In the beginning God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-03-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:22 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  If someone could get far enough away and have a super amazing telescope, could they see their own past?

No, because as a violation of causality that would involve travelling faster than light.

Since the propagation of consequences from one's act can only travel at lightspeed, to outpace them you'd have to outpace light. Which is, so far as we know, impossible.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
14-03-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:16 PM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  I'm well aware of all that. It was the 'We can only see this far because light from further out hasn't had time to reach us' bit that puzzles me.

I don't think that's a correct statement to make thats all.

It is and it isn't. That's the thing.

As time goes on we will see things with greater and greater path lengths. Generally speaking such things are 'farther' away. And yet we will never see something from earlier than a certain point. In which sense nothing can be 'farther' away.

So it's a matter of whether separation in spacetime is constituted more by spatial distance or temporal distance...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 02:52 PM
Re: RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:15 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Currently there are stars, galaxies, light, etc that are further from us than 13.8 bly away. We can't see them yet because the light hasn't reached us yet.

The observable limit being background radiation then? How could there be stars past that horizon?

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 02:53 PM
Re: RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:23 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 02:18 PM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  I'm not fucking stupid and I don't disagree with what you're saying, just your initial comment was wrong in my opinion.

Chill out dude. No one called you stupid.

It's Friday night, I get like this. Nobody should take it personally.

Using Tapatalk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 01:11 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Okay so it seems like most people agree that the universe has a beginning, and it is not eternal?
Depends on your definition of "universe"

Everything that we can observe is classified as our observable universe.
There is a limit as to what we can observe because it takes time for light to travel.
Light travels at approximately 300,000 km/s.

Scientists have concluded that the majority of what we observe in the observable universe is expanding away from a central point. They call the point in time that everything started moving away from this central point as being the Big Bang event. They have calculated that the Big Bang occurred around 14 billion years ago.
What they know about the Big Bang is that this is the originator of the expansion of our observable universe and that our observable universe has been expanding ever since.

This means that the expansion of our observable universe had a beginning and was not eternal.


It does not mean that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang event. Scientists state that the Big Bang event was so destructive that it is impossible to deduce what the universe looked like before this event.

This means that we do not know if the universe itself had a beginning or not, we do not know if the universe itself is eternal or not.

If there was one Big Bang, this means that Big Bangs are possible. If one Big Bang is possible, would it be reasonable to suggest that multiple Big Bangs are possible. Not only that, would it be reasonable to suggest that multiple Big Bangs are probable?
The above raises the question as to what is the definition of "Universe".
Is a Universe the result of a Big Bang, in which event if there are multiple Big Bangs then do we have a "Multiverse" or do we simple call all of existence the "Universe"?
If we call all of existence the "Universe" then it is absurd to suggest that the Big Bang event of our particular observable universe denotes the begging of the entire universe.

A strange thing about existence is that time and space are relative to mass (energy/matter). Without energy/matter then you may not have time or space. In scientific models our observable universe might be considered closed, or flat.
If it is closed then there is no spacial path out of the universe. There is a saying that if you were at the event horizon of a black hole and you looked straight forward that you would then be looking at the back of your own head. This is because Space is curved in the presence of matter and given that light is the fastest anything can travel (hence the straightest that anything can travel) then it is impossible to escape as you will essentially loop back on yourself even when travelling in a straight line. This is the case if our universe is closed. There is no spacial path out of it. The question of what lies beyond our universe could not consider Time and Space as these would be meaningless without the influence of energy/matter within our universe.

If other Big Bang events (other universes within a multiverse model) exist and if they are also closed then there would be no spacial path between them, we would essentially have isolated time/space/universe bubbles.

(14-03-2014 01:11 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Why would someone think that the only logical conclusion is that the universe was created by some sort of god?
A religious person wants to believe that the universe was created by a loving god, for humans and in particular for the purpose of the individual believer (himself/herself) to prove to god that they are good and hence deserving of spending time in Heaven with this loving god.

Because of this want they are happy to assume:
There is only one universe
There is only one big bang event
All of existence started at the big bang event
The big bang event requires a cause

Their conclusion given these mighty assumption are logically sound.
That cause must therefore be outside of existence, must be eternal and must be powerful enough to create a universe.

A great spanner in the works of this reasoning is that the religious people whom call upon this reasoning as their proof they are generally not cosmologists or leading edge scientists. If they were to look towards those people with the highest level of scientific comprehension they would see that the majority (not all) of those are atheists, in contrast with the majority of humans being theists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
14-03-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:53 PM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 02:23 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Chill out dude. No one called you stupid.

It's Friday night, I get like this. Nobody should take it personally.

Ok lol. I am just going to observe from here on out unless I have a question. I hope you guys keep discussing the universe and your theories on how it came about and what not. We need to flush Miss Meng's crap out and replace it with threads full of smart people talking. I kind of hope someone who does believe in God and is also way smarter than me will explain what they think too. I feel spongy today. I am ready to learn some new stuff.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
14-03-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:25 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Ok, so you've got an object that appears to be 13 bly away. Just at the edge of the observable universe. The light you are seeing right now left that object 13 b years ago. During the 13 b year travel time that it took for that photon to leave the object and reach your eye, the object has continued to move away from us. Same thing with the edge of the observable universe.

This is very interesting to me. We know the universe is expanding, do we know at what rate? How do we measure the speed at which the furthest galaxy we can see is moving away from us, red shift? If we know this rate can we then calculate the distance traveled by this object in the intervening 13 b years so we can then say the total distance of the observable universe plus the calculated distance of expansion makes the universe X light years across?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:52 PM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 02:15 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Currently there are stars, galaxies, light, etc that are further from us than 13.8 bly away. We can't see them yet because the light hasn't reached us yet.

The observable limit being background radiation then? How could there be stars past that horizon?

Yes, we can't see past the background radiation. There aren't stars past that horizon. The horizon just isn't where it appears to be. Where we see things that are near that horizon is actually where they were 13.8 b years ago. We're seeing the light that left them around the time of the big bang. In a billion years, that barrier will appear to be 14.8 bly away because that's how long it took the light to get to us. But remember, even though we're seeing light from it's position 13.8 b years ago, it has been moving away from us during those 13 b years due to the expansion of the universe.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 03:07 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 02:25 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  Ok, so you've got an object that appears to be 13 bly away. Just at the edge of the observable universe. The light you are seeing right now left that object 13 b years ago. During the 13 b year travel time that it took for that photon to leave the object and reach your eye, the object has continued to move away from us. Same thing with the edge of the observable universe.

This is very interesting to me. We know the universe is expanding, do we know at what rate? How do we measure the speed at which the furthest galaxy we can see is moving away from us, red shift? If we know this rate can we then calculate the distance traveled by this object in the intervening 13 b years so we can then say the total distance of the observable universe plus the calculated distance of expansion makes the universe X light years across?

I don't have the exact numbers handy, but the answer to all your questions is yes.

We can see exactly how fast the universe is expanding because objects that are twice as far from us appear to be moving twice as fast away from us. We know these speed due to, you guessed it, red shift.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: In the beginning God
(14-03-2014 02:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-03-2014 02:22 PM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  If someone could get far enough away and have a super amazing telescope, could they see their own past?

No, because as a violation of causality that would involve travelling faster than light.

Since the propagation of consequences from one's act can only travel at lightspeed, to outpace them you'd have to outpace light. Which is, so far as we know, impossible.

It's not impossible to travel faster than light. It is impossible to travel faster than light through space. If you could somehow warp space around you like in an Aclubierre Drive, you could travel from point A to point B in less time than it would take light to get there. There's also wormhole theories that involve bending space so that the two points occupy the same point.

IF one of these methods (or something no one has thought of yet) pans out and we are able to travel faster than light, then you could fly from one point to the other and look back through a telescope to a point before you left. You could actually watch yourself leave.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: