Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?
Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:54 pm
Merry Holidays to you all, a little levity from our friend Neil..
An independent forum for FlightGear users and developers
https://www.thejabberwocky.net/
Beyond the Hubble Volume. We know with some certainty that there's "more universe" out there beyond that boundary, though. Astronomers think space might be infinite, with "stuff" (energy, galaxies, etc.) distributed pretty much the same as it is in the observable universe. If it is, that has some seriously weird implications for what lies out there. Beyond the Hubble Volume you won't just find more, different planets. You will eventually find every possible thing. Read that again and let it sink in. Everything. If you go far enough, you'll find another solar system with an Earth identical in every way except that you had cereal for breakfast this morning instead of eggs. And another where you skipped breakfast. And one where you got up early and robbed a bank. In fact, cosmologists think that if you go far enough, you will find another Hubble Volume that is perfectly identical to ours. There's another version of you out there mirroring your every action 10 to the 10^188 meters away. That may seem unlikely, but then, infinity is awfully infinite.
legoboyvdlp wrote:If the universe does not exist, then why do we exist?
We are part of the universe.
Who says it is full of nothing?
It has no air, indeed, making it a vacuum. But there is something unknown there -- dark matter, I think they call it?
it0uchpods wrote:My answer: The Universe never began and never will end.
it0uchpods wrote:Why? Well they say that the universe is full of "nothing". Well, how can they call it a universe if it is nothing? I thought it did not exist? Has the meaning of the word nothing changed???
Lydiot wrote:it0uchpods wrote:My answer: The Universe never began and never will end.
I believe that can be true, especially the first part.
Lydiot wrote:it0uchpods wrote:Why? Well they say that the universe is full of "nothing". Well, how can they call it a universe if it is nothing? I thought it did not exist? Has the meaning of the word nothing changed???
You're jumping to the wrong conclusion it seems. If astrophysicists say "the universe is full of 'nothing'", then they probably don't mean that "it is nothing", they simply mean that most of the known volume of the universe is empty, void of especially matter (which we tend to consider being more "valuable" than energy, intuitively).
it0uchpods wrote:I think I understand slightly. But remember that we do not be know anything about space (not include the planets and thigns, just the void part). We cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or see. (If you look, you just see emptyness.) We also cannot take part of its to Earth to study, so how do we have any infos on it?
it0uchpods wrote: All we know is there is none to very little gravity (affecting us at least, planet orbits and other thing like that are there which are affected by the different type of gravity I think. But maybe I do be wrong,
it0uchpods wrote: but regardless, still we cannot study it well right now, as we donot have interaction with it, so what is it? It still could be something that is nothing,
it0uchpods wrote: Note: sorry if the grammer is rubbish in that, I had transltate from German, which was what I rote it in first)
Lydiot wrote:it0uchpods wrote:I think I understand slightly. But remember that we do not be know anything about space (not include the planets and thigns, just the void part). We cannot touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or see. (If you look, you just see emptyness.) We also cannot take part of its to Earth to study, so how do we have any infos on it?
Well, the problem is partly the way you are expressing yourself. If you say that the only things we know something about are the planets and things, and then say we know nothing about space because there's nothing in it, then if we found something in space, that would then fall into the first category and no longer qualify. So your argument is a bit illogical and self-fulfilling. If we can define it, then it is "something". Since it is "something", it can't be space, because space we can't define, by definition.
But there's also the issue of making a logical conclusion based on other information. If we know the properties of a star and a planet, and they don't behave the way they are expected to, then the solution to why they behave the way they do must lie elsewhere, i.e. in space.
Again though, we're just back to having to define "space" and "nothing" and "something". The discussion can't be had without doing that.it0uchpods wrote: All we know is there is none to very little gravity (affecting us at least, planet orbits and other thing like that are there which are affected by the different type of gravity I think. But maybe I do be wrong,
I think you are. There aren't different types of gravity. Gravity is what happens when matter interacts, for lack of a better expression. I just saw a good piece on it by PBS. I think it was this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tstyqz ... 686.196116it0uchpods wrote: but regardless, still we cannot study it well right now, as we donot have interaction with it, so what is it? It still could be something that is nothing,
But surely you either have "something" or you have "nothing", right? So you can't have "something that is nothing". That to me doesn't make sense.it0uchpods wrote: Note: sorry if the grammer is rubbish in that, I had transltate from German, which was what I rote it in first)
Lydiot wrote:Du sprechst aber viel besser English als ich Deutch spreche.....
(close???)