Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
We may not know what the universe is expanding into, whether it is nothing, intrinsic expansion or something else. But that does not mean we disregard the evidence that the universe is indeed expanding.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?
- Thread starter David Davidovich
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How do you know this?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No you did not. You assumed that a God has to exist. Let me quote your post for you:
"Because it couldn't exist unless G-d had created it, right, please?
Regards"
You would need to prove that the universe could not exist without a god of some sort You do not get to assume that.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Know what? The part you bolded was me saying we are not sure what the universe is expanding into or if that even means anything. If scientists do have good evidence for how this works then let me know.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How do astronomers know that the universe is expanding? By two ways. First there is General Relativity itself. Now I cannot do the math, but all of those that can do it will tell you that a consequence of it is that the universe is either expanding or contracting. We can determine that it is expanding due to the relative motion of distant galaxies. The observations confirm what General Relativity predicted.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, how do we observe that there is no time and space before the "Bing Bang"? Or is it derived from the math in the thoery?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are several models. But from my understanding there is not a "before the Big Bang" in most of them. We do not know this yet, but the math indicates it. More work in physics still needs to be done. The James Webb Telescope may answer some of these problems.
Here is the problem with the phrase "before the Big Bang", it may be nonsensical. The analogy often given is that of being "South of the South Pole". The phrase is nonsensical. Time and space may have begun with the Big Bang. Please note at this point there is no absolute clear model. But there are models that are better accepted than others. Scientists are keeping an open mind while trying to solve the problems.
The problem in this thread is that too many people are thinking using Newtonian Physics. Now that works fine on a medium scale. It is accurate enough to get us to the Moon and back. It is accurate enough for 99% of the situations that one runs into. But it fails when physics gets very small, or very large or very fast, or the very accurate. The last one is the most common one that you will run into. Newtonian Physics is "wrong" when it comes to GPS. Errors accumulate if one uses it. GPS systems have to account for both General and Special Relativity.
Let's get back to expansion of the universe. Thinking that the universe would have to expand into something is using Newtonian Physics and that physics does not apply at all when it comes to expansion. Relativity does not need a something else for the universe to expand into.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I get the problem of knowing if there is anything "outside or before" the universe. So how do you know the bold?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
As I said that is a mathematical conclusion. Relativity is sometimes in the realm of the purely mathematical. Though every time that scientists have been able to test the math with reality it has been confirmed. That does not mean that it will always be confirmed. If read the whole post instead of cherry picking one phrase you would have seen that I never claimed or implied that there is only one answer. This is still very much a work in progress.
What I am objecting to is people trying to use bad physics to refute Relativity. You cannot refute Relativity with Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics has already been shown to fail in the areas where Relativity applies. It will take something above Relativity to refute it. It could happen. But I would not hold my breath.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No problem. People on the science side sometimes make the error of thinking dogmatically for concepts that are not well settled yet. I have no problem pointing to what is very well supported by evidence and saying that I will accept it, since it clearly works in many ways. But I am also not going to say that is the only way that it can be. The use of analogies is never to say "It is exactly like this". They are used to say that "It works somewhat like this" with emphasis of only certain parts. People that are too literal will see that the balloon has to expand into something but that is where the analogy no longer holds.Thanks for your answer.
Right, no evidence just guess snd leap of faith.
Science does not prove anything, that is not the remit of science.
Cosmology considers this universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. If it had a beginning at a measurable time in the past it cannot possibly be infinite or eternal.
Where did you find your logic, on a cornflakes packet?
It is possible that an infinite number of universes exist in a multiverse, though a finite number has been calculated at 10^10^16 universes we can recognise as universes with our human brains and 10^10^10^7 that we could not recognise.Though very large numbers, finite is not infinite.
It also hypothesised that this universe is the only universe and it creates its own space as it expands. Therefore again not infinite.
I know several other hypothesis but one thing is sure, what, if anything beyond our universe is unknown and can only be guessed at.
Last edited:
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
To assume finitude to existence is to assume that non existence actually exists. Finite has ends. I'm distinguishing between universe and existence.
How does anything exist without space to exist in?
Very interesting, thank you!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Space already existed. The space merely expanded. You are using Newtonian physics when you shouldn't be.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Then space always existed and is merely expanding. No beginning to space and time perhaps.
Yes, finite has ends, that does not imply there is anything outside the finite, to say otherwise is just a guess made assuming the fundamental laws governing this universe exist outside this universe.
I said "created its own space". Actually that was a typo that has been fixed, created should have read creates.
Several hypothesis suggest that time began with the bb.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Which is how the universe can be "eternal" and still have a beginning. The universe may have existed for all time.
Meanwhile this is how science is really done. There were all sorts of early reports, mostly from creationist sources, that claim that the James Webb Telescope refutes the Big Bang. The first peer reviewed paper from it indicates that not to be the case. It is already solving some problems that could not be solved before:
James Webb Telescope May Have Finally Solved the Crisis in Cosmology
A University of Chicago-led analysis measuring the universe expansion rate, finds there may not be a ‘Hubble tension’. The "crisis in cosmology," sparked by differing measurements of the universe's expansion, may be nearing a resolution thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope. New data analyzed by
scitechdaily.com