(September 15, 2012 at 1:43 pm)whateverist Wrote: I've watched this a couple times before but it was easy to watch again. So much to think about. However I don't see how the compression of all matter to a small dot would change time. The effects of time would be nonexistent because there would be no objects to observe and no observer to observe them anyway. That is still a far cry from saying there would be no time.Then to your question I must respond with, I haven't a clue. I don't know. That's the best I can give you. When it comes to trying to explain where the universe came from, I personally think Hawking's/Krauss's theory that the universe simply popped into existence is the correct one, however I maintain that it could be wrong and will adjust my views should it be the case.
Also this doesn't address my question about scale. How do we know that everything in what we call our universe that we can observe but which is visually walled off from whatever else there is or may be .. actually is all that there is? If on a larger scale there are big bang phenomena giving rise to universes like so many bubbles, then there is a before and after even to big bangs. Never mind that we don't have the longevity or perceptual powers to observe them. It could well be that our idea of a uni-verse is just a final vestige of our tendency to see ourselves as central.
Quote:Admittedly, I have no evidence for thinking there is anything beyond the extent of what we can observe but it boggles my imagination to imagine an end of space or a beginning of time. Physics tells us amazing things about what we can observe but there is no reason to overstate what we know. There no reason to conflate "what we can observe" with "all that there is" just because we have no evidence to the contrary.Don't think the theory that the universe popped into existence is taken as a known, it's based on observation and measurements. It has evidence. Which is why it's got my attention. If there is evidence for other universes and the like, then this theory needs to be rechecked.
Hopefully with advancing technologies, we'll have more data. So we can be more sure.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.