The universe expands ...

[Godfree]

Godfree, if you believe the universe is infinite, how do you explain something that was never created actually existing. If there is no point at which we can say things came together to form the universe, then we cannot say the universe was formed at all, and in that case it doesn't exist. That's clearly not true, so we must conclude that the universe has a finite history.

Terrible logic ,,!!!
how can you imagine the universe not being here ,,???
why imagine the universe not being here ,???
if the universe was created , what created the thing that created the universe ,,???
we can go back for infinity , you say the universe was created ,
I will say what created it , what created the thing that created it and what created that.? ad infinitum ,
you cannot have a first cause , because something caused that ,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

Or we could just be a finite universe in the set of infinite universes. Not that it matters philosophically as metaphysics won't solve this issue.

[James Markham]

Godfree, you haven't made any suggestion that would solve the paradox of how something physical can not be created. I know the only solution is that the universe is not physical, it's a mental phenomena, and as with our own mental existence has as its beginning the change from unconscious to conscious. If you want an explanation of what I mean, you can read my post in the thread "absolute fact", and we can discuss how it relates to this topic.

[Godfree]

Or we could just be a finite universe in the set of infinite universes. Not that it matters philosophically as metaphysics won't solve this issue.

I see the term universe to encompass "everything" ,
the whole universe , this multiverse , universes within universes ,,???
surely thats just changing the meaning of the word universe ,
as I see it we have one universe ,
we can talk about this part or that , but it's all part of the one universe ,
some like to think we are a finite known universe that is expanding ,
within a infinite universe , I don't call that an expanding universe ,
I call that indigestion ,,!!!

[Godfree]

Godfree, you haven't made any suggestion that would solve the paradox of how something physical can not be created. I know the only solution is that the universe is not physical, it's a mental phenomena, and as with our own mental existence has as its beginning the change from unconscious to conscious. If you want an explanation of what I mean, you can read my post in the thread "absolute fact", and we can discuss how it relates to this topic.

things don't get created , they evolve they , change they , re-arrange themselves ,
matter does not get created , it gets re-arranged ,
Stars re-arrange the hydrogen into the heavy elements ,
black holes re-arrange the heavy elements back into hydrogen ,
a never ending cycle , nothing is being created , destroyed or removed ,
it all just gets , re-cycled ,
"if there was ever nothing in the universe then nothing is all there would ever be"

[James Markham]

What you've written is not really true, for a start it requires energy to turn hydrogen into helium, which means that in terms of energy, every time the lighter elements are transformed into heavier elements, energy is lost in the form of heat and light radiation. This radiation takes the form of photons, and other elementary particles, and though it's true that black holes suck in all this matter, it's not true that they produce hydrogen. What they eject is more radiation, which spreads around the universe and cannot be used as fuel for stars. 

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a system either increases or stays the same, this means that the universe as a closed system is always becoming more disordered, as the space is slowly filled with radiation, energy becomes increasingly dissipated and useless.

You only have to look at the way heat flows from something that's hot, to something that's cold, this is the systems move towards equilibrium, what your suggesting would entail the opposite, particles of a low energy state, with a high degree of entropy, coming together to form a high energy particle with a lower quantity of entropy. As this has never been observed to happen on earth, what makes you think it happens anywhere else?

I'm not suggesting there was ever a time that there didn't exist a metaphysical potential for things to exist, but what I am saying is that the physicality which we observe exists as a result of the potential being actualised, which did take place at some point. This point can also be understood to be the beginning of time, as there was no previous physical event, and no physical event means no time or change.

[Godfree]

What you've written is not really true, for a start it requires energy to turn hydrogen into helium, which means that in terms of energy, every time the lighter elements are transformed into heavier elements, energy is lost in the form of heat and light radiation. This radiation takes the form of photons, and other elementary particles, and though it's true that black holes suck in all this matter, it's not true that they produce hydrogen. What they eject is more radiation, which spreads around the universe and cannot be used as fuel for stars. 

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of a system either increases or stays the same, this means that the universe as a closed system is always becoming more disordered, as the space is slowly filled with radiation, energy becomes increasingly dissipated and useless.

You only have to look at the way heat flows from something that's hot, to something that's cold, this is the systems move towards equilibrium, what your suggesting would entail the opposite, particles of a low energy state, with a high degree of entropy, coming together to form a high energy particle with a lower quantity of entropy. As this has never been observed to happen on earth, what makes you think it happens anywhere else?

I'm not suggesting there was ever a time that there didn't exist a metaphysical potential for things to exist, but what I am saying is that the physicality which we observe exists as a result of the potential being actualised, which did take place at some point. This point can also be understood to be the beginning of time, as there was no previous physical event, and no physical event means no time or change.

I have my own model of the universe and how it works ,
for starters I assume a never ending cycle , and then work out how that could be ,
something has to be producing all that Hydrogen , and I don't buy in to the idea that it was a one off ,
that it happened 13.7 billion years ago and thats the only time it has ,, no thats illogical ,
I could make a list of what I believe is not really true ,
religion the bbt , the universe is expanding , Olbers paradox ,the universe is 13.7 billion yrs old ,
and "a beginning to time"
to me thats like saying if we are the only thing that matters , and if we aren't here to measure it ,
it doesn't matter ,ego ,,
just like the ancients believed we are the center of the universe ,
has that thinking changed ,,??
we are the judge of the universe existing or not ,,???

[James Markham]

Godfree, if you have your own model of the universe that doesn't need to be consistent with other peoples, anything I have to say is irrelevant.

[Godfree]

Godfree, if you have your own model of the universe that doesn't need to be consistent with other peoples, anything I have to say is irrelevant.

Funny fellow , reality is subjective , we all have our own version of reality ,
I just take it a few steps more and have my own philosophy , model of the universe ,
I don't play music , I play my songs , I have about 20 ,
you will have your own version of the bb ,
I was chatting to xenu the other day and realized ,
he supports the bbt , but has modified it somewhat to fit his sense of logic ,
we all do it , for starters there are many versions of the bbt to choose from ,
how did you choose the one you did and what makes you so sure it's the right model ,
we have , expanding stopping and then a big crunch ,
we have expanding and accelerating ,
and that is within a finite or infinite universe ,
do you accept , dark matter dark energy , do you accept whatever they tell you ,,???
because just on the surface it is easy to see ,
the red shift , yet to be proven ,
the universe is expanding , yet to be proven ,
the universe is 13.7 billion years old , not according to red and dead ,
Olbers paradox , a blanket white sky ,,the guys out of date and so is his paradox ,
when the bbt shifts from theory to fact ,
I MIGHT show it a LITTLE more respect ,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

I see the term universe to encompass "everything" ,
the whole universe , this multiverse , universes within universes ,,???
surely thats just changing the meaning of the word universe ,
as I see it we have one universe ,
we can talk about this part or that , but it's all part of the one universe ,
some like to think we are a finite known universe that is expanding ,
within a infinite universe , I don't call that an expanding universe ,
I call that indigestion ,,!!!

It may well be but if the 'universe' is a 'multiverse' and if things are to be infinite then I'd guess that in an infinite universe all possible universes should exist then your problem would be solved as finite universes should exist and we appear to be in one of them.

[Godfree]

I see the term universe to encompass "everything" ,
the whole universe , this multiverse , universes within universes ,,???
surely thats just changing the meaning of the word universe ,
as I see it we have one universe ,
we can talk about this part or that , but it's all part of the one universe ,
some like to think we are a finite known universe that is expanding ,
within a infinite universe , I don't call that an expanding universe ,
I call that indigestion ,,!!!

It may well be but if the 'universe' is a 'multiverse' and if things are to be infinite then I'd guess that in an infinite universe all possible universes should exist then your problem would be solved as finite universes should exist and we appear to be in one of them.

finite as in our understanding of the universe ,
not finite in it's size or limited in any way , this universe carries on forever ,
you can call that many universes ,
or we could call it the universe , I prefer the term universe to include everything ,
everything that we can see and assume , and everything we can't .
so for me the term universe and infinity , are both describing the same thing ,
if you want to limit our debates to the known universe ,
thats a very finite universe ,
but even with our limited ability to see more ,
we can conclude from what we can see ,
that the pattern of galaxies does not suggest a bang of any sort

[Arising_uk]

finite as in our understanding of the universe ,
not finite in it's size or limited in any way , this universe carries on forever ,
you can call that many universes ,
or we could call it the universe , I prefer the term universe to include everything ,
everything that we can see and assume , and everything we can't . ...

It's not logical to talk about things we can't see and assume.

so for me the term universe and infinity , are both describing the same thing ,
if you want to limit our debates to the known universe ,
thats a very finite universe ,
but even with our limited ability to see more ,
we can conclude from what we can see ,
that the pattern of galaxies does not suggest a bang of any sort

You're confusing me? I thought you said the universe was not finite?

It's not the pattern of the galaxies it's the movement that's doing the suggesting I thought?

[Godfree]

finite as in our understanding of the universe ,
not finite in it's size or limited in any way , this universe carries on forever ,
you can call that many universes ,
or we could call it the universe , I prefer the term universe to include everything ,
everything that we can see and assume , and everything we can't . ...

It's not logical to talk about things we can't see and assume.

so for me the term universe and infinity , are both describing the same thing ,
if you want to limit our debates to the known universe ,
thats a very finite universe ,
but even with our limited ability to see more ,
we can conclude from what we can see ,
that the pattern of galaxies does not suggest a bang of any sort

You're confusing me? I thought you said the universe was not finite?

It's not the pattern of the galaxies it's the movement that's doing the suggesting I thought?

The Known Universe is Finite ,
in every way ,
our understanding of it ,
how big we can see ,
how much we can prove ,
The Universe is Infinite ,
to limit our discussions to the known universe ,
is to pretend that we are incapable of any meaningful conclusions or debates ,
its a bit of an insult , and while you may see yourself in that light ,,??
I don't see myself as being limited to what I am told is real , by the main stream consensus ,
the movement you say , do you have any proof that the movement is real ,,???
not just a theory , any actual facts that prove the universe is expanding ,
we have the red shift , olbers paradox , the CBR ,
none of these are proof , they are theories , and not very good ones ,
I have found red and dead galaxies , that are just one example of facts that don't fit the theory ,
so as usual they re-invent science to make the new data fit the bbt ,
"SOMEHOW" these galaxies have raced through their life cycle in just 3 billion years ,
our earths older than that ,
so when they come up with this somehow ,
will people just accept it because they said so , because it fits the theory and Einsteins maths prove it ,,???
I'm picking people are less likely to see through the political spin of the modern era ,
than they are the ancient spin of religion ,
so we will be spinning in it for centuries ,
just think of it like religion ,
it is easy now to look back at religion as a joke , for me any way ,,,!!!!
I think we will look back at the nearly 100 year old bbt ,
as a joke to , but most of you are being very reluctant ,
most of you are pretty slow on the uptake ...

[xenuwonder]

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

"The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs."

Anyone else care to offer up some common sense like the above?

Xenu out.

[Godfree]

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

"The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs."

Anyone else care to offer up some common sense like the above?

Xenu out.

Now is that the religious extremist country america , west ,
or NZ and Aussy less religious west ,
the old religions are on the decline , and idiots like Brain Tamaki , are making a killing ,destiny church,
ripping off the new migrants who fall for his lies and deceit ,
but anyway the bbt
Contrary to the expectations of the bbt ,
the universe is in fact extremely isotropic , which also implies homogeneity ,
the CMB which fills the universe ,is almost precisely the same temperature , everywhere in the sky/universe ,
this presents a serious problem for the bbt,
if the universe had started out with even slightly different temperatures ,
then there would be no way it could have evened it'self out by this time ,
just another example of whats wrong with the bbt ,
question , are american eminent scientists also Atheists ,
or are they also sucking up to religious fundamentalism ,
and also pretending that religion is credible,,???