....... the latest idea is 'the big crunch'... (if i remember correctly...lol).

 

the big bang theory is really the begining of time, everything starts with the big bang... but how can something be created from nothing?.. the big crunch however takes our theoretical notion of time much much further back, infinitely so in fact.

 

'the crunch' (if my understanding is correct) is the theory that the universe is always having a succession of 'big bangs'.. after the bang, the universe expands... then after eons starts to collapse back in on itself, then all matter meets at a central point and another big bang kicks off everything all over again. its like a pulse, over billions of years.

 

of course no one knows where the first bang came from...lol.. but it does give rise to a much bigger perseption of the size and age of everything.

 

could you imagine it?.... the ultimate in re-cycling? forever?...

I don't want to think it :lol: it's mind beinding enough at times. THen it gets me all Doctor Who thinking if there are other Universes, parallel worlds, dimensions, and so on. (My head is starting to hurt :lol:)

I too get a bit humble when trying to imagine such a thing - I feel like an ant in the jungle trying to get my head around how big the whole world is....!

I like to sometimes just sit somewhere and think about it. It gets me well stressed though tbh, I get so confused. I end up thinking that the Universe is probably still expanding, but then how can it be... what is it expanding into? And ifthe Universe does ever end what is there after it? Nothing to us usually consists of space, which is of course in our Universe.

 

The Big Crunch theory confuses me even more. :( :lol:

When I think that time never started and is just infinite, it's just like...whoa.

Edited July 13, 200717 yr by Dirty Pop

Well, imagine if every one of these supposed big bangs that keep hapening after each other is exactly the same... Then after each explosion matter has to be distributed in the universe exactly the same way it happened in the "last" big bang, in any detail... Then this mean if the theory is right, when the universe starts to collapse into itself and a new explosion happens, each little piece of matter will be distributed again the same way it happened in the last time, then eventually things will happen the same way again with our planet, evolution, the appearence of men, etc. It´s like we are living a live that has happened before and will continue to happen infinite times because each atom of this universe has its trajectory built when the explosion happens.

I read about this in a paper at work. I actually sat there staring at the article trying to make sense of it! :lol: I gave up in the end and read some Big Brother goss :kink: :lol:

 

Yes I was reading a tabloid -_- It was my break :o

but if nothing is nothing, it can't even be a black vacuum as black is a colour :o Oh my head!

but if nothing is nothing, it can't even be a black vacuum as black is a colour :o Oh my head!

 

actually... black isnt a colour... its a lack of colour ... in space anyway.

 

actually many theories rely on the 'law of two'... good - bad, left - right, light - dark... etc as if the universe relies on this balance of 2.and is used to support the notion of a god and a devil.

 

but i think this is incorrect. look at the universe itself... its dark, its quiet, its cold, its empty... except where something is happening. within this dark, cold, quiet empty void there are point of light, heat, noise and substance.... all of these things are made, unlike dark, cold, quiet and emptiness.

 

so id suggest the universe is made up of either something, or nothing ...and not one thing or another.... a possitive and a neutral, not a possitive and a negative.

actually... black isnt a colour... its a lack of colour ... in space anyway.

 

actually many theories rely on the 'law of two'... good - bad, left - right, light - dark... etc as if the universe relies on this balance of 2.and is used to support the notion of a god and a devil.

 

but i think this is incorrect. look at the universe itself... its dark, its quiet, its cold, its empty... except where something is happening. within this dark, cold, quiet empty void there are point of light, heat, noise and substance.... all of these things are made, unlike dark, cold, quiet and emptiness.

 

so id suggest the universe is made up of either something, or nothing ...and not one thing or another.... a possitive and a neutral, not a possitive and a negative.

 

Yes, in the universe seems like emptyness is the rule, matter is the exception. Seems like 99,999% of the space is emtpy, cold and dark, we are just too lucky to live where matter, heat and light exists.

Yes, in the universe seems like emptyness is the rule, matter is the exception. Seems like 99,999% of the space is emtpy, cold and dark, we are just too lucky to live where matter, heat and light exists.

 

so where would god fit into this?... if 'he' is here on earth looking after us... or some of us at least :) how tf can he look after the rest of the universe when NOTHING can travel faster then light?... and the very nearest star is 4 light years away? let alone thousands upon thousands of other galaxies that are billions of light years away...

 

this is the major problem i have with 'god'... it cant possibly exist.

so where would god fit into this?... if 'he' is here on earth looking after us... or some of us at least :) how tf can he look after the rest of the universe when NOTHING can travel faster then light?... and the very nearest star is 4 light years away? let alone thousands upon thousands of other galaxies that are billions of light years away...

 

this is the major problem i have with 'god'... it cant possibly exist.

Because He is onipresent and doesn´t need to travel anywhere, and maybe He doesn´t need to watch other planets because there are no living being there, they are just cold rocks with no life.

Because He is onipresent and doesn´t need to travel anywhere, and maybe He doesn´t need to watch other planets because there are no living being there, they are just cold rocks with no life.

 

thats nonsense though, i hope you were answering the question posed and not stating a personal belief :)

 

earlier this week astronomers had discovered a planet with water on it.. its only a question of time before they detect the blueprint of life elsewhere.

omnipresence seems a very nice way of dressing the fact up there is no known way of travelling faster than light itself. It may be possible, but we just haven't figured it out yet :unsure:

that is true matt, we may just have not figured it out yet. however scientists reckon that traveling faster then light is impossible. maybe there are 'wormholes' or breaks in the fabric of the universe itself , or differing dimensions that would allow it... whatever, it will do our heads in trying to comprehend the magnitude of the complexity of the universe...

that is true matt, we may just have not figured it out yet. however scientists reckon that traveling faster then light is impossible. maybe there are 'wormholes' or breaks in the fabric of the universe itself , or differing dimensions that would allow it... whatever, it will do our heads in trying to comprehend the magnitude of the complexity of the universe...

 

Really? So what if a body "X" is traveling at 90% of the speed of light (legally allowed), and in the oposite direction there is another body "Y" coming at 90% of the speed of light aswell? An observer located on X would see Y aproaching much faster then the speed of light, and as traditional physics know, speed is relative to the observer. So Einstein was right when he said everything is relative, including the speed of light rule. And its possible for something to be present all over the universe without travelling faster then the speed of light, as long as this "something" is not a physical body, for example, gravity is present in the entire universe and it doesn´t need to be travelling everywhere to make sure that, wherever a body is, it will atract the stuff around it.

Really? So what if a body "X" is traveling at 90% of the speed of light (legally allowed), and in the oposite direction there is another body "Y" coming at 90% of the speed of light aswell? An observer located on X would see Y aproaching much faster then the speed of light, and as traditional physics know, speed is relative to the observer. So Einstein was right when he said everything is relative, including the speed of light rule. And its possible for something to be present all over the universe without travelling faster then the speed of light, as long as this "something" is not a physical body, for example, gravity is present in the entire universe and it doesn´t need to be travelling everywhere to make sure that, wherever a body is, it will atract the stuff around it.

 

not he wouldnt, as nothing can travel faster then the speed of light 'y' would be invisable. but anyway.

 

true that gravity is present all over the universe, but the gravity that holds that (points to a distant galaxy 100 light years away) isnt physically the same gravity that holds us to the earth. there is no connection between earths gravity and that on distant planet zog, however 'god' IS supposed to be 1 physical entity, so no... god doesnt and cant possibly exist.

not he wouldnt, as nothing can travel faster then the speed of light 'y' would be invisable. but anyway.

 

true that gravity is present all over the universe, but the gravity that holds that (points to a distant galaxy 100 light years away) isnt physically the same gravity that holds us to the earth. there is no connection between earths gravity and that on distant planet zog, however 'god' IS supposed to be 1 physical entity, so no... god doesnt and cant possibly exist.

 

 

Don't get too excited, it's just a theory.

 

So it is indeed, possible.

Don't get too excited, it's just a theory.

 

So it is indeed, possible.

 

you are the one highlighting and exciting that... and how can it be possible if it defies all known science? knowlege and belief has to have a sound basis, even theories need a sound basis to make them credible.

not he wouldnt, as nothing can travel faster then the speed of light 'y' would be invisable. but anyway.

 

true that gravity is present all over the universe, but the gravity that holds that (points to a distant galaxy 100 light years away) isnt physically the same gravity that holds us to the earth. there is no connection between earths gravity and that on distant planet zog, however 'god' IS supposed to be 1 physical entity, so no... god doesnt and cant possibly exist.

 

No, at least acording to mainstream religions, God is not physical and doesn´t have a body.

 

In the example I mentioned, Y would be invisible for X, but it still would be aproaching faster then the speed of light.

 

The gravity that holds us is the same law applied in the entire universe, the only difference is the amount of mass. Bigger bodies cause bigger gravity atraction, the atraction is proportional to the mass of the body, but even a small hydrogen atom cause gravity atraction (proportional to its mass). So whoever went to other galaxies and told their stars to behave exactly the same way as our stars behave when it comes to gravity force?