I'm pretty sure there's no god now

[Ben Dhyan]

This is false. The entire universe emitted the CMBR in every direction. So we suspect to find it everywhere. As explained before, the early universe was extremely dense and hot. The CMBR is the leftover heat. They weren't even microwaves at the time. They were gamma rays.


I think the word "background" in CMBR might be confusing you. The CMBR isn't just in the background. It's everywhere. You're touching it right now, as am I.

Remember, the CMBR is light. You can't see light until it hits your eyes. So if we're able to see any CMBR right now from every direction, it can only mean it's everywhere. Galaxies don't exist between us and the CMBR. Rather, galaxies exist between us and the CMBR's origin point. If you see light from a galaxy, that light is hitting your eyes. So the light it self at that moment isn't billions of light years away, but that's how far it traveled. If you see CMBR, that means CMBR is hitting your eyes. It's not 13+ billions of light years away, but that's how far it traveled before hitting your eyes.

When you see CMBR, you're seeing where it WAS, not where it is. Where it IS is in your eyes, which is why you see it.

False? I can understand your doubt, for I can't imagine how in a universe that s 13.8 billions years old.....something could be 46 billion light years away.....but please explain why Fraser Cain of Universe Today says this.......

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the very edge of the observable Universe is about 13.8 billion light-years away. This light left the Universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old, and only now has finally reached us. What’s even stranger, the place that emitted that radiation is now 46 billion light-years away from us.... http://www.universetoday.com/119226/how-far-back-are-we-looking-in-time/

Yes, I understand that CMBR is now omnipresent for the original 'light' has had time to reach us...and everywhere.....and in the process has been red shifted to microwave frequencies... Those early galaxies that followed must be all over the sky.....not in any one direction.... For when we look at the sky...we are looking back in time in every direction so we should see these extremely red shifted galaxies everywhere...and the nearer less red shifted would not....as we then get to the relatively near and they take up specific relative positions... I didn't explain that well but I hope you understand the idea....

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you imagine spacetime evolving or changing in any way? At what rate is it changing? What clocks do you use to measure its rate of change?

Yes, I can imagine that dimensions that we consider to be linear are really not, if we took a big slice. Rather like a minute arc of a circle would appear to be a straight line, but on examining a longer arc we discover that it really is not

If you think there was a moment in time when the Universe began, then there should be a place where it began. Where did it begin? Can you pinpoint a place in space where the universe started?

It doesn't deeply concern me what 'quantities' (or measurements) represent a beginning or an end.. I know that my life is likely to end soon, and that is more relevant. What will happen then? I hope something good, but I will have to wait and see..

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

False? I can understand your doubt, for I can't imagine how in a universe that s 13.8 billions years old.....something could be 46 billion light years away.....but please explain why Fraser Cain of Universe Today says this.......

It's because the universe has expanded since the time the light left. When the light left, the space between that point and Earth's future position was significantly less than 13.8 billion light years. But that space was expanding during the light's travel in such a way that it took 13.8 billion years for that light to catch up to Earth's position. The moment we see it, we see that that light's origin point was (but is not currently) 13.8 billion light years away. But at this very moment, the origin is significantly farther.

Since the light left, the light's origin point has also moved in the opposite direction. That's why it's so far away.

In other words, when we see 13.8 billion year old light, we're seeing where the origin point was. But since we know space is expanding ,we extrapolate that the origin point it self is also moving in the opposite direction getting further and further away from us.

Think of it like this. Say you live in New York, and I live in Los Angeles (which I actually do). The distance between these two cities is 3940 km. I leave Los Angeles and head for New York, but the space between them is expanding. By the time I get to New York, my travel distance is greater than 3940 km. Let's say it's twice that. So my travel distance is 7880 km. You might extrapolate from that that L.A. is currently 7880 km, but there's more to it than that. When I left, L.A. also started moving in the opposite direction. So L.A. would have to be at a distance significantly greater than 7880 km.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's because the universe has expanded since the time the light left. When the light left, the space between that point and Earth's future position was significantly less than 13.8 billion light years. But that space was expanding during the light's travel in such a way that it took 13.8 billion years for that light to catch up to Earth's position. The moment we see it, we see that that light's origin point was (but is not currently) 13.8 billion light years away. But at this very moment, the origin is significantly farther.

Since the light left, the light's origin point has also moved in the opposite direction. That's why it's so far away.

In other words, when we see 13.8 billion year old light, we're seeing where the origin point was. But since we know space is expanding ,we extrapolate that the origin point it self is also moving in the opposite direction getting further and further away from us.

Yeah...well that's the theory anyway.. Have you read this article about the difference between the big bang singularity and black hole singularities....interesting but again...there is so much conjecture....

If you took the mass and energy of the entire Universe and turned it into a black hole, it would have almost the exact same density as the Universe itself, and an event horizon larger than the observable Universe.

So does that mean that we are, in fact, living inside a black hole? Could we tell the difference?

http://www.universetoday.com/127347/was-the-big-bang-just-a-black-hole/

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yeah...well that's the theory anyway.. Have you read this article about the difference between the big bang singularity and black hole singularities....interesting but again...there is so much conjecture....

If you took the mass and energy of the entire Universe and turned it into a black hole, it would have almost the exact same density as the Universe itself, and an event horizon larger than the observable Universe.

So does that mean that we are, in fact, living inside a black hole? Could we tell the difference?

http://www.universetoday.com/127347/was-the-big-bang-just-a-black-hole/

I haven't read that article in particular, but I've heard the idea of the Big Bang being a black hole before.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm pretty sure there's no god now

Does one mean that there was G-d in the past that one believed in? Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

but I've heard the idea of the Big Bang being a black hole before.

That's is correct.

And in no way is ben right about anything in his reply.

He makes a claim against density when reality is we cannot say. He is trying to define a singularity when a definition does not exist.


There is no difference between a black hole singularity or any other singularity. Another name for a singularity is "we don't know"

FROM HIS OWN ARTICLE

Was the Big Bang singularity just a really big black hole singularity? A black hole with all the mass of the Universe inside it?

I’m going to admit, this question is a little beyond my paygrade.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's is correct.

And in no way is ben right about anything in his reply.

He makes a claim against density when reality is we cannot say. He is trying to define a singularity when a definition does not exist.


There is no difference between a black hole singularity or any other singularity. Another name for a singularity is "we don't know"

FROM HIS OWN ARTICLE

Was the Big Bang singularity just a really big black hole singularity? A black hole with all the mass of the Universe inside it?

I’m going to admit, this question is a little beyond my paygrade.

The question I am regularly raising with big bang believers about the singularity is not the definition...but the question of its very existence. I agree with Andromeda who accept that there had to be some form of preexistence associated with it. While on the other hand there are some who believe the singularity has no preexistence associated with it...that is all. So what do you find wrong with that?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Let the peace last until there is no further room to expand ;-)

 

[outhouse]

I agree with Andromeda who accept that there had to be some form of preexistence associated with it.

It depends how it is worded in context.

preexistence where exactly? and we just do not know.

It did not exist in our time or space that was created with the expansion.

I want to claim the same, that the singularity existed in another time and space.

If you took the mass and energy of the entire Universe and turned it into a black hole, it would have almost the exact same density as the Universe itself,

This is incorrect.

Density is unknown. But by laws of gravity there may be no space, and all matter broken down into an unknown form of extreme density only found in other singularities

It does not have the density as the universe itself or gravity would not function based on mass.

and an event horizon larger than the observable Universe.

Impossible

a singularity is compacted matter

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It depends how it is worded in context.

preexistence where exactly? and we just do not know.

It did not exist in our time or space that was created with the expansion.

I want to claim the same, that the singularity existed in another time and space.

There is only one universe....if the singularity existed in another time or space...it is still the same universe as this time and space. And thus this big bang expansion in this time and space was preceded by the singularity in another time and space...

This is incorrect.

Density is unknown. But by laws of gravity there may be no space, and all matter broken down into an unknown form of extreme density only found in other singularities

It does not have the density as the universe itself or gravity would not function based on mass.

It is not I who is incorrect.....I was only quoting the Fraser Cain of Universe Today from his article here..... http://www.universetoday.com/127347/was-the-big-bang-just-a-black-hole/.

Just scroll down to the bottom of the article to find the quote..."If you took the mass and energy of the entire Universe and turned it into a black hole, it would have almost the exact same density as the Universe itself, and an event horizon larger than the observable Universe."

Impossible

a singularity is compacted matter

The same applies as above...the explanation is coming from Universe Today at the link above....

if you want to challenge the claim, .....you may contact him here.....http://www.universetoday.com/248/contact-me/

 

[viole]

I'm pretty sure there's no god now

Does one mean that there was G-d in the past that one believed in? Please
Regards

No. It means that he is pretty sure now.

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

No. It means that he is pretty sure now.
Ciao
- viole

May be his thoughts are different.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
I'm pretty sure there's no god now

Does one mean that there was G-d in the past that one believed in? Please
Regards

No. It means that he is pretty sure now.
Ciao
- viole

You mean first he believed in God, then without reason he started not-believing and much later now he is in utter confusion. Right? Please
Regards

 

[outhouse]

There is only one universe....

YOU do not know that. No one does

....if the singularity existed in another time or space...it is still the same universe as this time and space

False factually.

Our space and time was created with the expansion

Fraser Cain

Then he has the unsubstantiated problem.

Its still quote mining by you for content to meet your personal needs here

if you want to challenge the claim, .....you may contact him here.....

I don't need to defend my opinion. YOU quote mined it.

And it remains unsubstantiated

 

[Ben Dhyan]

YOU do not know that. No one does


False factually.

Our space and time was created with the expansion


Then he has the unsubstantiated problem.

Its still quote mining by you for content to meet your personal needs here


I don't need to defend my opinion. YOU quote mined it.

And it remains unsubstantiated

The prefix uni in universe means one...if there is a multiverse...then that is the universe....if there are infinite dimensions of space and time....then that is the universe...

The concept of space and time is just that....a concept to represent a universal reality...

Haha......Universe Today is a respected astronomy science source and he is a respected astronomy journalist...your remark is unsubstantiated rhetoric. Your credibility is on the line...contact him if you think he is in error...

Haha....quote mined it...that's laughable... I posted it in the context of an exchange with Andromeda.... The outhouse with his usual lack of reading comprehension instinctively attacked it thinking it was my statement....and put his foot in his mouth... Now when he has egg all over his face...and then he attacks me for quote mining...as if I caused his problem....

 

[outhouse]

if there is a multiverse...then that is the universe....

You cannot explain that, it doesn't work that way.

 

[outhouse]

The outhouse with his usual lack of reading comprehension instinctively attacked it thinking it was my statement....and put his foot in his mouth... Now when he has egg all over his face...and then he attacks me for quote mining...as if I caused his problem

I have already refuted this. You may be looking in a mirror


FROM HIS OWN ARTICLE

Was the Big Bang singularity just a really big black hole singularity? A black hole with all the mass of the Universe inside it?

I’m going to admit, this question is a little beyond my paygrade.

 

[paarsurrey]

The topic of the thread <I'm pretty sure there's no god now>suggests:

With due respect.
The OP first he believed in God, then without reason he started not-believing in Him and much later, "now" he is in utter confusion. Right? Please correct me If I am wrong.
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have already refuted this. You may be looking in a mirror


FROM HIS OWN ARTICLE

Was the Big Bang singularity just a really big black hole singularity? A black hole with all the mass of the Universe inside it?

I’m going to admit, this question is a little beyond my paygrade.

But now you are contradicting yourself....you said it was beyond your pay grade...but then said the part I quoted was wrong and unsubstantiated... Why do you say it is unsubstantiated if you admit it is beyond your paygrade....do you fully understand the article?