We are not alone..

[Godfree]

Yes, but so is everywhere else. If you travel in one direction you would eventually come back to where you start, space is contiguous. This solves the problem of infinity, and what is at the edge - there is no edge.[/color][/quote]

Well Chaz thats a little brave of you , that almost sounds like an opinion ,
now is this main stream science or radical theory ,
from memory that is not how the bbt goes ,
but more one alternative to the finite expanding universe theory .
is that the theory you believe is reality , some sort of closed loop ,???
so how big is the loop , and whats on the outside of it ,,???

[Godfree]

, we see nearly to the point they think
is the center or point of origin for the bb,

Who is the 'They' you are refering to? Here is a list of cosmologists and only a few of them advocate a steady state universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmologists

And since you are advocation an infinite universe, where does the center point of the Big Bang come in to that?

Carl Sagan is one of my favourites , it does get difficult not to confuse the
bbt with the observational evidence ,
if we base everything on theory , then observation is pointless ,
if we base everything on observation , we can be deceived , or draw incorrect conclusions from what we observe .
There are many problems with the theory of the bb ,
If there was ever nothing what made the something ,,????

why can we see large old galaxies , in 10 billion yr old images ,,???

galaxies are not all flying apart , quite the opposite they are clumping together , forming chains and loops with big voids inbetween .
why does the observational evidence not support the bb,,???

[xenuwonder]

Yes, but so is everywhere else. If you travel in one direction you would eventually come back to where you start, space is contiguous. This solves the problem of infinity, and what is at the edge - there is no edge.[/color]

Utter fantasy.

It's enjoyable to indulge in such fanciful and biblical ideas of a limit to our universe but I tend to be a little more mature when thinking about such topics.

Please tell me what the circumference of the universe is. I'd be awfully chuffed to know.

Xenu

[chaz wyman]

Yes, but so is everywhere else. If you travel in one direction you would eventually come back to where you start, space is contiguous. This solves the problem of infinity, and what is at the edge - there is no edge.[/color]

Utter fantasy.

It's enjoyable to indulge in such fanciful and biblical ideas of a limit to our universe but I tend to be a little more mature when thinking about such topics.

Please tell me what the circumference of the universe is. I'd be awfully chuffed to know.

Xenu

Its growing all the time. Your question is meaningless.

[chaz wyman]

Yes, but so is everywhere else. If you travel in one direction you would eventually come back to where you start, space is contiguous. This solves the problem of infinity, and what is at the edge - there is no edge.[/color]

Well Chaz thats a little brave of you , that almost sounds like an opinion ,
now is this main stream science or radical theory ,
from memory that is not how the bbt goes ,
but more one alternative to the finite expanding universe theory .
is that the theory you believe is reality , some sort of closed loop ,???
so how big is the loop , and whats on the outside of it ,,???[/quote]

The BB theory is the best fit. That is all any cosmology has ever been.
There is no on the outside; that's the whole point. If you don't get it you are not in a position to reject it.
I get your idea, but it does not answer all the questions.

[Godfree]

Well Chaz thats a little brave of you , that almost sounds like an opinion ,
now is this main stream science or radical theory ,
from memory that is not how the bbt goes ,
but more one alternative to the finite expanding universe theory .
is that the theory you believe is reality , some sort of closed loop ,???
so how big is the loop , and whats on the outside of it ,,???[/quote]

The BB theory is the best fit. That is all any cosmology has ever been.
There is no on the outside; that's the whole point. If you don't get it you are not in a position to reject it.
I get your idea, but it does not answer all the questions.
[/quote]

The bb is the best fit , to what , it doesn't best fit the observational data,?!
the bb theorists are constantly coming up with weird science to try and explain things like , " why are the galaxies distributed evenly" , etc
" why can we see large old galaxies in our oldest images ",,???
I think the one word that sums up mans problem with coming to terms with the scale of things , is ,,,,EGO ,,,
the universe was made for us by god ,,,and god said there was a beginning ,
hence the western christian democracy , model of the universe has a beginning ,, how pathetic ,,,
so Chaz me old mate , have a go at answering what made the something ,
if there was a beginning , then before it there must have been nothing ,
otherwise it's just a continuation and not a beginning ,
so from what are you going to make the something , the universe ,
and remember you are starting with nothing , explain please,,???

[chaz wyman]

so Chaz me old mate , have a go at answering what made the something ,?

What's your answer? Ignore the observational data because you are scared that the universe had a beginning?
The fact is that it is perfectly likely that there was a contracting universe before the BB, and ours will contract back into a BB, to infinity.

Your out of date idea is based on the fallacy that the universe is in a steady state.

[thedoc]

Did you know that Penzias and Wilson, who discovered the 'cosmic microwave background radiation' that proved the Big Bang, didn't believe in an expanding universe of limited age. They both believed in a steady state universe, yet they received the Nobel prize for proving a theory they didn't believe. Ironic.

[tillingborn]

chaz wyman wrote:
Yes, but so is everywhere else. If you travel in one direction you would eventually come back to where you start, space is contiguous. This solves the problem of infinity, and what is at the edge - there is no edge.

Utter fantasy.

It's enjoyable to indulge in such fanciful and biblical ideas of a limit to our universe but I tend to be a little more mature when thinking about such topics.

Biblical? I really don’t see that; on the contrary, it is the bible that invokes the idea of infinity in reference to god’s power, knowledge and presence. In other words, god is everywhere and since god’s presence is infinite, everywhere is therefore infinite. Is that mature enough for you?

Please tell me what the circumference of the universe is. I'd be awfully chuffed to know.

Wouldn’t we all? It is not currently possible for more reasons than you can shake a stick at. For one thing it depends on which version of the big bang you are trying to size; ex nihilo, colliding branes and globular multiverse spring to mind. The last two are effectively infinite universe theories, but since they both make predictions which may be impossible even in principle to obtain evidence for, much less ‘prove’, a simple application of Occam’s razor leaves the ex nihilo, out of nothing, ‘Cor blimey, where did that come from?’ version as the most defensible.
But even that is really tricky; you might believe Alan Guth’s inflation period, in which case there was a brief time when the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light, how long for and what speed exactly are moot points. Then there is the difficulty that chaz alludes to, whatever the big bang, and hence our universe is made of, it expands. It started as a tiny point, a moment after it began to grow, when it was the size of a marble say, every single point within it was trying to grow; every secondary point was identical to the original point. When the original point was the size of the Earth, every secondary point was the size of a marble and every point within that was trying to grow. You can keep doing that a hundred, a thousand, million times, which would only take you to tea time. For every one of those points in points in points in points etc, everything around it has been expanding for 13.7 billion years.

The bb is the best fit , to what , it doesn't best fit the observational data,?!

It fits the observational data beautifully; it explains motion, it accounts for the cosmic background radiation and it explains red-shift without recourse to photon decay.

the bb theorists are constantly coming up with weird science to try and explain things like , " why are the galaxies distributed evenly" , etc

Science is weird. What weird science do you have in mind?

" why can we see large old galaxies in our oldest images ",,???

We can’t. The oldest image we have is the cosmic background radiation. The reason we have galaxies in our oldest images in the visible spectrum is that they are the only things big enough to see from such a distance. The most distant one is about 12.91billion light years away, giving it at least, 800million years to form; more if you take the expansion of space into account.

I think the one word that sums up mans problem with coming to terms with the scale of things , is ,,,,EGO ,,,

I shan’t tell you the one word I think sums this claim up.

the universe was made for us by god ,,,and god said there was a beginning ,
hence the western christian democracy , model of the universe has a beginning ,, how pathetic ,,,

I shan't tell you the string of words I think sums this claim up.

so Chaz me old mate , have a go at answering what made the something ,
if there was a beginning , then before it there must have been nothing ,
otherwise it's just a continuation and not a beginning ,
so from what are you going to make the something , the universe ,
and remember you are starting with nothing , explain please,,???

It’s a freak of nature. In an earlier post you wrote:

if we base everything on theory , then observation is pointless ,

What else would we base our theories on?

if we base everything on observation , we can be deceived , or draw incorrect conclusions from what we observe .

Indeed, always have, probably always will. The only philosopher that scientists pay much heed to is Karl Popper. He argued that no amount of supporting evidence will ever prove a theory, on the other hand, it doesn’t take much to falsify it; thedoc’s modified Olber’s paradox and gravity are serious problems for infinite size and age. We know that eventually everything grinds to a state that is for all practical purposes a halt. The moon always shows the same face to the Earth because gravity has stopped it spinning (technically it rotates as often as it orbits), Mercury has the same relation to the sun. The tidal forces from the moon are slowing the Earth’s rotation by one and a half milliseconds a century. In an infinite amount of time, everything stops and yet here we are spinning away. The suggestion that ‘It has always been here.’ solves the issue of where it came from just isn’t good enough.

There are many problems with the theory of the bb ,

True, but at least it does away with the problems of an infinitely old universe.

[Godfree]

so Chaz me old mate , have a go at answering what made the something ,?

What's your answer? Ignore the observational data because you are scared that the universe had a beginning?
The fact is that it is perfectly likely that there was a contracting universe before the BB, and ours will contract back into a BB, to infinity.

Your out of date idea is based on the fallacy that the universe is in a steady state.

I have stated repeatedly that the observational data does not support the bbt ,
"A beginning" , and then you say"contracting universe before the bb"
can you see you have contradicted yourself , does the universe have a beginning or not , what you just described was a cycle ,
not a beginning , and you didn't answer the question , as usual ,,

lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"

[Godfree]

The bb is the best fit , to what , it doesn't best fit the observational data,?!

It fits the observational data beautifully; it explains motion, it accounts for the cosmic background radiation and it explains red-shift without recourse to photon decay.

the bb theorists are constantly coming up with weird science to try and explain things like , " why are the galaxies distributed evenly" , etc

Science is weird. What weird science do you have in mind?

" why can we see large old galaxies in our oldest images ",,???

We can’t. The oldest image we have is the cosmic background radiation. The r

We can , at 10 billion light years we have thousands of galaxies , some red and dead , do the research yourself ,red and dead , at 10 billion light years ,?
galaxies tend to be flat or ball shaped , ball shaped ones are thought to be the product of many galaxies coming together , they are much older and bigger , we can see those at 10 billion light years ,
Recently on DW tv , German News Journal , the reporter made my claim ,
the observational data does not fit the bbt ,
So tillingborn ,,,the nothing ,
how do we make a universe from nothing ,,??? answer please ,
I can give you my answer now , you can't make a universe from nothing ,
therefore it didn't happen , what did happen was a continuation of the previous cycle , and on a galactic scale not a universal one ,
Bangs happen on a galactic scale , the universe is filled with hydrogen ,
where did all the hydrogen come from ,??
if Stars burn it what makes it ,,?????
black holes go bang , or pop or something , to release the hydrogen ,
the crushing power of a black hole returns matter to it's single component ,
a hydrogen molecule , and we have our cycle ,,,your turn ,,!!!

[chaz wyman]

so Chaz me old mate , have a go at answering what made the something ,?

What's your answer? Ignore the observational data because you are scared that the universe had a beginning?
The fact is that it is perfectly likely that there was a contracting universe before the BB, and ours will contract back into a BB, to infinity.

Your out of date idea is based on the fallacy that the universe is in a steady state.

I have stated repeatedly that the observational data does not support the bbt ,

Yes, and everyone is telling you that you are dead wrong, so what?

"A beginning" , and then you say"contracting universe before the bb"

It's no contradiction in any sense. Why do you think so. "Before" is beyond the bounds of evidence.

can you see you have contradicted yourself , does the universe have a beginning or not , what you just described was a cycle

It's not relevant. You cannot know one way or the other. Science is about what you can know, not about what you cannot.

not a beginning , and you didn't answer the question , as usual ,,
I've answered it more than once.
lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"

I'm not god, sorry. I know that deep down you are really searching for god. And all your pathetic faith based atheism is just because you are angry about god.

[thedoc]

I have stated repeatedly that the observational data does not support the bbt ,
"A beginning" , and then you say"contracting universe before the bb"
can you see you have contradicted yourself , does the universe have a beginning or not , what you just described was a cycle ,
not a beginning , and you didn't answer the question , as usual ,,

It's a speculation of what might have been, a speculation is not a contradiction as it is only stating what could be possible. If some one says that there was definately another universe before this one, that would be a contradiction of what we can know for sure. It's only a guess, just like most of what you are saying.

[Godfree]

lets try again ,," you have nothing , now make me a universe"[/quote]

I'm not god, sorry. I know that deep down you are really searching for god. And all your pathetic faith based atheism is just because you are angry about god.[/quote]

So god could do that ,,??? ,,you know what powers god has ,,,???
Now despite your failing to address the question , you have answered it ,
to make a universe from nothing would require something with god like powers ,
so we have a bbt that claims a beginning ,,???
the universe from nothing ,,,but as you just concluded , only a god could do that , so the bbt assumes god did it ,,?????

[Godfree]

I have stated repeatedly that the observational data does not support the bbt ,
"A beginning" , and then you say"contracting universe before the bb"
can you see you have contradicted yourself , does the universe have a beginning or not , what you just described was a cycle ,
not a beginning , and you didn't answer the question , as usual ,,

It's a speculation of what might have been, a speculation is not a contradiction as it is only stating what could be possible. If some one says that there was definately another universe before this one, that would be a contradiction of what we can know for sure. It's only a guess, just like most of what you are saying.

We have choices , we can assume any bang that occurred ,
was the result of a gathering of material , matter/planets stars etc ,
we see the process, black holes devour anything that comes close enough ,
or we can conclude god did it ,
we can imagine there was nothing , and then we need a god ,,
or we can assume there was the end of the last cycle re-cycling the same old matter over and over ... , ad infinitum
you prefer to imagine nothing , and then a god ,
to me that makes no sense ,
so I assume the same amount of energy went into making the bang ,
as came out ,
the mass of material that came out , was the amount that went in ,
prior to the bang , which as I say ,
happens on a galactic scale not a universal one ,
if the universe is infinite ,
then the universe doesn't do anything ,
just little corners of it do ,,!!!!