The Universe Always Was Existing

[The Sum of Awe]

While it isn't incorrect to say that, since you cannot measure time from something timeless, I am curious on whether or not you believe in the expansion of the universe, if so, how does it not contradict?

 

[Sees]

The things people have observed are moving away from each other but does it really, technically mean the universe is expanding? Where is the stuff going? It's too simplistic to picture a tiny dot blowing up/out like a balloon as some people do. There isn't any wall or edge observed to be moving and there isn't any reason to think of the big bang as a true The Beginning.

 

[Pegg]

While it isn't incorrect to say that, since you cannot measure time from something timeless, I am curious on whether or not you believe in the expansion of the universe, if so, how does it not contradict?

um, it is incorrect to say that.

The universe has not always existed and science has well and truly established that fact.

 

[Sees]

um, it is incorrect to say that.

The universe has not always existed and science has well and truly established that fact.

Not even close...

 

[shawn001]

Hubble proved in the 1920s of course.

Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever
by Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com Assistant Managing Editor

"American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble first discovered that our universe isn't static in the 1920s. In fact, Hubble found, space has been expanding since it began with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Then, in the 1990s, astronomers shocked the world again with the revelation that this expansion is speeding up (this discovery won its finders the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics).

Ever since Hubble's initial discovery, scientists have been trying to refine their measurement of the universe's expansion rate, called the Hubble Constant. It's a hard measurement to make.

The new value reduces the uncertainty in the Hubble Constant to just 3 percent, and improves the precision of the measurement by a factor of 3 compared to a previous estimate from the Hubble Space Telescope."

Speed of Universe's Expansion Measured Better Than Ever | Hubble Constant | Spitzer | Space.com

A static universe is not possible.

 

[shawn001]

Not only that but in 2003 we scientist took

"NASA RELEASES STUNNING IMAGES OF OUR INFANT UNIVERSE

NASA today released the best "baby picture" of the Universe ever taken; the image contains such stunning detail that it may be one of the most important scientific results of recent years.

Scientists using NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), during a sweeping 12-month observation of the entire sky, captured the new cosmic portrait, capturing the afterglow of the big bang, called the cosmic microwave background."


"One of the biggest surprises revealed in the data is the first generation of stars to shine in the universe first ignited only 200 million years after the big bang, much earlier than many scientists had expected.

In addition, the new portrait precisely pegs the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years old, with a remarkably small one percent margin of error."

"The light we see today, as the cosmic microwave background, has traveled over 13 billion years to reach us. Within this light are infinitesimal patterns that mark the seeds of what later grew into clusters of galaxies and the vast structure we see all around us.

Patterns in the big bang afterglow were frozen in place only 380,000 years after the big bang, a number nailed down by this latest observation. "

WMAP 1 Year Mission Results Press Release

 

[oldbadger]

While it isn't incorrect to say that, since you cannot measure time from something timeless, I am curious on whether or not you believe in the expansion of the universe, if so, how does it not contradict?

Hi...Sum!

The question is:- Was the Universe always existing? Correct?

Yes.... the Universe always existed, or, at least, the matter and force within it. I do not believe that either of these can be eliminated, only changed or transferred.

Transferred..... that has probably been happening for all time, maybe counted in trillions of our years (timeless ?) and now many astronomers, physicists and other scientists are beginning to debate multi-verses and universe creation from Super Black Holes.

Our Universe is expanding...... may or may not continue to, but it almost certainly is not the only one, since astronomers have been observing clusters of galaxies moving in unexpected directions, suggesting great attractions beyond the range of our universe.

At this time scientists' opinions are so varied and contentious that your bet has as much chance of winning as any other.....

 

[Sees]

Even "sciencey" articles confuse local observable universe with Universe....helping fuel the excitement of Creation doctrine holders.

Local observable universe isn't The Universe and the Big Bang of the local observable universe doesn't in any way make The Beginning.

The "fact" term is all types of raped and abused in discussion of this stuff.

 

[Pegg]

Even "sciencey" articles confuse local observable universe with Universe....helping fuel the excitement of Creation doctrine holders.

Local observable universe isn't The Universe and the Big Bang of the local observable universe doesn't in any way make The Beginning.

The "fact" term is all types of raped and abused in discussion of this stuff.

an eternal universe is like believing in a flat earth... its factually wrong to believe either

 

[sandandfoam]

I believe that concepts of beginning and end reveal something about the nature of our minds. Nothing more.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. since you cannot measure time from something timeless, ..

Barring the unknown first 1x10 raised to -43 seconds, all evidence points to it.

.. there isn't any reason to think of the big bang as a true The Beginning.

The Sum of Awe did not ask about the true beginning.

The universe has not always existed and science has well and truly established that fact.

We do not know whether the universe always existed or not. Science has not yet spoken on it.

 

[Iti oj]

The big bang is the start of time/space not the universe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One does not know. Inflation obscures it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The big bang is the start of time/space not the universe.

What universe exists without either of those?

 

[Contemplative Cat]

MU; a dualistic answer cannot or should not be given...

 

[Iti oj]

What universe exists without either of those?

The singularity,

edited to fix spelling.

 

[shawn001]

Everything we look at is looking back in time. Even someone sitting right in front of you. The suns light takes 8 minutes to reach us. The nearest star and the farthest galaxy or star we see because we are looking back in time. A light year.

The CMB light took 13.7 billion years to reach us.

We are also seeing galaxies collide as they expand outward.

Current measurements of the observable universe shows it is expanding faster then light. Not the matter in it but space itself.

The Doppler Effect and blue shift and red shift.

Origins: Hubble: Tools: Doppler Effect & Redshift | Exploratorium

 

[shawn001]

Hubble Telescope Reveals Farthest View Into Universe Ever

The XDF goes even farther, peering back 13.2 billion years into the universe's past.

http://www.space.com/17755-farthest-universe-view-hubble-space-telescope.html

Even those galaxies we see billions of years in the past have evolved into bigger galaxies with collisions and some into super clusters.

 

[metis]

The cosmologists that I have read are not certain the universe will continually expand even though the rate of expansion is still increasing. Some feel it's possible to have a Big Crunch, as it's called, whereas the universe might eventually slow down and begin to contract.

Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB since most do believe there was likely something prior to it, and mathematical models point in the direction of our universe being smaller than a present-day atom before expansion. Also, we need to remember that we may well be part of a multiverse.

 

[Sees]

The cosmologists that I have read are not certain the universe will continually expand even though the rate of expansion is still increasing. Some feel it's possible to have a Big Crunch, as it's called, whereas the universe might eventually slow down and begin to contract.

Technically, it is not assumed by cosmologists that the universe began with the BB since most do believe there was likely something prior to it, and mathematical models point in the direction of our universe being smaller than a present-day atom before expansion. Also, we need to remember that we may well be part of a multiverse.

Yep...and there are theories with less "problems" than the singularity with a big freeze.

They have no certainty or facts really understanding the big bang, what the hell dark energy is, where it came from, will it's force lessen or dissipate, etc. How old the Universe is and that big crunch is ruled out are repeated in the articles for whatever reason. Uncertainty doesn't sell to common folks?

Big bounce theories and several others...what we know as the local, observable universe could be like a very small island compared to the whole earth in comparison to the Universe.

30 years from now what is most accepted and taught will be different.