Originally posted by FabianFnasI admire your post, nice seeing you thinking outside the box.
I don't like the word 'singularity', mostly because I don't believe it was a true mathematical 'singularity'. I have a question about this to Andrew Hamilton about this, the answer is pending.
Our universe, at that time, was all there was, nothing more. It didn't have anything which in it could recide. So no void there. Nothing outside the unvierse.
...[text shortened]... u call it. Universe is all there is, there is no outside universe.
...according to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is not a statement of faith at all. It is merely an implication of the evidence.
Yea, well how did the 'main-stream' come up with that statement of
faith?
The evidence may be wrong, or wrongly interpreted, but that is irrelevant to this argument.
The argument that you and knightmeister are trying to make is that the hypothesis is not logically possible, whether or not the hypothesis is an accurate reflection of reality should be totally irrelevant to such an argument. Even if time is infinite, or if God created the universe yesterday, the argument knightmeister is using remains wrong, mostly because both of you cannot understand or wont understand basic concepts such as dimensions.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayScience people do. All the time. Therefore we invent new and better theories all the time. Like Quantum Gravity, string theory, inflation theory and all... BigBang theory wouldn't be if people didn't think 'outside the box', and we wouldn't have this conversation.
I admire your post, nice seeing you thinking outside the box.
Kelly
People who don't see outside the box are narrow.
Again, what void were you talking about?
Originally posted by FabianFnasAs it was declared by someone here, they said they thought the
Science people do. All the time. Therefore we invent new and better theories all the time. Like Quantum Gravity, string theory, inflation theory and all... BigBang theory wouldn't be if people didn't think 'outside the box', and we wouldn't have this conversation.
People who don't see outside the box are narrow.
Again, what void were you talking about?
singularity was very small. When I look at the universe it is not
small at all, it is quite large to say the least, so the space that is
the current universe today was what when there was nothing
but a very small singularity? Was it a void, was it nothing, was
it a grand null? Even an expanding balloon expands into areas
it didn’t occupy before it expanded so what was it expanding
into?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut universe is a part of god, isn't he? By study the universe we study at the same time god himself.
He created it, He is the author of it, He is not part of it like wood
is part of the tree if that is what you are getting at.
Kelly
By study the books of Voltaire, I get to know the author Voltaire much better.
By study the wood we learn about the tree.
So, in my view, the scientists are much better teologians than any other. Because they know the essence of god! They know the deepest aspects of god himself.
Originally posted by KellyJayOnce our universe was small, smaller than we can imagine by our thoughts. Now it is huge, more huge than we can imagine.
As it was declared by someone here, they said they thought the
singularity was very small. When I look at the universe it is not
small at all, it is quite large to say the least, so the space that is
the current universe today was what when there was nothing
but a very small singularity? Was it a void, was it nothing, was
it a grand null? Even an expan ...[text shortened]... n expands into areas
it didn’t occupy before it expanded so what was it expanding
into?
Kelly
But the universe is everything, nothing more. No void surrounding it. Because if the there were a void outside universe it would be a part of the universe as well, and then it would be within our universe and the question repeats itslf "Our universe with its void is surrounded by a void larger than the universe (with its void) itself."
We have to think of the universe as everything there is. Nothing more.
Originally posted by KellyJay…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
Compared to what and how do you know, or why would you suspect
its size at all to be anything, especially when it is sitting in the grand
void?
Kelly
Compared to what
..…
Not “compared” to anything. Its “size” is not defined relative to something else because there is no reason to believe there is something else to compare it with.
Instead, its “size” is simply a measure of how long it would take a photon of light to go full circle from one end of it to the other (“full circle” because it is has no boundaries in 3-dimentions and a straight line in 3-dimentions would bring it back to its starting point in this case).
…and how do you know.….
I have already answered that.
……or why would you suspect
its size at all to be anything, especially when it is sitting in the grand
void? ..…
What “grand void” are you referring to?
-what is the premise for your belief that there exists some kind of “void” that it is “in”?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas…We have to think of the universe as everything there is. Nothing more...…
Once our universe was small, smaller than we can imagine by our thoughts. Now it is huge, more huge than we can imagine.
But the universe is everything, nothing more. No void surrounding it. Because if the there were a void outside universe it would be a part of the universe as well, and then it would be within our universe and the question repeats itsl h its void) itself."
We have to think of the universe as everything there is. Nothing more.
Correct -and in case he still doesn’t understand why, this must be true BY DEFINITION of what we mean by
“THE universe“ as in “OUR universe”.
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo, if I work on and create anything, is the study of what I made the
But universe is a part of god, isn't he? By study the universe we study at the same time god himself.
By study the books of Voltaire, I get to know the author Voltaire much better.
By study the wood we learn about the tree.
So, in my view, the scientists are much better teologians than any other. Because they know the essence of god! They know the deepest aspects of god himself.
study of me, or that which I created?
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are proposing a contradiction in reality, you have something
Once our universe was small, smaller than we can imagine by our thoughts. Now it is huge, more huge than we can imagine.
But the universe is everything, nothing more. No void surrounding it. Because if the there were a void outside universe it would be a part of the universe as well, and then it would be within our universe and the question repeats itsl ...[text shortened]... h its void) itself."
We have to think of the universe as everything there is. Nothing more.
very small that got larger. Name one thing that is small and gets
larger and while it is getting larger does not take up more "SPACE".
That space grows into wasn’t there before the growth, so what did
it grows into a void, a null, a nothing?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
[b]…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
Compared to what
..…
Not “compared” to anything. Its “size” is not defined relative to something else because there is no reason to believe there is something else to compare it with.
Instead, its “size” is simply a measure of how long it would take a photon of light to go full circl ...[text shortened]...
-what is the premise for your belief that there exists some kind of “void” that it is “in”?[/b]
Compared to what
..…
LOL, you really do not spend anytime thinking before
you write do you? The phrase “…it must have been
extremely dense and small.” Those were you words
not mine! You said, “SMALL” my reply to you was
this,
“Compared to what and how do you know, or why would you suspect
its size at all to be anything, especially when it is sitting in the grand
void?"
Now you come back with its size is not defined relative to something
else, get you story straight will you! Either it cannot be small, or it
can be small which is it? Think about your answer, because you are
faced with this too, you and others here say the universe is getting
larger so whatever size that singularity was before the Big Bang
more than likely can be or should be compared to what the universe
is now, if it indeed it is growing! If it isn’t growing why attempt to
measure things moving away from the center, and dating the
universe that way since the universe is static with respect to size?
I think your logic will break down once again and you will be force
to bring up another tweak of logic like a straight line that is really
a circle again. I suppose your description of being dense too, does
not have any validity to it either, did it have mass at all?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…and how do you know.….
[b]…"...it must have been extremely dense and small."
Compared to what
..…
Not “compared” to anything. Its “size” is not defined relative to something else because there is no reason to believe there is something else to compare it with.
Instead, its “size” is simply a measure of how long it would take a photon of light to go full circl ...[text shortened]...
-what is the premise for your belief that there exists some kind of “void” that it is “in”?[/b]
"I have already answered that. "
I have not seen an answer that wasn't twisted with the logic of
straight line circles.
Kelly