They found the rest of the universe???

I've listened to the presentation. That is not an issue.

Tell me why that isn't an issue?

Also, he is confused about acceleration, using a grenade as an example of comparison to the universe's big bang. Of course when the grenade explodes, the pieces accelerate from zero to high velocity, but they immediately begin to slow down before they start hitting walls. As far as I know, the universe is still accelerating, and it is believed that dark matter has something to do with that.

Also, the big bang was an expansion of spacetime, not just matter. Why it must have a hidden hand to start it is beyond me. That is philosophy, not science. Or, as he says: Through the principle of positive fact, if the universe has a beginning, it must have a beginner, hence the existence of God. Where is the evidence?

...... is rudimentary, at best. In fact, I spent time looking up definitions during the presentation.

Thus I'm not sure I heard/read correctly statements that some believe the universe is static. If so, I have not heard that expressed before.

My understanding is that it continues to expand, and, as you pointed out, we have seen the existence of objects billions of years old (or, at least their light), have witnessed evidence of dying stars the effects of black holes, even the birth of stars, and other phenomena.

I appreciate your take on the grenade exploding. I had not considered that, unless it hit something within the range of its force, the fragments would drop harmlessly as they lost their force.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

that in an atmosphere, the air, itself would immediately slow the fragments down. In the vacuum of space, it would pretty much remain at the initial speed, unless slowed down by some gravitational force, a cloud of gas, or something.

But it wouldn't continue to accelerate faster, as the universe seems to be doing. At one time, it was thought the initial expansion from the Bang was at one speed, just like the grenade explosion. But then a guy came along and proved that there was an extremely fast expansion of spacetime. But now, spacetime isn't changing much if any, but galaxies are still accelerating. Then, somebody figured there must be something out there, reason unknown, causing things to accelerate. More recently, we've found evidence of 'dark matter' which may be the the cause we are looking for. We can't see it, but we have indirect evidence of it.

you just pretend that you get it.

I don't understand the purpose of the link. I've seen its kind before; one long rant.

than the original link


.,

My def. of rant is much talk, little fact. I can't judge much of what's presented as fact in cosmology, but the other one refers to a widely-available book in the public domain, and other topics of which I do have knowledge. Much talk, little fact.

As to the cosmology BTW, maybe you've noticed something about more recent discoveries, especially those from the Keck and Cerro Gordo. They've caught some unusual events there in the last few years, and a common reaction seems to be, 'We though we knew what we would find in such a case, but we were wrong; back to the drawing board.' Exciting for an astronomer, of course, but ought to give pause to all kinds of laymen - from atheist to true believer. 'There's more in Heaven and earth, Horatio ...'

neither does use of it disprove anything. As I understand it, the "big bang" would have been something similar to what happens when radioactive material such as uranium reach critical mass. It explodes violently. The big bang idea would presuppose that a critical mass of other matter could cause something similar in that it would create an enormous amount of gravity as matter gathered in one place. The pressure would have eventually resulted in an explosion and the matter would be hurled through the void. There would be a period of acceleration but that would slow as the attraction force that matter has for other matter would remain. Eventually there would be a collapse and another bang might result...repeating the cycle. If such were the case and we could imagine the universe as being infinite in size, it might be possible that these big bang cycles occur over and over throughout vastness of space. In any event, no man made explosive device could provide a proper example of the theory that could make it more believable or disprove it, either one.
Head's spinning and about to explode here too.

That repeating, expansion-contraction universe idea is a dead one. As it is, we are pretty much stuck at just a tiny bit after the Bang, and we are clueless about what happened before that. I'd love to know.

It only proves us to be smaller than we thought.

the heavyweights fits. What sort of thing could be that small, with that much potential energy and, later, mass? An unexploded grenade isn't even close.
BTW Einstein's famous equation is what the chemists call a reversible reaction: m = e/c-squared. A passage in Isaiah says the same thing.

credentials. What are yours to judge him confused? Actually, I think you are confused. The universe is still expanding. I've never heard or seen anything about it accelerating. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that they determined that it would continue to expand.

New stars are part of an ongoing process of forming stars. Where did he say that new stars are not forming? I didn't see anything like that.

Science can say nothing about what came before the big bang. Science has no knowledge of the conditions or physical laws until shortly AFTER the big bang. That IS the realm of philosophy and logic. That's what he used to address the issue. It sounds like you are not equipped to deal with the philosophical realm.

perhaps you have an explanation for the origin of the universe.

The big bang began time. It had a cause. What was it?

observable phenomena have causes.

On what basis do you assert that man is fabricating all philosophy and theology? The idea that knowledge cannot come from outside sources is based on pure faith. There is no way to establish its truth.

have their places. I've always believed that all 'happenings' were caused by something. But at some point, things get kind of weird. Take the quantum world, for example. Things tend to happen without any reason. We have particles popping into and out of existence for no good reason. Maybe some day we will know, but not in the near future.

or other "thinkers" are known to get it right on the first try very often. But, they always seem to gather a following no matter how bone headed the thought or conclusion. In their line of work the money might not be good but the job security is hard to beat.

quantum mechanics can explain the big bang or emergence of the universe.

That sounds like a resort to magic. Poof! It's here now.

perhaps you have an explanation for the origin of the universe.
"no, i don't need one....knowing the origin of the universe won't put off the day i die, money in the bank or guarantee that my grandchildren will live full and happy lives"

The big bang began time.
"disputable theory"

It had a cause. What was it?

"who cares?"

.,