define a way to measure it. Humans are the only animals that understand the concept of time.........because we 'invented' it. Did we also 'invent' the rest of the physical laws? Forces? Mass? Energy? I'm sorry fella, but you're just wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Quarter bull 240 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 The most significant point and the one the vast majority on the street do not understand! Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe? It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature. The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with. Thanks for clearing that up mate, so were now at this point, something somwhere somehow, created invented, time space matter energy, if im seeing this right, that the dimensions was already in place, without time space matter energy, correct me if im wrong mate. This is getting very tricky, lol I dont think our minds can comprehend this physically, in the natural, its to complex imo, that why im swayed toward, the super natural. Hust my opinion tho Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Accip74 7,112 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Iit's easy to knock and ridicule because the alternative is to become un-cool so it's much easier not to really question what is taught. As a young lad I was the same. Wonder how many will mock before departing this planet. Said it before there are no atheists on a burning aeroplane. That's all I have to say on this post as it's becoming tedious now. Praying to god in the face of death is a sign of desperation that many of us may experience, doesn't necessarily mean enlightenment......I'm more interested in the atrocities committed by the religious.....whether it's child rape or all out war, what do their prayers consist of then? Catholics, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc etc.....just seems like a facade to me, a 'get out of jail card'.....Sorry, I don't buy the first part. I've been in harms way more times than I can even remember. I don't call on God out of desperation. I call because I know what he can do for me. For the crimes, wars, and all the rest. That is human beings doing what human beings do. If you do evil you are not all that religious are you? ATB Tell that to the Vatican.....Accip, that's weaker than no comment at all.Really???......The Vatican...a place where corruption is endemic & many of its residents have a penchant for child sodomy & you say there not 'all that' religious there?But hey, I'm not singling out Catholics here, that's just one example.......whether it's a jihadist about to blow up a shopping centre full of innocent folk or a catholic priest who's just raped a child, both would appear EXTREMELY religious to me, but the decent folk, probably like yourself, who have a similar faith choose to bury their heads in the sand & ignore it. So it's only decent folk that are 'really' religious? It's been suggested on here before, that we used to live as a society in a golden era of 'good Christian values', but so far I've failed to find this 'golden' time in recent history, where there was no child sodomy, rape, murder, robbery, extortion, human neglect, racism, political corruption etc etc etc etc........... A family member of mine, in the late 1940's as a 6 year old, was sexually abused by a family friend, he apparently had good 'Christian values', a regular church attendee, but I guess he wasn't 'all that' religious either, right? Then as a teenager she was raped by an irish soldier, just a guess here, but I bet he'd had a fair dose of god fearing shite shoved down his throat from an early age as well, or maybe not? Maybe this wasn't during the golden era of 'good Christian' values' either? Maybe someone can enlighten me? From where I'm standing I can see plenty of decent religious folk, doing decent things, but evil is committed by folk with a faith just as strong, some say fanatical.......all under the facade of religion, the good folk just don't want to see it. Don't talk to me about weak pal, I'm not the one going through life with a 'comfort blanket'. ATb Its terrible if you or your relative have suffered child abuse, it's not excuseble in any circumstance. You do however want to focus on crimes such as these as a reason for being against religion and in this instance Christianity. I'm not going to deny these things have not occurred within different religions however this is not a fault of Christianity this is a fault of man. That generalisation is rediculas and is as ludicras to suggest you don't like the NHS because Harold Shipman or Beverly Allitt were part of it. If you have an opinion why you don't have faith then that's fine however to focus on this point is a bit ignorant to be honest. Funny that....it seems to be the 'running theme' in the Muslim threads, focusing on crimes committed by Muslims, I'm sure you've commented on you're experience with Muslims, although valid criticism I'm sure, have you experienced all of them mate? I'm not dismissing the whole of Christianity because of the wrongs of perhaps a minority, my point was in answer to Micky Finns claim....that religious folk that are guilty of evil acts (no matter what faith to me) are some how not as religious as you believers that are decent.......I don't care whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jew that is utter bullshite! Edited to say my posts have gone off on a tangent & my ramblings have nothing to do with the op lol.....so I apologise Edited March 12, 2015 by Accip74 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Seeker 3,048 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 For anyone interested in the big bang, expansion and cosmological understanding of the Universe and spacetime I have just found this site full of short Q&As. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/faq.htm#s1 A few topical questions; Did the Universe expand from a point? If so, doesn't the universe have to have an edge? No. The Big Bang was not an explosion IN space. It was a process that involved ALL of space. This misconception causes more confusion than any other in cosmology. Unfortunately, many students, teachers, and scientists(!) mistakenly picture the "Big Bang" as an explosion that took place at some location in space, hurtling matter outward. In reality, ALL of space was filled with energy right from the beginning. There was no center to the expansion, and no magical point from which matter hurtled outward. The confusion arises in part because of the amazing conclusion that the OBSERVABLE portion of the universe was once packed into an incredibly tiny volume. But that primordial pellet of matter and energy was NOT surrounded by empty space... it was surrounded by more matter and energy (which today is beyond the region we can observe.) In fact, if the whole universe is infinitely large now, then it was always infinite, including during the Big Bang as well. To put it another way, the current evidence indicates only that the early universe - the WHOLE universe - was extremely DENSE - but not necessarily extremely small. Thus the Big Bang took place everywhere in space, not at a particular point in space. Does the term "universe" refer to space, or to the matter in it, or to both? Just a hundred years ago, scientists thought of the universe in terms of matter. Space was just the "emptiness" in which matter lived. Today, the situation is reversed. During the twentieth century, scientists learned that space is not "nothingness." First, Einstein showed that space has structure: It is flexible and can be stretched. (In fact, when astronomers talk about the "expansion of the universe," they are referring to the stretching of space between clusters of galaxies - NOT to the motion of galaxies through space.) Later, scientists found other properties of space. For example, matter and anti-matter are routinely created in the laboratory from space itself (and an energy source); the kinds of particles that can exist reflect the structure of space. In fact, there is now evidence that space itself MAY possess some slight amount of energy of its own, of a form previously unknown. If so, space may actually have weight! Discovering the properties of space remains one of the deepest and most important problems in modern science. I like that and found it interesting (told you I love science) One thing that screams out at me when I read it is scientists have about as much of a clue about the beginning of existence than any religion I have ever known. To me whatever way you dress it up its a faith just the same as mine. The point I'm trying to make is I dont think we are all that! Science can be arrogant, it knows a little and thinks it knows enough to ridicule someone who believes in a creator. BH this isn't a dig at you mate I know you don't mock but the community of many scientists. I watched the Kent Horvind video when he was up against 3 professors, he asked some very clear and valid questions and the replies were almost like how dare you question us we haven't got the answers but we know best because we are scientists. I will say one thing at least the faith of science attempts to come up with answers just as Christians do, the ones I feel sorry for are the ones who mock it without a clue because they watched some comic do a sketch and need to feel part of a "cool" pack. I know because several years ago I used to be one of them 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 I still don't understand why anyone needs to mock anyone who thinks differently to themselves. We aren't schoolkids. I lean towards one of these theories, but as Seeker said they are both theories and believing in something that can't be 100% proven is faith, surely? It doesn't really interest me enough to do any research for myself, but after countless threads like this, the evolutionists are starting to sound as pompous as the creationists now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.