I'm too dumb to be an atheist

[pocaracas]

Actually, a wormhole would do nicely!

And... age of Universe and distance don't correlate too much, in spite of what I may have hinted earlier... can't remember if it was on this thread.
Early expansion was supposedly faster than light, so it is possible that the Universe is larger than older (light years across and years of light traveling from distant stars)

[Jackalope]

JL1 still here then...?

He tried. I supposed.

He's reading.... give him time...

You know, I didn't give him much credit when he first got here. He's at least trying to understand an opposing view now, and wherever that takes him, he will be richer for it.

[pocaracas]

He's reading.... give him time...

You know, I didn't give him much credit when he first got here. He's at least trying to understand an opposing view now, and wherever that takes him, he will be richer for it.

Wise words.

[Zen Badger]

Is an equal problem to beginnings > what's at the edge of the universe? It can't be infinite. If it goes to nothing, is nothing an area to measure? If it's something, is that a solid default state? If it folds back onto itself and is also the opposite end of the universe, are we in a bubble like rupture?

Our main problem is that we think that we are at the center of the universe. People look out and say that the edge is 13.7 billion light years from us. So that puts us at an imaginary center. It should be obvious that from diameter edge to diameter edge the distance is really 27.4 billion light years. Now if someone on the edge looks in the opposite direction he might see another 27.4 billion light years, which would make him in the center, and so forth for infinity.

If Nothing creates strings which evolve into quantum foam and forth to hydrogen and stars and galaxies the size of the universe could be 1 trillion gazillion light years in size and still growing. Right now we are where people were before the 1920s. We think that what we can see is all there is. We just need better eyes.

That's why it is referred to as the observable universe.
No one actually thinks we are at the centre of the universe(apart from the theists that is)

[rsb]

I am not sure gravitational lensing is exactly the same as a gravity wave, if it was then observations in the early part of the last century would have resolved it.

I never said it was...
Gravitational lensing is a piece of evidence for general relativity.
Nothing in general relativity states that there is such a thing as a gravitational wave, as far as I'm aware...

So sorry I don't believe you and think it is important to hunt for gravity waves.

What's with you and these gravitational waves?...

But as I understand it there are many, many closely equivalent theories which would be consistent with what we have observed.

Care to share them?

The elegance or beauty of a model is not evidence for it's reality. Until we observe it, we don't have direct evidence. There is no reason to treat science differently than other questions and every reason to hunt for proton decay and gravity waves and keep an open mind.

Exotic stuff tends not to get much funding...
If, during standard funded experiments, there is something that hints towards those exotic phenomena, then funding appears... until then, they remain scribblings with little value and no one to accept them as science.

No the visitors center at the grand canyon DOES NOT support Noah

Whew! For a moment, you had me worried.

, have you been there?

No, It's a bit out of my way... as I'd need to cross an ocean to get there.
For what? a fissure in the ground? I've seen it on tv.... does that count?

There are discussions of radioactive dating of the strata

You know how the YECs argue with this?... "how do you know radioactive decay worked according to your exponential decay law, millions of years ago?"
"Things worked way way faster in the past... that's how you arrive at very old ages, when they should be, at most, 6000 years"

and observed erosion rates. It is glaringly obvious that there are hundreds of thousands of years of history there and a flood is not consistent with any of it. Also observe the behavior of tar under even slight water pressure. It would NOT have sealed any cracks in the doomed box that the alleged god, Creator of the universe and all powerful, needed a man to make for him. So no, Noah is obviously BS to anyone with even a slightly functioning brain.

Noah?
Oh, you mean Gilgamesh, or was it Atrahasis?... yes, I agree...

As for theory and definitions like that, there are shades of grey and uncertainty in science. It does not help to pretend there are not. Nor does a theory being supported by evidence mean that all theories are equally true. You really have to talk about specifics. We don't need the first few seconds of the big bang to prove or disprove any theology, they are not necessary for support of atheism, they are often obscuring more important things, like the simple science present at the visitors center of the grand canyon.

Indeed, science is not necessary to support anyone's atheism.
But it helps to answer some of the burning questions that the theists like to claim that their god-did-it.

If you supply an alternative explanation, the requirement for a god shrinks in scope.

OR the fact that you knew about magnetic monopoles and I didn't could prove you are really the voice of athiesmo, great sky god of atheists.

Oh, thank you for your recognition.
I dub thee, knight of the atheismistic graal!

Working backwards, HA I knew god was hiding as athiesmo to test our faith and courage in seeking the truth, I will not let you down my liege and slaughter all those who do not con... wait sorry overreacting, ha ha that was funny.

It is NOT an "alternative" explanation, their explanation is utter self serving fraudulent and/or retarded bs and mine is my sincere though humanly flawed and perhaps slightly less retarded (I am not guaranteeing that point) faithful attempt at speaking truth. The grand canyon visitors center is faithful the story of Noah is a lie.

And no things (specifically nuclear reactions) did not work way faster in the past, we see the past at he speed of light and spectroscopy works very well thank you and the math all supports almost 100 year old models of nuclear interaction, for over 10 billion years of observed history. Additionally see the range below this is a really educational topic have at it! You WILL find the truth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...ntasy.html

http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometri...ccurate/3/

no I think gravity waves were predicted by general relativity, and the whole topic is like looking into a black hole, there are no ripples or imperfections, it is just to perfect, and to inconsistent with absolutely everything else in our universe to make any sense. Only in thought experiments do we see any new information and they are all very confusing. We don't even know if antimatter weighs a positive or negative weight. I must conclude god is actually hiding in gravity, not athiesmo religiosity.

---

So everyone is pointing out concepts of infinity and the universe and the size of the universe at the bang.

I have a much simpler mind blowing question. In all the limits of the universe, time, space, all other dimensions, does the universe include it's boundary or just go right up to the edge of it's boundary. Inquiring minds want to know!

Is delta x delta p greater than or equal, or just greater than, plancks constant.
EDIT (I just realized that another possibility is that there is an infinitesimal on the other side, that is plancks constant is smaller, but not equal to all the deltas in the universe. That somehow seems more aesthetically pleasing and is consistent with a variable planck's constant or even further equations)

Wow I don't even really understand that limit, let alone it's interaction with theories of infinity and boundary problems.

What does god say on the subject?

[Alex K]

he might see another 27.4 billion light years, which would make him in the center, and so forth for infinity.

Exactly, except that in the usual convention it is now about twice that because the pieces of the path already traversed by the light then got expanded after that...

[rsb]

he might see another 27.4 billion light years, which would make him in the center, and so forth for infinity.

Exactly, except that in the usual convention it is now about twice that because the pieces of the path already traversed by the light then got expanded after that...

Except if you prove a bang, or provide evidence for a bang, that does not matter. The following set of possibilities pretty much encompass all that is left to explain.

The universe has a bang and the time is known, or it was beyond the alleged bang and then we don't know.

The universe was a point, or a slightly larger point not including zero, or bigger, or even infinite at the bang. Stuff happened after.

Bottom line, the observable universe limits don't mater in the scope of the big bang. You have to observe new physics or evidence for new physics.

I LOVE the observable universe, and will not speculate beyond that.

[Alex K]

Meesa no understand bang bang whole universe Big badaboom. Baadaaboom.

[rsb]

Meesa no understand bang bang whole universe Big badaboom. Baadaaboom.

Well there is the simple matter of singularities.

When did singularities arise?

If the universe was a singularity fine, are we still inside it?

Hawking's stuff is cool until you realize it is way more stupid than paulings semi classical quantum numerical analysis, and way less successful in producing an exact mathematical model of all we observe.

Just how did the universe grow out of a black hole, and how soon after that did it contain black holes? Or just waive your hands and make arguments on symmetric math or properties of algebras without any observational experiments.

Yessa me not understand BS me not want to eat it either, sorry.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

He's reading.... give him time...

You know, I didn't give him much credit when he first got here. He's at least trying to understand an opposing view now, and wherever that takes him, he will be richer for it.

This is true. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't gone the same path.

Very true.