So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
The universe is expanding into what?
According to modern thermodynamics, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. As this happens, entropy, or amount of disorder (technically, it's the amount of free heat energy, but it's easier to understand as amount of disorder) will increase. It is thought that entropy will increase to such an extent, that atoms themselves will break down into their component parts.
1.) The big bang is the begining of everything that we know exists in the known universe. There very well couldve been a god who existed before it, but no one knows. The big bang doesnt debunk god, it only debunks genisis.
2.) Dont worry, the Universe is complicated and hard to explain. Someone smarter than me can better explain it, but i believe it's expanding into itself.
The over expansion will tear thin the wall's of reality and Chaos will flood in.
Blood For The Blood God!
So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof and it makes more sense then some invisible man in the sky making everything out of nothing. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
Bait ,bait, bait, bait.....bait.
So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof and it makes more sense then some invisible man in the sky making everything out of nothing. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
Bait ,bait, bait, bait.....bait.
So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof and it makes more sense then some invisible man in the sky making everything out of nothing. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
You should check out the Science Thread. This is exactly the kind of question and discussion I made it for.
But, to answer your question...
The universe doesnt expand into space, since all space is part of the universe. The universe just gets bigger and stretches, in the sense that all of space gets bigger. There is no 3D space "outside" of the universe. Think of it as the universe being an expanding balloon, and the surface of the balloon is what we know of as 3D space. So, the balloon is expanding in a higher-dimension space, but it's not expanding into any existing 3D space.
It doesnt necessarily prove there's a multiverse, because there might or might not be any other universes in that higher-dimensional space... assuming that's how it works.
@hylian: Yes, the atheists always have to put down religious beliefs! Actually, the big bang isn't supported by true, observational science. Scientists must employ many unprovable assumptions for it to work. True science shows that the big bang proposed by scientists didn't happen. There's the horizon problem, for example, and other issues.
Plus, Christians don't believe that God is an "invisible man." God is Spirit. God is the necessary First Cause. This makes much more sense than a big bang that pops into existence for no reason, or has come from an infinite chain of events. Neither self-creation or an infinite chain of events is possible, but atheists must embrace one of these, since God's existence is unacceptable to them (though God's existence does make philosophical and scientific sense).
I also find it amusing that some atheists are open to the idea of life originating from outer space, possibly created by aliens, and yet the idea of a Creator of all things is unconscionable. Of course, we humans aren't accountable to aliens, but we are accountable to God.
So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof and it makes more sense then some invisible man in the sky making everything out of nothing. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
You should check out the Science Thread. This is exactly the kind of question and discussion I made it for.
But, to answer your question...
The universe doesnt expand into space, since all space is part of the universe. The universe just gets bigger and stretches, in the sense that all of space gets bigger. There is no 3D space "outside" of the universe. Think of it as the universe being an expanding balloon, and the surface of the balloon is what we know of as 3D space. So, the balloon is expanding in a higher-dimension space, but it's not expanding into any existing 3D space.
It doesnt necessarily prove there's a multiverse, because there might or might not be any other universes in that higher-dimensional space... assuming that's how it works.
But what's outside the balloon?
What if there is a portal on the outside of the universe that leads to the very center of the universe and as the portal gets progressively bigger the universe does too. THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING INTO ITSELF
So man scientists point to the big bang as to how everything came into existence. I accept that the big bang is probably what happened in the beginning because the scientist's have found some proof and it makes more sense then some invisible man in the sky making everything out of nothing. But if someone comes up with more convincing proof for something else then I would believe that. But my point is that if the universe was some tiny particle at some pint then shouldn't it have been somewhere? Also if the universe is expanding then shouldn't it have to be expanding into something else? Shouldn't that prove the existence of a multiverse?
You should check out the Science Thread. This is exactly the kind of question and discussion I made it for.
But, to answer your question...
The universe doesnt expand into space, since all space is part of the universe. The universe just gets bigger and stretches, in the sense that all of space gets bigger. There is no 3D space "outside" of the universe. Think of it as the universe being an expanding balloon, and the surface of the balloon is what we know of as 3D space. So, the balloon is expanding in a higher-dimension space, but it's not expanding into any existing 3D space.
It doesnt necessarily prove there's a multiverse, because there might or might not be any other universes in that higher-dimensional space... assuming that's how it works.
But what's outside the balloon?
In the sense of space, there is nothing outside the balloon, since the balloon is all of space. If you mean in the sense of some higher-dimensional space, then we really dont know. It may or may not be expanding into something, but it's something that we have no idea about... since it's completely outside the universe.
@hylian: Yes, the atheists always have to put down religious beliefs! Actually, the big bang isn't supported by true, observational science. Scientists must employ many unprovable assumptions for it to work. True science shows that the big bang proposed by scientists didn't happen. There's the horizon problem, for example, and other issues.
Plus, Christians don't believe that God is an "invisible man." God is Spirit. God is the necessary First Cause. This makes much more sense than a big bang that pops into existence for no reason, or has come from an infinite chain of events. Neither self-creation or an infinite chain of events is possible, but atheists must embrace one of these, since God's existence is unacceptable to them (though God's existence does make philosophical and scientific sense).
I also find it amusing that some atheists are open to the idea of life originating from outer space, possibly created by aliens, and yet the idea of a Creator of all things is unconscionable. Of course, we humans aren't accountable to aliens, but we are accountable to God.
What a load of nonsense. The Big Bang is supported by quite a lot of evidence, observable and otherwise, which is why the scientific consensus is that the Big Bang happened.
The reason why a lot of people put down religion and religious apologists is because they're often clueless and uninformed, and because religion only serves to keep people ignorant and repress free thought and the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Religion is all about control, conformity, and mindless obedience to authority. Science is about learning how the universe works.
The universe is expanding...........
INTO HELL!!!!!!
You son of a gun, you beat me to it.
The big bang could have just been a black hole forming in another universe.
That would kinda be cool. The only downside to it is that we die if go inside of one.
@willpayton: If the big bang is supported by much evidence, then it's really confusing as to why so many scientists, including secular scientists, reject it!
One can easily find a list of individuals who reject the big bang, but in order to remain in denial, people just assume that all scientists believe it. That's hardly true.
Atheists put down religious folks (mainly Christians) because God's existence is unacceptable to them. The Bible's message is horrible, according to them. And so you often encounter "angry atheists." The reason for such people is because deep down they realize that their atheism is ridiculous, and the thought of God's existing scares/troubles/angers them. But, since they can't lash out at God, they lash out at Christians.
True science is about how the universe works. Unfortunately, many people think that historical "science" is the same thing as observational science. Observational science is when a bunch of scientists (or laypersons) go in the lab and test something. Test gravity or magnetism, for example. Historical (or origins) science deals with the unknown past and necessarily requires the implementation of many unprovable assumptions. No scientists were around at the supposed time of the big bang, no scientist saw non-life become life, no scientist has seen upward evolution (not the same as speciation) take place, etc. All of these are assumptions that scientists make, based on their secular worldview. Of course, with their starting axiom of naturalism comes many unprovable assumptions: these assumptions do not square with observational science. For example, there are over 100 young earth/universe evidences, which are based on repeatable tests in the present, not speculation about the past, any one of which makes evolution impossible. Observational science says that life only comes from pre-existing life (The Law of Biogenesis), which makes the atheist myth of life from non-life utterly ridiculous. And so on. But when you understand that atheism is a dogma, a worldview, basically a religion, and that evolution and the big bang go with it, it isn't surprising that people cling to it. Atheists desperately don't want God, and for most of them, nothing is going to change their minds on the matter. So it doesn't matter how much real evidence builds up against the big bang or other godless ideas, they'll stick with them.
@willpayton: If the big bang is supported by much evidence, then it's really confusing as to why so many scientists, including secular scientists, reject it!
One can easily find a list of individuals who reject the big bang, but in order to remain in denial, people just assume that all scientists believe it. That's hardly true.
According to the government, in the U.S. alone there are some 23,000 people working as physicists and astronomers. There are many more who hold physics and astronomy degrees. And... that's just in the United States. There are many more tens of thousands in the rest of the world.
Please provide me a list of these scientists who reject the Big Bang theory.
Atheists put down religious folks (mainly Christians) because God's existence is unacceptable to them. The Bible's message is horrible, according to them. And so you often encounter "angry atheists." The reason for such people is because deep down they realize that their atheism is ridiculous, and the thought of God's existing scares/troubles/angers them. But, since they can't lash out at God, they lash out at Christians.
True science is about how the universe works. Unfortunately, many people think that historical "science" is the same thing as observational science. Observational science is when a bunch of scientists (or laypersons) go in the lab and test something. Test gravity or magnetism, for example. Historical (or origins) science deals with the unknown past and necessarily requires the implementation of many unprovable assumptions. No scientists were around at the supposed time of the big bang, no scientist saw non-life become life, no scientist has seen upward evolution (not the same as speciation) take place, etc. All of these are assumptions that scientists make, based on their secular worldview. Of course, with their starting axiom of naturalism comes many unprovable assumptions: these assumptions do not square with observational science. For example, there are over 100 young earth/universe evidences, which are based on repeatable tests in the present, not speculation about the past, any one of which makes evolution impossible. Observational science says that life only comes from pre-existing life (The Law of Biogenesis), which makes the atheist myth of life from non-life utterly ridiculous. And so on. But when you understand that atheism is a dogma, a worldview, basically a religion, and that evolution and the big bang go with it, it isn't surprising that people cling to it. Atheists desperately don't want God, and for most of them, nothing is going to change their minds on the matter. So it doesn't matter how much real evidence builds up against the big bang or other godless ideas, they'll stick with them.
The rest of this is just more nonsense, so I'm not going to waste more time on it.
The universe is expanding, if I tried to give you anything other than that observed fact, I'd be talking out of my a$$.
Closest article I could find concerning "The Bulk".
@hislolita: That's not actually true, some say it is, some say it isn't, it all depends on what you use to interpret the data. Some say it's increasing it a steady rate.
This is why I'm an ecologist, it's less confusing but from what I've read it is possible that the universe's evolution is cyclic. As in it will expand until it reaches a point and then implodes in on itself before releasing it's energy in a massive explosion
@goobot: you mean a white hole?
Whats beyond the edge of the universe? Does it just stop? Is it like an invisible wall that you cant move past?
Just for the record God isn't suppose to be limited as a invisible man in the sky that made everything. God is beyond a humans comprehension of an entity of unlimited possibilities, well at least for me. Why can't it be God that made the Big Bang? In the words of KanYe, "I'm not tryina make atheist into believers, I'm just tryina say the way school needs teachers [...] thats the way I need..."
but whatever. (+)
I dont have the scientific answer to the origin of the universe, but I have to say that the big bang hypothesis is the most foolish thing I've ever been told.
I'm supposed to believe that nothing (or in some universities, a tiny particle) exploded, even though there are no universal laws in place (cause and effect) to make that happen. Then the obliterated remains and the energy of the explosion (that doesnt exist because it came from nowhere) expanded and somehow all the laws that keep us alive on this planet at some point magically just appeared? This is nothing more than a hypothesis, not science. You cant even use the scientific method on origins. All you can do is assume based on data we have now (affirming the consequent fallacy) and run with it. Or believe. All origins ideas are mere beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.
@hislolita: You may be right, some people would say so! It's an unknown right now, different interpretations.
Here's a nice little theory you guys should wrap your heads around
Finite, but unbounded Universe.
-------------------- | Infinite, unbounded
<-----------------> | Finite, bounded
O | Finite, unbounded
@hylian: The universe is infinite, so it's not expanding INTO anything. The actual space time between two objects is stretching, i.e the objects such as galaxies are expanding RELATIVE to each other faster than their gravitational attraction force pulls them together.
Let me know if this makes sense or not.
@willpayton: If the big bang is supported by much evidence, then it's really confusing as to why so many scientists, including secular scientists, reject it!
One can easily find a list of individuals who reject the big bang, but in order to remain in denial, people just assume that all scientists believe it. That's hardly true.
Atheists put down religious folks (mainly Christians) because God's existence is unacceptable to them. The Bible's message is horrible, according to them. And so you often encounter "angry atheists." The reason for such people is because deep down they realize that their atheism is ridiculous, and the thought of God's existing scares/troubles/angers them. But, since they can't lash out at God, they lash out at Christians.
True science is about how the universe works. Unfortunately, many people think that historical "science" is the same thing as observational science. Observational science is when a bunch of scientists (or laypersons) go in the lab and test something. Test gravity or magnetism, for example. Historical (or origins) science deals with the unknown past and necessarily requires the implementation of many unprovable assumptions. No scientists were around at the supposed time of the big bang, no scientist saw non-life become life, no scientist has seen upward evolution (not the same as speciation) take place, etc. All of these are assumptions that scientists make, based on their secular worldview. Of course, with their starting axiom of naturalism comes many unprovable assumptions: these assumptions do not square with observational science. For example, there are over 100 young earth/universe evidences, which are based on repeatable tests in the present, not speculation about the past, any one of which makes evolution impossible. Observational science says that life only comes from pre-existing life (The Law of Biogenesis), which makes the atheist myth of life from non-life utterly ridiculous. And so on. But when you understand that atheism is a dogma, a worldview, basically a religion, and that evolution and the big bang go with it, it isn't surprising that people cling to it. Atheists desperately don't want God, and for most of them, nothing is going to change their minds on the matter. So it doesn't matter how much real evidence builds up against the big bang or other godless ideas, they'll stick with them.
Not only does nearly every scientist in the world believe in the big bang, there is solid experimental evidence for it, unless you can figure out another theory to explain cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift, and anti-gravitational expansion.
Whats beyond the edge of the universe? Does it just stop? Is it like an invisible wall that you cant move past?
There's no edge, even if it's finite. As an analogy, think of a balloon with us being ants walking around on the surface. As the balloon gets bigger, what we see of the "universe" expands with every point on the balloon getting further from every other point. The further the points are from each other, the faster they move away from each other. There is no edge, the 2-dimensional thing that the ants call their universe just wraps around. It's finite, but there's no edge.
Alternately, the universe could be like a flat infinite plane. It extends off in each direction forever. But, it's also stretching, so points on it get further apart. What's the universe expanding into? Itself.
The shape of the universe is still not known, but evidence suggests that it's flat and infinite like the plane.
I dont have the scientific answer to the origin of the universe, but I have to say that the big bang hypothesis is the most foolish thing I've ever been told.
I'm supposed to believe that nothing (or in some universities, a tiny particle) exploded, even though there are no universal laws in place (cause and effect) to make that happen. Then the obliterated remains and the energy of the explosion (that doesnt exist because it came from nowhere) expanded and somehow all the laws that keep us alive on this planet at some point magically just appeared? This is nothing more than a hypothesis, not science. You cant even use the scientific method on origins. All you can do is assume based on data we have now (affirming the consequent fallacy) and run with it. Or believe. All origins ideas are mere beliefs, whether religious or otherwise.
You may consider it "foolish", but consider this... you have next to no real understanding of what the theory or the science behind it is (as demonstrated by your own words). At the same time, pretty much the entire scientific community accepts it as a fact. That means that most of the smartest people on Earth, but most importantly most of those who are familiar with and understand the evidence, all agree that it's correct.
Now, ask yourself, what is more likely... that they are all wrong, or that you are wrong?
It would be some incredible arrogance to think that because you dont understand something of which you know nothing, that therefore those who do understand it are wrong.
A wise person would seek to better understand such a thing before making wild claims based on ignorance.
Whats beyond the edge of the universe? Does it just stop? Is it like an invisible wall that you cant move past?
There's no edge, even if it's finite. As an analogy, think of a balloon with us being ants walking around on the surface. As the balloon gets bigger, what we see of the "universe" expands with every point on the balloon getting further from every other point. The further the points are from each other, the faster they move away from each other. There is no edge, the 2-dimensional thing that the ants call their universe just wraps around. It's finite, but there's no edge.
Alternately, the universe could be like a flat infinite plane. It extends off in each direction forever. But, it's also stretching, so points on it get further apart. What's the universe expanding into? Itself.
The shape of the universe is still not known, but evidence suggests that it's flat and infinite like the plane.
It's known that it's flat and infinite. It has to be flat because a flat shape would give the universe zero total energy, whereas a convex or concave shape would give the universe either positive or negative total energy, thus belying the question of where did the energy come from? Turns out that the Universe, because it's flat and has zero total energy, doesn't have to come from any other energy source, it can just come from nothing.
@willpayton: The world also agreed at one time that the earth was the center of the universe, but that didn't make it correct, now did it? Using an argumentum ad populum/authority (appeal to popularity; authority) fallacy to support your viewpoint? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Personally I think the very foundation 'evidences' of the big bang need to be called into question. How can you prove the universe is expanding by observing stars, galaxies, etc, when the speed of light isn't even a constant? That alone means the observation was affected by variables. Its a phenomenal leap of faith to claim that this hypothesis is the answer when there is so much information still unknown.
@hylian: The universe is infinite, so it's not expanding INTO anything. The actual space time between two objects is stretching, i.e the objects such as galaxies are expanding RELATIVE to each other faster than their gravitational attraction force pulls them together.
Let me know if this makes sense or not.
that makes sense. so two things are just moving away from each other
It's known that it's flat and infinite. It has to be flat because a flat shape would give the universe zero total energy, whereas a convex or concave shape would give the universe either positive or negative total energy, thus belying the question of where did the energy come from?
It's not known in the sense of it being an accepted fact yet. The best evidence so far just suggests that this is the case to within 0.4% error, which is pretty good but not definitive considering that we only see a small part of the entire universe.
Turns out that the Universe, because it's flat and has zero total energy, doesn't have to come from any other energy source, it can just come from nothing.
This is exactly the kind of talk that gets the laymen confused. A zero-energy universe would not have come about from nothing, it would have come about in the same way that virtual particles come about from the known laws of physics and the Uncertainty Principle, or at least as a related phenomena.
@willpayton: The world also agreed at one time that the earth was the center of the universe, but that didn't make it correct, now did it? Using an argumentum ad populum/authority (appeal to popularity; authority) fallacy to support your viewpoint? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Personally I think the very foundation 'evidences' of the big bang need to be called into question. How can you prove the universe is expanding by observing stars, galaxies, etc, when the speed of light isn't even a constant? That alone means the observation was affected by variables. Its a phenomenal leap of faith to claim that this hypothesis is the answer when there is so much information still unknown.
I didnt use any argument ad populum, I only suggested that if the entire scientific community believes something to be a fact, and you dont, then you're probably wrong. This is simple probability theory. I mean, unless you have some evidence to disprove the Big Bang... which you havent provided so far.
The evidence to support the Big Bang is pretty substantial and easily accessible, if you're willing to look for it. That's why I'm not going to waste time re-stating it all here. Suffice it to say that it's substantial enough to convince the entire community of physicists and astronomers, all of whom are more educated on the subject than you.
Personally I think the very foundation 'evidences' of the big bang need to be called into question. How can you prove the universe is expanding by observing stars, galaxies, etc, when the speed of light isn't even a constant? That alone means the observation was affected by variables. Its a phenomenal leap of faith to claim that this hypothesis is the answer when there is so much information still unknown.
Making claims like this only shows that you dont know what you're talking about. All evidence suggests that the speed of light in indeed constant and has always been.
Speaking of logical fallacies... everything you said so far is one big argument from ignorance.
@hylian: The universe is infinite, so it's not expanding INTO anything. The actual space time between two objects is stretching, i.e the objects such as galaxies are expanding RELATIVE to each other faster than their gravitational attraction force pulls them together.
Let me know if this makes sense or not.
that makes sense. so two things are just moving away from each other
Things like stars that are far away from each other generally get further from each other because space expands and carries the objects with it. It's like putting points on a balloon and then inflating it. The points will move apart, but they are not moving relative to their local space.
It`s expanding to the infinite because of dark matter and other components given birth when the unvierse first formed.
@johnnyz256: Actually a lot of the proof of evolution came from religious scientists trying to disprove it. In fact Charles Darwin was studying to be a priest when he first came up with the theory.
@joshmightbe: Again, there's a difference between evolution (monkey to man, for instance), and speciation, which is the change of an organism into its various species. Speciation is true and can be tested in the lab; evolution cannot.
People conflate these two terms, and that's part of the problem.
Any "proof" for evolution is based on unprovable assumptions, subjective interpretations, and the like. You cannot test the fossil record in the lab and come up with the foolproof explanation that evolution occurred. Common DNA or morphology also isn't proof of evolution, either. These both could just as easily (or easier) be proof of a common Designer.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment