gophert Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 but I thought that the universe was ever expanding....something called the redshift I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Yeh but the red shift doesnt prove how the universe will expand in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzsaw Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 but I thought that the universe was ever expanding....something called the redshift I think... 1. All who believe the BB theory believe in the ability of space to expand. Back in the 1980s or so, Rich Gore of National Geographic put it that a particle of space billions of times smaller than the proton of an atom began expanding and has expanded into becoming what we call the universe, including everything that exists. I believe that is essentially what most BBer scientists believe. I don't buy it. Imo, intelligent design creation as per the Bible makes more sense. 2. Redshift theory has it's problems. Not all buy it either. Obstruction of light rays caused by particles, et al, between earth and distant galaxies could be another explanation for redshift. I believe that tired light is implicated in this. Stuff in the horizon makes the red sunset. Imo, there's enough of something between us and distant galaxies to obstruct the path of light rays so as to cause redshift. Redshift advocates say no, but then science has been proven wrong on other stuff and this may be another matter that they will find to be in error also. I'm not qualified to address this scientifically, for sure. I'm just speaking from a logical viewpoint here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzsaw Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Redshift and expanding space theory implies a beginning of the existence of space. On the other hand, a static unbounded space theory implicates no beginning of space. Imo, the space of the universe is static, unbounded and has eternally existed as such. Into it has been introduced everything else which exists in the universe by one means or another. I believe Jehovah god has been eternally and forever creating, destroying, recreating and managing his universe to suit his purposes and desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 The No Boundary Proposal means there doesn't have to be an end to space. It is a seemless whole. Wrong. God has created only one universe. There is no multiverse to place the universe in. Although atheist scientists find they have to!!! The universe is a one time thing. And all the meaning that scientists might project out onto a multiverse really belongs inside us. We are that meaning. For Big Bang proponents the universe was created by a mindless lump. Intellegent design? You have to be intellegent to see it! There is a timeless spaceless place where only spirit can exist. That is the dimension where the universe came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gophert Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Ok...thanks for explaining that. I was definately unsure about what I was talking about. Heehee!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Stuff in the horizon makes the red sunset. Imo, there's enough of something between us and distant galaxies to obstruct the path of light rays so as to cause redshift. Redshift advocates say no, but then science has been proven wrong on other stuff and this may be another matter that they will find to be in error also. I'm not qualified to address this scientifically, for sure. I'm just speaking from a logical viewpoint here. The mechanism for sunsets being red is well understood (Rayliegh scattering) and is most definitely not the same thing as either a gravitational or cosmological redshift. Red light from Rayliegh scattering is not a shift in the wavelength of the light, it's the preferential removal by scattering, which is frequency dependent. Redshifts imply just that - a characteristic frequency, e.g. from a known transition, is actually shifted in value. As this is science, an opinion in this matter carries exactly zero weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzsaw Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 The mechanism for sunsets being red is well understood (Rayliegh scattering) and is most definitely not the same thing as either a gravitational or cosmological redshift. Red light from Rayliegh scattering is not a shift in the wavelength of the light' date=' it's the preferential removal by scattering, which is frequency dependent. Redshifts imply just that - a characteristic frequency, e.g. from a known transition, is actually shifted in value. As this is science, an opinion in this matter carries exactly zero weight.[/quote'] I understand that the sunset is different. I was using the sunset as a crude analogy of tired light, but I agree, it's probably a poor analogy. It just seems to be likely that between earth and distant galaxies there must be something obstructing the light between us and them which could redden the light rays. I certainly don't know enough about this to speak with any authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Hahaha. Are you serious??? Try flying straight up, off the earth into space. When space ends, come back and tell me how far you got. i know a way to get out to the edge of the universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 buzsaw, in the 1980's (circa 1984 I believe) one mr. alan guth published inflation theory and showed that the universe suddenly "winked" into existance over a large volume. and has continued to expand since that time. if you want god I would go with a god who created the universe at that moment that it "winked" into existance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 i know a way to get out to the edge of the universe Is it some bs idea, or would you mind sharing? (sorry I'm just cynical about these things) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I think I am going to cry.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 I think I am going to cry.... Lol, you never know he might have a revolutionary idea that could change the face of physics for ever.... Hrmmm actually cryings probably the best option :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 i know a way to get out to the edge of the universe if you spout that "space ends" or "the universe" spam again, i'll have to open a bag of plastic forks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 The No Boundary Proposal means there doesn'thave to be an end to space. It is a seemless whole. Wrong. God has created only one universe. There is no multiverse to place the universe in. Although atheist scientists find they have to!!! The universe is a one time thing. And all the meaning that scientists might project out onto a multiverse really belongs inside us. We are that meaning. For Big Bang proponents the universe was created by a mindless lump. Intellegent design? You have to be intellegent to see it! There is a timeless spaceless place where only spirit can exist. That is the dimension where the universe came from. the universe is all matter energy time and space most people are matter and energy focused, they like to think the universe is all the stars and planets etc in space but a much more realistic view is the universe is all the past present and future, now that's the universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 umm... no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 the universe is all matter energy time and spacemost people are matter and energy focused' date=' they like to think the universe is all the stars and planets etc in space but a much more realistic view is the universe is all the past present and future, now that's the universe[/quote'] The universe is everything, all energy, all mass, everything, that is the "realistic view". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 umm... no yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 yesWooh good argument there. Shut the hell up! You are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 the universe is all matter energy time and spacemost people are matter and energy focused' date=' they like to think the universe is all the stars and planets etc in space but a much more realistic view is the universe is all the past present and future, now that's the universe[/quote'] Nicholas isn't a credible source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Wooh good argument there. Shut the hell up! You are wrong yes the universe is all matter energy time and space the universe is all the past present and future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 Wooh good argument there. Shut the hell up! You are wrong show us your universe and please include all matter energy time and space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 two things stop spamming and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WMAP.jpg ^thats my universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the universe Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 space is not nothing it is space the world was thought of being infinitly large it was flat and the center of the universe because the sun went around it everyday space is still mostly considered infinite but when you find out that it is not infinite then space can take a shape and outside of space there is nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted August 25, 2005 Share Posted August 25, 2005 space is not nothing it is space A: no one in this thread said it wasn't B: by definition empty space is nothing space is still mostly considered infinite the universe does in fact appear to be infinite, as evidenced by the picture I linked to (although I couldn't elaborate any more on how that picture shows space is infinite) but when you find out that it is not infinite then space can take a shape and outside of space there is nothing when did we find out space is not infinite? so far the universe doesn't seem to have a "shape". If it does have a shape however, then nothing exists outside of it, and you could never reach the outside of it because there is no sign that says "space ends here...don't cross line" so "outside" of the universe does not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts