- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
Owning something you can never affect in any way is a pretty useless kind of ownership, and applies to most of the universe. Its kind of like a snail on the ocean floor announcing that he owns the Solar System.
Owning something you can never affect in any way is a pretty useless kind of ownership, and applies to most of the universe. Its kind of like a snail on the ocean floor announcing that he owns the Solar System.
He who created it can affect it.
This He proved throughout many instances of God affecting the world beyond what limited or godless humanity can accomplish.
I know you think your comment is intelligent but it really isn't too swift.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwI am happy to cheer you up. However, I believe neuroscience and science philosophy are combining to work out an acceptable theory on the mind, soul, and spirit that will satisfy the atheist evolutionists. I suppose it is just a matter of time (not billions of years) before that theory "evolves" into evolution science.
Halarious RJ.
In my post above I was going to include the comment that science probably will never develop any theory that explains or describes the human spirit.
God is invisible. No science can detect Him. God is known by the spirit of the man who has trusted Him. Through faith!
Since God is already an illusion, as Richard Dawkins attempts to explain, there will be little need to detect Him by scientific methods anyway. They will just be happy to get rid of Him as sonhouse is always saying. Try that on for a laugh.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI thought the furthest we could see directly was just under 14 billion LY and the 46 bil was the result of the expansion of the universe into space we can't see simply because light can't reach us in any reasonable time, 46 billion years from now maybe but not now. I guess that means that slowly we can see deeper into space as it springs up into visibility before us but all we could see is a few light years at best simply because we don't live long enough to see much change in the universe. If we lived a billion years we could then see maybe 15 billion LY but I think it safe to say humans won't be around a billion years from now.
OK.
I hope that you are now clear that:
1. The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in all directions, which is merely a fact that that is how far we can see.
2. We have no idea how much bigger than that it is, and it may be infinite.
3. Any scientist talking about whether or not the universe 'flat' is not referring to the 3 spacial dimensions.
I'm not even making bets for the next 1000 much less a million or billion.
10 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe who is without sin... 😛
And your point is?
Look friend, I never hold a grudge or keep score of offences. But I do feel bad that we seem to have to be at each other's throats over things that shouldn't cause us to get so irritated. I'm guilty of that to be sure, but I don't like making remarks that impugn another's character, although it may appear that way at times.
I guess it depends on how much I get insulted. I enjoy the debate, and I know it must irritate that I believe in something you or others think is injurious, and I know I say things that causes you to think I'm ignorant, and I can be ignorant, but you don't have to call me that, do you?
Anyway, overall it's a good time and I continue to learn. That's all that really matters isn't it?
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadGotcha! 🙂
OK.
I hope that you are now clear that:
1. The observable universe is about 46 billion light years in all directions, which is merely a fact that that is how far we can see.
2. We have no idea how much bigger than that it is, and it may be infinite.
3. Any scientist talking about whether or not the universe 'flat' is not referring to the 3 spacial dimensions.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by divegeesterThen challenge the beliefs, but you don't have to make it personal by impugning another's character.
I consistently challenge horrible beliefs and if I see it, dishonesty.
We all have a right to believe what we see as the truth, no matter how malignant that may appear to you.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonshipHow is that relevant? You said we own it. We can do nothing whatsoever about it, with it, for it, to it etc. Our ownership of it carries no meaning.
He who created it can affect it.
This He proved throughout many instances of God affecting the world beyond what limited or godless humanity can accomplish.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwRJ made a comment about assuming making an ass out of u and me. I pointed out that just because he makes ridiculous assumptions, it doesn't rub off on me.
I guess it depends on how much I get insulted. I enjoy the debate, and I know it must irritate that I believe in something you or others think is injurious, and I know I say things that causes you to think I'm ignorant, and I can be ignorant, but you don't have to call me that, do you?
It wasn't directed at you at all, but at RJ - and he was the one that started with the name calling.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseI guess that what we are seeing, may have only been 14 billion light years away from where we are now when the light left it. It may be a bit presumptuous of us to think that it is now 46 billion light years away and still talk about it as the 'visible universe' when in reality what we saw was the distant past much closer in.
I thought the furthest we could see directly was just under 14 billion LY and the 46 bil was the result of the expansion of the universe into space we can't see simply because light can't reach us in any reasonable time, 46 billion years from now maybe but not now.
But it remains the case that what we see is spherical simply because of our point of view, not because of any actual physical shape of the universe.
It is also entirely possible that the universe is smaller than what we see and we are seeing some things double.
10 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't know about the "double" part of this (although I doubt that), but I think it can be inferred that the shape of the universe would be spherical if it evolved from a single point, as in the Big Bang. The only reason I see for a universe shaped differently would be because of localized clumping resulting from more gravity in some areas, but I still think this difference would be negligible. There might be a reason for a different shape than we know because of unknown effects of dark energy or dark matter, but my feeling is that a spherical shape for the universe is a good bet. Gravity draws the matter in stars and planets into a sphere (above a certain radius, anyways), so I see no reason why a universe would react differently.
But it remains the case that what we see is spherical simply because of our point of view, not because of any actual physical shape of the universe.
It is also entirely possible that the universe is smaller than what we see and we are seeing some things double.
I'm currently reading (almost done) a Poul Anderson novel called Tau Zero about traveling in space at near light speed. The technical explanations for the science involved have been fascinating.
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneBut don't forget that it is science fiction.
I don't know about the "double" part of this (although I doubt that), but I think it can be inferred that the shape of the universe would be spherical if it evolved from a single point, as in the Big Bang. The only reason I see for a universe shaped differently would be because of localized clumping resulting from more gravity in some areas, but I still th ...[text shortened]... at near light speed. The technical explanations for the science involved have been fascinating.
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneYou are not taking into account the fact that the big bang is not expansion into space, but rather expansion of space. If the universe is finite, then whatever shape it was when it initially emerged from the big bang, it probably still is, or it has warped over time, but the general topology would not have changed.
I don't know about the "double" part of this (although I doubt that), but I think it can be inferred that the shape of the universe would be spherical if it evolved from a single point, as in the Big Bang.
If the universe is finite, then it is likely spherical or close to spherical in an extra dimension, but not in the 3 dimensions we see. To understand this, ask yourself whether the surface of the earth is a circle. From where you stand on the earth, it sure looks like a circle, but try and draw a map of it on paper and you start to run into problems.
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat is called a globe.
You are not taking into account the fact that the big bang is not expansion into space, but rather expansion of space. If the universe is finite, then whatever shape it was when it initially emerged from the big bang, it probably still is, or it has warped over time, but the general topology would not have changed.
If the universe is finite, then it is ...[text shortened]... e looks like a circle, but try and draw a map of it on paper and you start to run into problems.
11 Nov 14
Consider a 2D josephw living in his 2D universe.
He asks "What shape is my universe?"
A triangle? A square? A circle? Or perhaps it is infinite?
A 2D cosmologist tells him that current thinking is that their 2D
universe exists in 3D !!! Oh sure says 2D josephw, the 3rd
dimension TIME. No, no, no says the cosmologist. Current theory
is that our universe exists on something called a sphere ... its a
like a 3D circle!
Doesn't say anything about that in my 2D bible says josephw and walks off.
11 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI also have to point out that in the three spacial dimensions, the universe does not have edges. If it is finite, then it essentially has to wrap around onto itself. It would not be possible to travel to the edge of the universe and say 'here is the edge of the universe, and if I go a few more meters that way, I will be outside the universe.' Nor would you bump into a brick wall. There simply is no edge, just like the surface of a sphere has no sides.
I don't know about the "double" part of this (although I doubt that), but I think it can be inferred that the shape of the universe would be spherical if it evolved from a single point, as in the Big Bang.