PDA

View Full Version : the universe theory that bugs me



ruroken
09-28-2007, 09:14 AM
The History channel was talking about Gamma Rays, and somehow got to talking about how the Universe is like a rubber band in how it expands until there's no more room left then snaps back, destroying everything and then recreating it. This doesn't make sense to me in that the Universe is infinite and, if it were to run out of room to expand, then a weak God must have created it, seeing as 'God' is all-powerful. So, to me, this 'Rubber Band Theory' doesn't make sense to me both scientifically and religiously.

ps; this thread feels kinda random to me, so is there anything I should add to make it more accessable/understandable?

nieh
09-28-2007, 09:20 AM
Are you religious?

Autonomist
09-28-2007, 09:25 AM
By the larger sum, this thread will settle the age old question of Science vs. Religion. Let the opening statements commence.

Everyone please get that.

ruroken
09-28-2007, 09:27 AM
Are you religious?
No, but I love philosophy...

Bazza
09-28-2007, 09:36 AM
The way I've always seen it is that the Universe isn't infinite, but is constantly expanding, at such a rate as to make it inifinte (ie expanding quicker than we can tell/keep up with). However this always creates a question: what's beyond the Universe? The honest answer is no one knows, it's something that isn't exactly easy to comprehend, some scientist will justify it with theorys and some religions will use there own way of justifying it.

nieh
09-28-2007, 09:38 AM
Then why are you trying to match up a scientific theory with the Christian belief of God? You shouldn't expect them to get along well together.

ruroken
09-28-2007, 09:43 AM
Because its like a puzzle mixed with pieces of a billion other puzzles. I want to find which parts work best together. Its fun to think about.

Jack-UK
09-28-2007, 09:58 AM
Ah.. last year i was forced to take an AS Philosophy and Ethics (RE) exam.. so throughout the year i had great fun arguing with blind Christians and proving them wrong at every turn..

This type of thread i love :P

Anyway OT:

Remember, everything is theories. Science has evidence which 'backs up' these theories, but they are still theories and are not fact. Some people say the universe will just go on expanding. But if we are expanding, what are we expanding into? Some people say we arent expanding at all, as although there is some evidence which supports this, it still doesnt support it completely.

Then you have the Christian 'theory' that God created everything and it was perfect and complete etc. Which, if the expanding theory is true, throws the whole lot out the window because it means the Universe is still 'under construction'.

At the end of the day, you can theorise, but u wont find out the truth, probably forever, unless we somehow get some sort of technology to travel the universe...

JoY
09-28-2007, 10:12 AM
Then why are you trying to match up a scientific theory with the Christian belief of God? You shouldn't expect them to get along well together.

I was thinking the same.
Gamma rays..? God..? hand in hand? wtf? why drag god into that shit?

also, dude like, we DIE & there's hunger & shit &... WHATTA WEAK GOD MADE THIS PLANET?!!?!:o :confused: :(

I hate the argument of the "imperfect/weak god". for god's sa... if there's a god out there, he's/it's by definition pure perfection, omnipotent & omniscient. because like, that's kinda the definition of "god". (at least, in monotheistic religions, like in [almost] everyone's culture here)


I've never seen a scientific theory truly explaining anything about the actual width/magnitude of the universe. (why capitalise "universe", by the way?) as far as I know, we have no fucking clue & are in the dark, just guessing. it's just theories, there's a reason why it's called a theory.

if there are boundaries to our universe, then.. well.. there has to be something it is bordered to. if there's absolutely nothing outside our universe, you might aswell just say it's infinite. & yes, a vacuum is also something, because it causes an effect.

but in this world, even in science, "infinite" hardly exist. just things that come as close as we can observe to infinity, that we give the horizontal 8. well, we can divide 1 by 3 & then we get 0.an infinite amount of threes, but it's not like we can observe that, which is kind of the essence of evidence based science. & evidence based science is what our society rests on these days, what we believe in. it's in many ways a religion, since we can only practice science by making assumptions from earlier observations.

so what is this rubber band then, at the end of our universe, what does it consist of & what does it seperate our universe from? I bet it isn't a big nothingness. but then what is it? a vacuum? is that why it is supposedly expanding, because the vacuum is pulling at our universe, stretching it? & what limits the vacuum, that makes it hermetically sealed?

wheelchairman
09-28-2007, 10:18 AM
By the larger sum, this thread will settle the age old question of Science vs. Religion. Let the opening statements commence.

Everyone please get that.

Religion and Science are hereby ordered to stay at least 100 yards apart from each other.

Bazza
09-28-2007, 10:29 AM
if there are boundaries to our universe, then.. well.. there has to be something it is bordered to. if there's absolutely nothing outside our universe, you might aswell just say it's infinite. & yes, a vacuum is also something, because it causes an effect.

Ooh I've just had an amzing thought. Maybe we are surrounded by Universes which are going through their "crunch stage", we are simply expanding to fill the gap. When these other Universes finally collapse back on themselves and explode in a new Big Bang then that's when our Universe starts to go through the Crunch stage. This happens in a never ending cycle and there's several Universes surrounding each other in a pattern that are going through this process! Come on Nobel Prize!!

Que crude diagram:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o320/bazza1987/untitled-14.jpg

ruroken
09-28-2007, 10:41 AM
I hate the argument of the "imperfect/weak god". for god's sa... if there's a god out there, he's/it's by definition pure perfection, omnipotent & omniscient. because like, that's kinda the definition of "god".
(the only part I'm going to reply to at the moment)
No. A 'God' is a being that creates (and inevitably destroys what it creates). You see, as we are in the 'image of God', we are 'Gods' ourselves (we have been given the ability to create and to destroy). Therefore meaning there are 'lesser Gods'. Not only that, but 'God' never proved to be perfect (unless you consider the 'law' that a 'God' does not create what it cannot destroy, meaning it has yet to fail).
...and why would I be considering direct belief rather than being rational? Like I said, bits of puzzles.

nieh
09-28-2007, 10:51 AM
A) Being created in god's image doesn't mean you're a god too, it just means you resemble him.
B) Who says that a Christian/Jewish/Arab god (i.e. the type where we were created in his image) is the only case? What about things like Deism where he supposedly crapped out the universe and ignored it ever since?
C) You're annoying

sKratch
09-28-2007, 10:53 AM
The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. It will never collapse under its own gravity; it will continue to expand indefinitely. This is a fact which has been proven within the last 20 or so years.

What's beyond our universe? Nothing. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to go "outside" of it because of the curvature of space-time. The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing, which means that distances between things on a cosmic scale will generally increase.

Mota Boy
09-28-2007, 11:11 AM
Ruroken - using a multidisciplinary approach to solving a problem is a good idea, but it's a mistake to combine the disciplines. Use science to determine the nature of the universe; use religion to determine what that knowledge tells you about God and what it could possibly mean. Mixing religion directly into science is like doing a statistical analysis of Moby Dick to determine what Melville was attempting to convey.

Hey, while we're on the subject, where does dark matter come in? I mean, on what scale does it become measurable? Can it only be measured when dealing with matter on a galactic scale? Is it possible that it's in the solar system too? I mean, do the assumed weights of the planets only rely on relative measurement or can we place definitive figures on them that exclude dark matter?

For a while I've been thinking of dark matter as the weight of choice - the myriad paths a photon could cross before it actually hits something and determines its paths. It neatly solves the problem of free will in a (at least in theory) scientifically-determinable universe. Now hold on a second - I know is it's an absolutely ridiculous idea, but I like it too much to have previously bothered doing any research which I'm pretty sure would prove it wrong.

Hell, even when it gets smacked down I'm still going to keep it in the back of my mind. It ties up enough separate loose ends that otherwise are just total mindfucks that it's hard to let go.

sKratch
09-28-2007, 11:45 AM
I'm not 100% sure, but I have a strong intuition that our solar system is not made up of any dark matter; we live in a region of the universe that is made up completely of regular matter and energy.

I'm not sure how you're trying to associate mass with choice... it doesn't really make much sense to me. Dark matter is simply matter that neither absorbs nor emits light, so it is not optically observable.

T-6005
09-28-2007, 11:46 AM
As for taking the religious or philosophical (especially philosophical) aspect of it, ruroken, you should remember that in pretty much anything that isn't physical science, models rarely completely match up to what they are meant to represent.

arak0r
09-28-2007, 12:05 PM
in the forum of life this "thread" has been made a few billion times.

Endymion
09-28-2007, 12:17 PM
never trust the history channel with science.

also, "Jack-UK" is a retard and doesn't understand what a theory is. there's a huge difference between the colloquial use of theory and the scientific one. a theory is basically something that gives logic to laws, and that's been proven so many times over (via observable predictions) that we might as well accept it as fact. the only way (generally) a theory is superseded is by another theory that takes into account a larger scope that the prior, and includes the prior as a special case.

Endymion
09-28-2007, 12:26 PM
For a while I've been thinking of dark matter as the weight of choice - the myriad paths a photon could cross before it actually hits something and determines its paths. It neatly solves the problem of free will in a (at least in theory) scientifically-determinable universe. Now hold on a second - I know is it's an absolutely ridiculous idea, but I like it too much to have previously bothered doing any research which I'm pretty sure would prove it wrong.

what do you mean by scientifically determinable?

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 02:26 PM
well, we can divide 1 by 3 & then we get 0.an infinite amount of threes

so what is this rubber band then, at the end of our universe, what does it consist of

& what does it seperate our universe from? I bet it isn't a big nothingness.
1 / 0 = ∞ Just another example. :)

That "at the end of our universe" is not necessary. I guess it'sdark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy). "In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe." http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/Cosmological_composition.jpg (75%) :)

Whatever is it, I believe that we can go there and then maybe to another universe. I've seen in TV that the universe gets cold and the only thing that will remain are black holes. We might go through them to save ourselves. :)

'God' never proved to be perfect.
Well, if you mean General Offspring Discussion then you are right. I just couldn't resist. :o

What's beyond our universe? Nothing. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to go "outside" of it because of the curvature of space-time. The entropy of the universe is constantly increasing, which means that distances between things on a cosmic scale will generally increase.
I'm pretty sure that we can travell through black holes. Don't worry, we will find anti-matter. :d :d :d

Also,
Bazza, liar! You had read it somewhere before you told us. :d

Mota Boy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter (I feel like an asshole :d )
Anyway, "Although dark matter was detected by its gravitational lensing in August 2006,[12] many aspects of dark matter remain speculative. The DAMA/NaI experiment has claimed to directly detect dark matter passing through the Earth, though most scientists remain skeptical since negative results of other experiments are (almost) incompatible with the DAMA results if dark matter consists of neutralinos."

"Dark matter also plays a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution." Well if it's not there, it's "close". :o

Dark matter is measurable on galactic scale and galaxy cluster scale (I just read it).

( I know, I'm so captain obvious :o )

Not Ozymandias
09-28-2007, 02:37 PM
The thing about the universe that bugs me is that we never gave names to our sun and moon.
WTF? We've named almost every other moon in the solar system and we've even named asteroids, but it never occurred to come up with a name for the motherfucking sun? I favor "Hector" for the sun and "Rasputin" for our moon, but nobody listens to me.

Llamas
09-28-2007, 03:03 PM
"Sun" is the name of the star that is the center of our solar system. However, "moon" is srslaziness.

Little_Miss_1565
09-28-2007, 03:10 PM
This thread needs more bong hits.

killer_queen
09-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Rasputin for moon would be SO cool. I fully support that.

nieh
09-28-2007, 03:13 PM
http://hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/psychonauts/raz.jpg

Not Ozymandias
09-28-2007, 03:21 PM
"Sun" is the name of the star that is the center of our solar system.
It needs a more distinctive name since people commonly call other stars "suns" too.
Hector is perfect.


And geeks need to be kept the fuck away from the naming process, the planet (or dwarf planet, whateverthefuck) after Pluto was almost named "Xena".

sKratch
09-28-2007, 03:29 PM
1 / 0 = ∞ Just another example. :)

Whatever is it, I believe that we can go there and then maybe to another universe. I've seen in TV that the universe gets cold and the only thing that will remain are black holes. We might go through them to save ourselves. :)

I'm pretty sure that we can travell through black holes. Don't worry, we will find anti-matter. :d :d :d

Actually 1/0 is undefined. The limit of 1/n as n approaches zero is infinity.

Also, we can't travel through black holes. The curvature of spacetime near them will tear you apart before you get near the event horizon.

sKratch
09-28-2007, 03:29 PM
This thread needs more bong hits.

Quoted for truth.

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight
09-28-2007, 03:44 PM
then a weak God must have created it, seeing as 'God' is all-powerful.

Blasphemy. Fuck you, satan.

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight
09-28-2007, 03:51 PM
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/4399/funnyjesus9gh3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

JohnnyNemesis
09-28-2007, 04:34 PM
"Sun" is the name of the star that is the center of our solar system. However, "moon" is srslaziness.

I generally agree.


This thread needs more bong hits.

I generally agree.


Rasputin for moon would be SO cool.

http://www.galeon.com/efex/web/imagenes/snk/Rasputin.gif

I hope someone gets that one.

Llamas
09-28-2007, 04:39 PM
It needs a more distinctive name since people commonly call other stars "suns" too.
I've fortunately never heard anyone be dumb enough to do that, but those people should be put down, because that makes no sense. It was named the "sun", and had it been named "Hector", people probably would have been stupid and called other stars "Hector", too. Fucking dumbasses.


And geeks need to be kept the fuck away from the naming process, the planet (or dwarf planet, whateverthefuck) after Pluto was almost named "Xena".
Umm yes. Xena... how gay.

nieh
09-28-2007, 04:42 PM
The term "sun" is often used informally when describing a star that has an orbiting planet, thus making it that planet's sun.

Llamas
09-28-2007, 04:51 PM
Hmm, it does appear that "sun" has evolved toward that meaning. I guess that would've happened, no matter what it was named, though.

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 04:59 PM
Actually 1/0 is undefined. The limit of 1/n as n approaches zero is infinity.

Also, we can't travel through black holes. The curvature of spacetime near them will tear you apart before you get near the event horizon.
You are right. The limit, indeed. I forgot everything I've been taught the first 2 years of my study. :(

That's why I've mentioned anti-matter. It's some bullshit I've heard in TV. We might never invent such a thing and god knows if it would work.

Also, I watched some programme about black holes a couple of days ago. Those are bad motherfuckers. They could eat the sun like a piece of cake even though they are much smaller. I think that we have one black hole in our galaxy. YaY :(

Edit: but that might be Supermassive black hole which is not dangerous. :o

WebDudette
09-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Names are capitalized. Therefore it is not named 'Sun' and is from here on out named 'Hector'.

I kid.

I never think about the Universe because it is scary. Like the ocean.

Fifty-Four Forty or Fight
09-28-2007, 05:56 PM
In all relative doubt, the many micro-specs of the universe are simultaneosly combined into an efrosensic fusion neoforea, where maniformins are contracted by a method of radiating storphines.

Endymion
09-28-2007, 05:58 PM
Don't worry, we will find anti-matter. :d :d :d

um, we make antimatter all the time. the sun is full of it too. many segments of the solar fusion process produce positrons, which are antimatter.

sKratch
09-28-2007, 06:11 PM
The most common misconception (well, maybe not, but a very common one) about black holes is that they gain some sort of enormous gravitational pull. The gravitational pull of a black hole is the same as any object with an equivalent mass; when a star collapses into a black hole it has the same pull as it had before it collapsed.

Spelling Corrector
09-28-2007, 06:14 PM
Just because God is known as being perfect doesn't mean he has to design the universe to be perfect. Hell, maybe it is perfect. Maybe people are supposed to have bad things happen to them. Maybe things are supposed to be messed up. Maybe there is supposed to be destruction. Maybe I shouldn't jack off so much.

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 06:35 PM
um, we make antimatter all the time. the sun is full of it too. many segments of the solar fusion process produce positrons, which are antimatter.
So all we need to do is to throw the sun into some black hole and we can go on holiday to another universe.

The most common misconception (well, maybe not, but a very common one) about black holes is that they gain some sort of enormous gravitational pull. The gravitational pull of a black hole is the same as any object with an equivalent mass; when a star collapses into a black hole it has the same pull as it had before it collapsed.
Ok. :D

They were showing some black hole moving through our solar system, at first killing our shiny sun, then Jupiter and finally our mother earth.

Do they move around?

Endymion
09-28-2007, 06:39 PM
So all we need to do is to throw the sun into some black hole and we can go on holiday to another universe.

antimatter + black hole != wormhole

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 06:45 PM
antimatter + black hole == asshole

Is that right now?

How would you make a wormhole Andy? I'm sure you know!

Endymion
09-28-2007, 06:52 PM
antimatter + black hole == asshole

Is that right now?

How would you make a wormhole Andy? I'm sure you know!

a) my name's ryan
b) i don't know, because they're only theoretical constructs in some non-standard solutions in GR.

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 06:59 PM
Whoops, I know your name. I meant Endy.

What's GR? Gotta check wiki for wormholes...

Not Ozymandias
09-28-2007, 07:06 PM
Edit: but that might be Supermassive black hole which is not dangerous. :o
It's dangerous in a different way. It won't rip you apart while you're being pulled in like a normal black hole, but it would still kill you once you entered it. I forget exactly how, but probably either the heat and/or the force in which you're spinning.



Hector it is. http://www.offspring.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

sKratch
09-28-2007, 07:07 PM
General relativity.

Not Ozymandias
09-28-2007, 07:10 PM
Names are capitalized. Therefore it is not named 'Sun' and is from here on out named 'Hector'.

I kid.

I never think about the Universe because it is scary. Like the ocean.
I like the way you think.


The ocean's way scarier though. We can see out into space, we can't see shit under the water. Anything could be down there. Malevolent merpeople? Butcher-knife-wielding midgets with oxygen tanks? Possible.

XYlophonetreeZ
09-28-2007, 07:36 PM
Isn't a wormhole kinda like a 2-headed black hole? Like, a black hole with another universe on the other side?

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 07:44 PM
"A wormhole which connects (usually closed) universes is often called a Schwarzschild wormhole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole#Wormhole_types

Z-Speak
09-28-2007, 08:04 PM
Your therory has holes.

HeadAroundU
09-28-2007, 08:14 PM
/\ Supermassive ones!

Mota Boy
09-28-2007, 09:00 PM
what do you mean by scientifically determinable?
Well from my understanding, if you take a particle and understand all the forces acting on it, you can predict how it will behave, the same with a number of particles interacting in a system. Scientists have identified only four forces that act on particles: gravity, electromagnetism(? I can't actually remember and I don't feel like looking this up), the strong force and the weak force, none of which is unique to the human brain. In essence, if you took all the particles in a human being, and in the entire universe, and if you could measure all the forces acting on all of them, in theory you could predict the behavior of the person/universe, completely excluding conscious thought.


I'm not sure how you're trying to associate mass with choice... it doesn't really make much sense to me. Dark matter is simply matter that neither absorbs nor emits light, so it is not optically observable.But scientists don't know anything about it other than that it's there. They can measure its effect on galaxies using a number of different, indirect methods, but they're completely in the dark as to what it actually is. They just know that there's a lot of weight out there that they can't see. I just like the idea that, using the idea that you can't know the path a photon took to reach a destination until it's observed, at which point it could in theory be on multiple paths, that the matter is somehow the imprint of all those possible paths, weighing in on our universe because they may be called into action at any time, but unobservable until they actually, well, are observed. Taking this a bit further, the observer himself or herself may be able to "choose" among possible paths that his or her own matter could take. I just swung my arm around for the fuck of it - was that a completely predictable action that was the only possible thing I could've done at that moment or did I consciously select that specific, random action? Within the unknown universes of dark matter and dark energy I can safely stow the reassuring notion that I'm in control of my own actions and I'm just not moved along by basic forces, rationalizing it all as I go along.

Again, it's pseudoscientific philosophy rather than science, but I'm much more of a pseudoscientific philosopher than a scientist, and it prevents me from waking up in the middle of the night screaming.

Endymion
09-28-2007, 09:41 PM
Well from my understanding, if you take a particle and understand all the forces acting on it, you can predict how it will behave, the same with a number of particles interacting in a system. Scientists have identified only four forces that act on particles: gravity, electromagnetism(? I can't actually remember and I don't feel like looking this up), the strong force and the weak force, none of which is unique to the human brain. In essence, if you took all the particles in a human being, and in the entire universe, and if you could measure all the forces acting on all of them, in theory you could predict the behavior of the person/universe, completely excluding conscious thought.

except that was all thrown out the window by quantum theory, which involves only probabilities of outcomes.

though my personal opinions are a bit more computable...

Bazza
09-28-2007, 09:44 PM
Also,
Bazza, liar! You had read it somewhere before you told us. :d

That was actual top of the head stuff! Ok maybe it was in the subconsious somewhere, but who cares, I'll be the one laughing when the Bazza Theorem is published,,,!!!

Mota Boy
09-28-2007, 10:12 PM
except that was all thrown out the window by quantum theory, which involves only probabilities of outcomes.
I've still been reading about it, however, in books published long after quantum theory emerged.

Endymion
09-28-2007, 10:27 PM
I've still been reading about it, however, in books published long after quantum theory emerged.

in the realm of classical mechanics it's true, and that's often pointed out in introductory text books.

i personally don't believe that the universe should require an insanely large amount of information to describe, as it would if each event were truly random and not the psudo-random output of a computation. what i mean is that if each event were random, then to describe the evolution of the universe you'd basically need to record the outcome of every single event. however, if they were psudorandom (like the digits of pi, or the evolution of a cellular automata (rule 30-like)), then the evolution of the universe could be described in a much more simple and compact way.

sKratch
09-29-2007, 08:19 AM
Positron gets pulled over for speeding. The cop says, "Do you know how fast you were going?" The positron says "No but I know exactly where I was!"

Little_Miss_1565
09-29-2007, 12:00 PM
No more discussion of this nonsense until we've had some bong hits.

sKratch
09-29-2007, 02:01 PM
This situation may be rectified very shortly (lol I'm so cool).

HeadAroundU
09-29-2007, 07:47 PM
No more discussion of this nonsense until we've had some bong hits.
Big bong!!

Rilex
09-29-2007, 09:27 PM
Its fun to think about.

Not to me. I get kind of astrophobic thinking about that stuff...