anotherneil
Well-Known Member
I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:
No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"I wonder if things would add up to explain this if they used the premise that there is no start to the universe:
I don't follow Kaku's work that much, and I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. Can you post something that provides more about it?No need, it is Michio Kauku sp? who I am not terribly fond of as a speaker for science overstating the early red shift findings from the JWT which were stated much more tentatively by others. Move forward a while and the seemingly anomalous readings were just 'seemingly"
Another example of bad science presentation in the news.
Note I only watched the first 30 seconds but I am not a fan of this guy but fairly sure that is the story.
She is much better than Michio but presents for a more knowledgeable audience.Same with this one - I wonder if things would add up to explain this if she used the premise that there is no start to the universe:
If I understand correctly, I think what she's saying is that something is making it appear as though we're at the exact center of the known universe, which is a coincidence with mathematically impossible odd, meaning that this is an incorrect assessment to make about the universe.She is much better than Michio but presents for a more knowledgeable audience.
As for no start, I'm not sure what you mean but this seems to all be based on data and models of the post singularity universe and what led to the singularity should not actually matter.
As for the other video, I will watch it later, apparently it is a more recent surprise that I am not familiar with.
I think that the universe has always existed, which is probably a concept that some might find challenging to grasp.
That's the "Steady State Theory", which has been disproven.
The latter.Disproven as per theoretical physical or through actual observation?
From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.That's the "Steady State Theory", which has been disproven.
From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.
Show me a source that says this, and show me a source that this has been disproven.The SST posits that the universe was always roughly the same size, which is counter to the Big Bang Theory.
From what I understand, the "Steady State Theory" (SST) is something else from what I'm saying; the SST says that the universe is expanding, but instead of by thing moving farther away from each other, it's matter that's being created in empty regions of space that are farther out. That's not what I'm saying.
The SST posits that the universe was always roughly the same size, which is counter to the Big Bang Theory.
The notion of more than one universe simply sounds like a contradiction. It's like saying a 1 that is greater than 1.It’s fair to say both right, potentially. The Steady State and Big Bang theories evolved together, and for a time both had their adherents. When the first piece of empirical evidence in support of the BB - the redshifting of distant galaxies - was observed by Edwin Hubble, efforts were made to rescue the SST. Albert Einstein, who’s own equations led back to the singularity associated with the BB, was himself involved in the doomed attempt to revive SST.
Further extremely valuable and convincing evidence for the BB came with the discover of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. The Big Bang became the Standard Model, and the steady state went in the bin.
This does not resolve the issue of whether the universe actually had a beginning, or what if anything might have preceded it. Part of the issue here is, What do we mean by The Universe? Most astronomers are referring to the observable universe when using the term; philosophers and some cosmologists use the term Universe to mean the totality of everything, not ruling out the probability of other universes, past present and future, and some infinite and eternal universe in which our own may exist as a transient pocket or bubble.
The notion of more than one universe simply sounds like a contradiction. It's like saying a 1 that is greater than 1.
I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.No, it is different defintions of what the universe is.
But I have never seen any evidence for what the universe is. Only different defintions.
I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.
Can you say gay?I know what you're saying, but the word itself is structured on a prefix ("uni-") that means 1. It's one thing to agree on (or disagree about) the definition of a word, but in this case it's already built into the word itself.