Big Bang

I am not mixing up science and religion I mean that scientists are people as anybody else
Well it is a matter of fact that most of the scientists nowadays are not religious people
However there is an important issue related to my original question :
In the 19° century most of the phisics were atheists while most of bio's , Darwin included,were theist
For obvious reasons, I suppose
Nowadays it is the direct opposite
It is hard to find a religious biochemic while there are a lot of phisics who beleive in God

It is hard to find a religious biochemic while there are a lot of phisics who beleive in God

i wonder where you got that theory from.
its not true. a lot of scientists are religious. biologist or physics.

a nice idea about the "start of the univers" is the definition of existence.

for example our eyes can only see moving objects.
to be able to get input our eyes are moving very fast every second. so as soon as everything would stop or freeze we wouldnt see anything anymore.

now imagine the same sheme for "existence". we are because we move. if we stop we are no more.
so maybe like the infitity for time there is the infinity for possibilities and our existence is not defined by a time value but by the fact that we and our universe move corresponding to be able to exist within an infinitive web of "movements".

my biggest problem with the "creation" theory is the reason why. all of this "god created the time and the earth aso" sounds to me like somone got bored and decided to build something.

before arguing if god created everything i would like to know "why should he had done it?". and "becasue he is almighty" is not an acceptable argument.

if someone is almighty why create somehing so unimportant like physical existence.
ist any spiritual goal to lose the bounds of this existence to enter a universal level.
so if someone is allready at the finish line, why bothering to build a new start?

cheers

When the big bang actually occured, well we can use the following as a great example of how it expanded.

For instance, take an unbaked chocolate chip cookie (yum...) for example. Prior to it being baked, you have a small area with chocolate chips in it (all within a small area). However, when you shove that delicious cookie in the oven the entire area expands, as well as the chocolate chips move apart from one another. Now as a final product you have a multiple of more room since it was baked (more area), and your chocolate chips are spread out moreso than from the start.
**This is my artistic, ha, illustration of what I'm talking about**

In a way this is how our universe works too. Instead of the oven stopping though, so far it just keeps on expanding and hasn't stopped yet. So every day our universe is gradually getting bigger and giving more room for other galaxies to move further and further apart (and sometimes maybe even collide) but they are given more freedom room to move.

great, now i want some cookies.
damn universe

Hey now, it was the best example I could think of for this situation. I think it was a mighty tastey idea though!!

Maybe someday universe will disappear, like cookie

Mmmmmmm... Yummy
Sorry for your universe ISG, oops i mean cookie, it was so tempting and tasty , i couldn't resist.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

what does it matter?

god can't be proven, god can't be disproven.
what IS true is that

1. science admits when it's got something wrong, where as religion and the 'faithful' will violate even their own laws of thier faith then admit they made a mistake.

2. scienists doesn't spend much of there efforts trying to disprove religion, in fact they spend much time learning and understanding relgion and it/thier histories from an object, unbiased viewpoint.
relgion and follows of such expend a great deal of effort trying to eliminate science as a whole, sheerly on the permise of "I don't see how..." statements clearly self evidant that no effort has been put forward to attaempt to understand the material with an 'un-opinionated' viewpoint

3. science has not been the source point for wars, conflicts and attocities. Scince though ends up being the tools of war.
Religion though has throughout history ( even today) been a significate source for war, violant conflict and attrocities to be committed.


Religion has had more of a negative impact on humans, humanity, and human history then any positive one. so why 'should' people belive in anymore.

science and religion or better said philosophy in general (since its more then "just" religion) are not contra productive nor do they exclude each other at all.

science can build a nuke but cant answer the "why".
on the other hand philosophy tries to get an answer to this while it cant answer the "how".

though both are vital to get a satisifying result at the end.


if you believe in god is a matter of definition. a bearded old man sitting in the clouds, i dont think so.
the one who snips with his fingers (why does god need fingers if he is almighty??) and creates everything, doesnt sound reasonable at all.
a kind of individual power or "force" that makes everything more worth then the sum of all its components - maybe.

you can build a microwave and as a scientific result you have built a microwave.
in the same time you can build a microwave to feed people who cant pay lot for food and you have built more then just a microwave.
its simple math. sience+philosophy=2 and this is more then just 1

personaly i dont believe in organized religions but i believe in religion as in "the way you decide to live your life". and by this i dont mean if you pray or do certain tasks aso.
its the way you treat everyone else arround you.

if you make your life more worth then the sum of days you lived then you can call yourself a "believer". simply because you believe that there is more then you can think of. and everyting is worth more then you could ever imagine.

does this answer anything about the big bang?! no, definitely not. and thats the most important part about it.

the spiritual soul is a philosophical issue 100% and has nothing to do with science at all. so i dont see the connection.

-->..Then you glue the two pieces togheter the microrganism starts living again..

i also dont see how this proofs or disproofs a soul in any way. since its not scientific it cant be done this way to start with.

if you cut a finger from a human being he still can live and he still can have his soul. if you transplant all his inner organs its the same. even if his brain fails to work anymore this doesnt mean he is dead nor does it mean he loses his "sould" from the spiritual view.
as the tobacco virus i dont see any connection here.


-->..Classic philosophy we have been taught at school claim that there are animal and human kind of souls

i havent heared that so far. nor do have other ancient cultures like native amaricans, greeks aso. the spirit and sould within any living creature is part of the whole system of existence.
take the native americans or indian (the presenst country india)...their religion sets the "soul" and spirit of animals equal to the humans. reincarnation as an animal is an honor and their spirits are vital parts of their lives.
the represent human attitiudes like strenghts, wisedom aso.


-->..Getting better to the big bang however it is in favour of the existence of a creator, in my opinion..

the problem starts with the simple slogan "i WANT to believe!". even if we ever find strong and unchangable facts for a cosmical big bang and the absence of some creator, this will never stop sentences like "yes, but god faked all of this that way so he can keep unnoticable".

right now creationist use this same analogy with age dating methods or the ange of the earth in general. this is no argument at all and cant be prooved or disprooved so its not scientific in the first place.

religion is a matter of believe and science a matter of facts. but you will need both at the same time to make one of them work.

a spiritual mind without knowledge is lost as well as the smartest mind is useless without a ethical/religious/spiritual (call it how you like) guide.


i think "and god created all mankind" should be rewritten into "and all mankind created god" (this is not ment negative at all!)
from the philosophical point of view that just means that all living forms are more then just biological, working constructions. believing into a higher level of existence then presence is the difference between us and a stone.

so whatever you do, whatever you investigate, try to create or invent is more then the fact that you can do it.

umm... wasn't this thread just about the universe....can we stay on topic?

i agree with phoemox's universal discription, it's infinate, although a human mind may not be able to understand that it is infinate, and that anything can be infinate, it is. you do not have to understand the universe for it to exist the way it does.

@3drichard: hey, that bite mark looks like mine...how did you get that cookie, i want it back.

we are on topic. the issue here is if science is euqual to philosophy. because if it is the creation of the universe is simple: some superpower dropped by and snipped with his fingers. viola.

the issue with the infinite universe has the problem that science shows that it is finite in space and time.
the issue is more if it is the only one or not and how the whole system works together.

Everything that can be seen from earth seems to be expanding.. but that doesnt mean somewhere there aren't other galactic superclusters that aren't expanding, or are expanding from another point.. etc. Cosmology has some inherent limitations; you can only predict what you cant see, not assume.

The idea that the Universe is just all that we can see from Earth is bound to be false.

WOAH
this just occured to me.
What happens if we're moving the speed of light
And another galaxy is too
and we're going the opposite direction?
Does the relative speed limit hold?
I can't believe I've never thought of that.
Since its late at night I can't even contemplate what it would mean if the speed limit holds.
If it doesn't that explains the galaxies faster then light, without and expanding space.

No, the relative speed limit does not hold in that case. In fact all galaxies further away than a certain distance (46 billion light years) are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

This is because the galaxies are not really moving, but the space is expanding. If you had two rockets moving away from each other, each one with almost the speed of light, their relative speed would not be greater than the speed of light.

Just some words more
Claiming :

We are moving...
We are going to opposite direction...

You assume the existence of the " Empty box " (The space) to which you refer yours and the other object's speed
Claiming

I am moving.....

We normaly mean ....relative to the ground
It easy to replace earth (ground) with a generic absolute coord system
It is what Newton did.
On the contrary it is hard to eliminate the "Absolute 3d Coord system "
Suppose for a while that universe disappears
Our intuition assume that as long as you we define a 3d ccord system then we can define a speed
But it is not Einstein's opinion
According to the theory of relativity,If matter does not exist also space and time do not exist

Maybe I did not make myself understood
MatthewAllen asked

we're moving the speed of light
And another galaxy is too
and we're going the opposite direction?
Does the relative speed limit hold?

I supposed MattheewAleen meant

If we are driving on the motorway and an other car is moving towards us at the same speed, then the other car is moving towards us at a double speed

Is it the same situation in case of a galaxi moving at the speed of the light towards the earth ?

Forget for a while the expansion of the universe
The answer is negative
The galaxi can not exceed the speed of the light

Why ?

Claiming ;
My car is driving at the speed : my.speed
The other car is moving at the speed : you.speed
It is implicit that we refer my.speed and you.speed to the same coord system :
The earth
In other words we can define :
- two relative coord system (the cars)
- one absolute coord system (The earth)

The question is :

Can we extend this concept to the whole universe ?

Common sense and and Newton say : yes, in theory it is possible


Einstein said : no, it is not possible neither in practice nor in theory

If MatthewAllen claim

The galaxi is moving at the speed...

Einstein would ask him

What coord system are you referring to ?

According to the theory of relativity only local coord systems make sense
It is not possible to define an absolute coord system

Same consideration as far as time is concerned

Thank you for your explanation It seems I agree with Einstein here, lol hahaha,

Cheers

One way to say a galaxy is moving in a expansion is that: "their lines were shifted to long wavelengths(to lower frequencies). If the redshift was due to the Doppler effect, they are moving away from the Milk Way, at speeds of up to a thousand kilometers per second". If its line is blueshifted it is moving toward us! But just Andromeda is moving toward us and the others galaxies are receding from each other in all directions!

If the universe is finite we will see the night bright and blue. If the universe is infinite the night would be bright, because is light forever!

But, the sky at night is dark, it means, the light coming from the infinity, is finite, its not have enought time to get here and bright the sky. The expansion of the universe was so fast, that light from other galaxies was overwelmed by the expansion!

Interesting, but you assume that light can travel a unlimited distance too, right?

Cheers