PDA

View Full Version : q about the universe


Prince Rai
05-27-2006, 04:40 AM
The universe is everything, or so ive been assured by people that have qualifications, but it is also expanding. Can someone answer my problem of where everything is expanding into?

hidden ninja
05-27-2006, 06:50 AM
space and time

Prince Rai
05-27-2006, 07:09 AM
space and time

space? if the universe is everything(incorporates time), the how can it expand? into what?

LHX
05-27-2006, 07:37 AM
LMAO

sounds to me like the universe is not expanding

Kong
05-27-2006, 09:26 AM
Dont they say it will expand than spring back?

LHX
05-27-2006, 09:35 AM
Dont they say it will expand than spring back?

that would make more sense than a scenario of constant expansion

TUCO
05-27-2006, 09:40 AM
the beauty of believeing in ya religion is i dun gotta waste my life asking these questions

Prince Rai
05-27-2006, 09:43 AM
this is an answer of a scientist...



if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything; instead, what is happening is that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies, is being "stretched", but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything. If, on the other hand, the universe has a finite size, then it may be legitimate to claim that there is something "outside of the universe" that the universe is expanding into. However, because we are, by definition, stuck within the space that makes up our universe and have no way to observe anything outside of it, this ceases to be a question that can be answered scientifically. So the answer in that case is that we really don't know what, if anything, the universe is expanding into.



still unsatisfactory isnt it?

LHX
05-27-2006, 10:09 AM
waste my life asking these questions

LMAO

HANZO
05-27-2006, 11:15 AM
a very interesting question, one which with what we know of the universe today cannot be proved.
we know that stars expand in size. one day the sun will become so big it will consume the entire solar system. so we know that there are elements in the universe which do expand. so we can say the universe can also expand. but the problem is where can it expand to??? i cannot also find out why it would expand though. would there be a reason for expansion?? maybe a new galaxy is formed and it creates with it another part of the universe, can we define this as expansion. i had of done cosmology for physics i would have come up with a better answer. i will look into it though.

ARRCIMEDES
05-27-2006, 12:20 PM
If the universe and all that is described in it does indeed expand, it could be best described easier if it is explained in the context similar to the heating of water or gases and the capacity that is expected to be filled of a given area in which this gas or space would in fact fit into. The sun may burn out as a source of energy in a set amount of time. So, does the energy in the star release into this area making the gAses vibrate as the gases move and heat through this area? Seems to me to be a transferral of energy through vibrations from one space to another maybe by convection, conduction or circulation(radiation). What is giving the momentum and propultion of the solar plexar system is it actually the sun acting as an electro magnet drawing energy in, like the other planets and objects circulating in the time continuem but at the same time providing some energy in the form of a radiating energy wave. This I described in the roman maxim *IPSO FACTO* space and time are the same entity. Giving that stars radiate energy thousands of years away gravity and light and from other floating rocks in space such as the moon effect the tides and weather that controls the movement of out planet. But indeed as opposed to the fact we are inside a chain of events within a bigger picture of the universe does the earths expansions of time and space within and occuring on our own planet and within our own planets sphere have any effect on any other outside floating bodies that we revolve with around the sun as the moon does to the earth. I think so it is the same principal as astronomy in relation to events and astrology in the timing of these eventsas a chain predictable in relation to each other. A source of energy such as light, sound, or heat being emitted form earth should in principal be detectable on another planet. Just the same as it is by a satellite that is revolving around earth provided as long as it is vibrating through the air onn a certain frequency or range of frequencies for a certain amount of time. Principally it is an energy wave that exists as long as it is detctable in space.
Peace to the masked pythons im out

hidden ninja
05-27-2006, 01:16 PM
space? if the universe is everything(incorporates time), the how can it expand? into what?well space is just that, infinite space. the universe would be all things that exist within space. and over time eventually all of those things will take up more and more space.

Prince Rai
05-28-2006, 09:36 AM
well space is just that, infinite space. the universe would be all things that exist within space. and over time eventually all of those things will take up more and more space.

what you are saying is that the universe is seperate from space.
if universe is "all", then space equates to being the universe.

do you see the dillema now?

denaturat
05-28-2006, 07:38 PM
The universe is everything, or so ive been assured by people that have qualifications, but it is also expanding. Can someone answer my problem of where everything is expanding into?

check out stephen hawking's "a brief history of time." quantum physics for "laymen." short, but dense.

Prince Rai
05-29-2006, 02:33 PM
check out stephen hawking's "a brief history of time." quantum physics for "laymen." short, but dense.

thanks!!

ill try and get his book... could u give me a brief outline of it?

hidden ninja
05-29-2006, 04:59 PM
what you are saying is that the universe is seperate from space.
if universe is "all", then space equates to being the universe.

do you see the dillema now?well here's how i see it... nothingness (space) is potential, and all things (the universe) are born to fill that potential. so if space is nothingness, how could it be a part of all things?

LHX
05-29-2006, 11:15 PM
check out stephen hawking's "a brief history of time." quantum physics for "laymen." short, but dense.

oh boy

me and you really dont agree on much

TeknicelStylez
05-29-2006, 11:25 PM
If the universe and all that is described in it does indeed expand, it could be best described easier if it is explained in the context similar to the heating of water or gases and the capacity that is expected to be filled of a given area in which this gas or space would in fact fit into. The sun may burn out as a source of energy in a set amount of time. So, does the energy in the star release into this area making the gAses vibrate as the gases move and heat through this area? Seems to me to be a transferral of energy through vibrations from one space to another maybe by convection, conduction or circulation(radiation). What is giving the momentum and propultion of the solar plexar system is it actually the sun acting as an electro magnet drawing energy in, like the other planets and objects circulating in the time continuem but at the same time providing some energy in the form of a radiating energy wave. This I described in the roman maxim *IPSO FACTO* space and time are the same entity. Giving that stars radiate energy thousands of years away gravity and light and from other floating rocks in space such as the moon effect the tides and weather that controls the movement of out planet. But indeed as opposed to the fact we are inside a chain of events within a bigger picture of the universe does the earths expansions of time and space within and occuring on our own planet and within our own planets sphere have any effect on any other outside floating bodies that we revolve with around the sun as the moon does to the earth. I think so it is the same principal as astronomy in relation to events and astrology in the timing of these eventsas a chain predictable in relation to each other. A source of energy such as light, sound, or heat being emitted form earth should in principal be detectable on another planet. Just the same as it is by a satellite that is revolving around earth provided as long as it is vibrating through the air onn a certain frequency or range of frequencies for a certain amount of time. Principally it is an energy wave that exists as long as it is detctable in space.
Peace to the masked pythons im out

He killed it

Os3y3ris
05-29-2006, 11:32 PM
if space is infinite, then the things in it can still expand. if everything in the universe is expanding, then within th realm of language, its efficient to simply say that the universe is expanding.

denaturat
05-29-2006, 11:35 PM
oh boy

me and you really dont agree on much

well, if I were to agree with you on everything, I would have less reason to re-examine my own views. disagreement is not a bad thing.

denaturat
05-29-2006, 11:40 PM
thanks!!

ill try and get his book... could u give me a brief outline of it?

I'd like to revisit that book again. I'll try to find some time, but as you know, I have little time these days to pursue interests. It'd be nice to have a discussion once we both read it. Here is a sumary of the book I found on the Amazon.com. As I said before, it's a short book, worth checking out.

Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists in history, wrote the modern classic A Brief History of Time to help nonscientists understand the questions being asked by scientists today: Where did the universe come from? How and why did it begin? Will it come to an end, and if so, how? Hawking attempts to reveal these questions (and where we're looking for answers) using a minimum of technical jargon. Among the topics gracefully covered are gravity, black holes, the Big Bang, the nature of time, and physicists' search for a grand unifying theory. This is deep science; these concepts are so vast (or so tiny) as to cause vertigo while reading, and one can't help but marvel at Hawking's ability to synthesize this difficult subject for people not used to thinking about things like alternate dimensions. The journey is certainly worth taking, for, as Hawking says, the reward of understanding the universe may be a glimpse of "the mind of God." --Therese Littleton --This text refers to the Paperback (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553346148/ref=dp_proddesc_1/002-8503370-9618449?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&v=glance) edition.

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 08:20 AM
I'd like to revisit that book again. I'll try to find some time, but as you know, I have little time these days to pursue interests. It'd be nice to have a discussion once we both read it. Here is a sumary of the book I found on the Amazon.com. As I said before, it's a short book, worth checking out.

Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists in history, wrote the modern classic A Brief History of Time to help nonscientists understand the questions being asked by scientists today: Where did the universe come from? How and why did it begin? Will it come to an end, and if so, how? Hawking attempts to reveal these questions (and where we're looking for answers) using a minimum of technical jargon. Among the topics gracefully covered are gravity, black holes, the Big Bang, the nature of time, and physicists' search for a grand unifying theory. This is deep science; these concepts are so vast (or so tiny) as to cause vertigo while reading, and one can't help but marvel at Hawking's ability to synthesize this difficult subject for people not used to thinking about things like alternate dimensions. The journey is certainly worth taking, for, as Hawking says, the reward of understanding the universe may be a glimpse of "the mind of God." --Therese Littleton --This text refers to the Paperback (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553346148/ref=dp_proddesc_1/002-8503370-9618449?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&v=glance) edition.

ill try and get the book of course.
whether ill find the time to read is worth a discussion :P

peace

LHX
05-30-2006, 08:36 AM
if space is infinite, then the things in it can still expand. if everything in the universe is expanding, then within th realm of language, its efficient to simply say that the universe is expanding.

this might be the most precise post in this thread

LHX
05-30-2006, 08:37 AM
well, if I were to agree with you on everything, I would have less reason to re-examine my own views. disagreement is not a bad thing.

most definitely not a bad thing


the obstacle is the path

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 08:58 AM
yes, there is..

LHX
05-30-2006, 09:07 AM
every time we get a better telescope we find that space gets bigger

every time we get a better microscope we find smaller things


infinitely out
infinitely in

Visionz
05-30-2006, 09:14 AM
^that's because God is infinite, the scientist will figure this one out eventually.

Visionz
05-30-2006, 09:57 AM
By what reason do you say that?

My First Timbs
05-30-2006, 10:07 AM
eric,

exactly what does that mean when u say "god is infinite"?

please xplain what that means

are u talking physically? temporally? or in some abstract sort of way?

religionists always state this but never explain the meaning of it and how it relates to anything at hand

Visionz
05-30-2006, 10:12 AM
God isn't some spook in the sky. God encompasses everything and is reflected in everything. God also operates in demensions outside our current level of understanding. But in short, there is no where to look where there isn't God(no matter how small or large in scope). She's truly infinite.

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:18 AM
if god is infinite, and god is inside everything, then shouldnt everything in turn be infinite?

well apparently man has an immortal soul :P

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:21 AM
God isn't some spook in the sky. God encompasses everything and is reflected in everything. God also operates in demensions outside our current level of understanding. But in short, there is no where to look where there isn't God(no matter how small or large in scope). She's truly infinite.

i understand where you are coming from.

i personally would suscribe to the statment you made about God working in different dimensions.

through a lot of quantum metaphysics, it is apparent that there are truly dimensions outside our capabilities to comprehend by using our senses.

this only gives rise to the possibility that there can be beings that we cannot see but that truly exist and can have some effect on our lives.

whther such beings/being is God, is a subject of another debate entirely i suppose.

peace and blessings

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:23 AM
so god is in the soul but not in the body?

personally the physical body will limit God's power.
the soul is God, he made us in his image, not literally, i believe that our soul is immortal and thus the true reflection of God.

the physicalities of the modern world overshadow our soul and tempt us towards all whch has been released by pandoras box.

peace... thats just my opinion based on my own studies and convictions.

Visionz
05-30-2006, 10:24 AM
so god is in the soul but not in the body?

^well the soul's enclosed by your body so it's kinda hard to seperate the two. But basically it's the infinite wrapped around the finite, which will eventually decompose and return to the infinite itself. (Life really is one huge cycle)

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:26 AM
^well the soul's enclosed by your body so it's kinda hard to seperate the two. But basically it's the infinite wrapped around the finite, which will eventually decompose and return to the infinite itself. (Life really is one huge cycle)

im feeling this.

peace eric

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:30 AM
but the body has an ending, so thus gods infinity didnt reach the body so thus god isnt infinitie. that lil trickster.

yet a new beginning is born. god transferred perhaps? the trickster got cards up his sleeve!

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:36 AM
but a new beginning doesnt negate an ending.
an end is an end as an end is an end.

depends if you view death as an end to life...
is it important that God upholds the physical body? or is it importnat that he can continue the life seed onto other bodies?

thing is.. the body is a wrapper, a package, to protect life. death is the expiry date for the wrapper, the life didnt end though.

of course this sounds like an opinion, just like saying death is the end to "life" by anybody else

peace

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:38 AM
also,

i do not want to say God is infinite as he is in everything.

i doubt that line of thought will get far.

God is infinite as he is not bound by physicality which is prone to expiry dates

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:47 AM
but you can't just make the body seem worthless in the hunt to prove gods infinite abilities. and how a person views death is either here nore there. when the bodies dies the body is dead.
its done.

as i said, i didnt want to argue the line that God is infinite by merely existing in everything. that is not absolutely true.

i am arguing however that God is infinite by virtue that he is not bound by a physical body.

death is the end of physical existence. the beauty of God's infinite powers comes from the belief that our soul is God as we are part of him, and this lives on. that is the infinity i subscribe to.

we cannot prove or disprove that physical death necessarily ends the soul.

Visionz
05-30-2006, 10:48 AM
but you can't just make the body seem worthless in the hunt to prove gods infinite abilities. and how a person views death is either here nore there. when the bodies dies the body is dead.
its done.The body is lifeless, true enough. But without the fancy burials that body would decompose and then feed more life. So while the body dies the cycle it performs here on earth keeps going.


Also understand that death is necessary in a physical plane such as ours. There are certain inherit limitations that we're placed with (over-population, food consumption etc.) that would be a very huge problem if no one ever died.

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:56 AM
of course we can't because as far as i know there's not been any proof to prove that there is a soul.

or that it doesnt exist at all!
again, the thing here is that we come from two spectrums with equal footing.

proof is required with the intention that it entrenches a theory or thought as fact. this i believe.

but the sceintific fact that there are dimensions unseen to the naked eye gives rise to the fact that there may just be proof that we cannot see with our senses, to establish a stronger base for the existence of the soul.

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 10:57 AM
The body is lifeless, true enough. But without the fancy burials that body would decompose and then feed more life. So while the body dies the cycle it performs here on earth keeps going.


Also understand that death is necessary in a physical plane such as ours. There are certain inherit limitations that we're placed with (over-population, food consumption etc.) that would be a very huge problem if no one ever died.

that is true.

death of the physical body is the natural course of conduct by nature to balance out factors which you have mentioned (population/food)..
it is a neccesity and not a luxury

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 11:07 AM
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence right, but even if a soul is found to be true it still doesnt equate to it being infinite because of a relation to god.

lets assume for the sake of our debate that without doubt we both "know" the soul exists.

we would agree then, that the soul is within the body which is physical.
the physicality of our life has an expiry date, which is forthcoming by virtue of death.

the soul, although intertvined with the body, is thus seperate from the body as the soul is not the body itself.

what truly controls the body?

the soul is thus apart from the physical body and cannot be seen if the soul resumed to exist.

then we must ask, what expiry dates are hanging over the soul?
is the soul bound by death?
what is the purpose of death? does the result of death benefit the soul?

the soul, i believe, is not bound by any factor which is entrenched in the conduct of the Earth/World.

the soul has no limitations set to it if it is free from the physicalitis of the world.
the soul thus becomes immortal.. and who else exhibits such qualities? God..

Visionz
05-30-2006, 12:27 PM
most poeple would say ok god is the energy source for the soul, god is infinite and thus the soul is infinite, but is god is infinite and is a source of energy then we should never have energy shortages on earth, cause earth is full of souls.
We don't have energy shortages by any means. What we do have is greedy people manipulating the markets who have a problem with two things......sharing and innovation.

Visionz
05-30-2006, 01:02 PM
^I'm not sure I'm following your logic with that one.

ERN-DAWGY
05-30-2006, 01:09 PM
well there is this thing called THE BIG BANG THEORY, which implifies that that universe was created by a big explosion, thus when something explodes it keeps spreading, so when the universe got created it spread and spread..till this day it keeps getting bigger and it will never stop to grow.. where does it get bigger, hmmmm well space is infinite and the universe isnt so it keeps gettin bigger till the space fills up...which will never end because space is infinite...so there

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 01:54 PM
but a soul may have an expiration date, just because it is seperate from the body doesnt mean it doesnt have to follow the same laws as the body did.

pretty much the soul is seen almost as a type of energy source iy? if you stop feeding that energy source what happens? it will die down and dwindle away iy?

most poeple would say ok god is the energy source for the soul, god is infinite and thus the soul is infinite, but is god is infinite and is a source of energy then we should never have energy shortages on earth, cause earth is full of souls.

good argument..
sorry for my delay legato.

counterargument..

the laws of our body is governed by nature. the soul within the body is bound by what nature does with the body. after physical death, the soul separates from the body, and lives on.
we need fuel/energy to maintain our physical frame, thus we eat and drink etc.
the soul requires none such things as we do not require such energy. then your question of how the soul gets its energy..

you touched upon God as the source of our energy. this is true. our souls are part of him and he alone maintains us owing to his attributes.

this begs the question which u posed, which is that, if this is the case that souls are maintaned by god, why do we envisage energy shortages here.

the answer to this comes from two things:

1) I believe you have taken the stance that I am arguing that everyyything has a soul and has God in them. This, as i have said several times, is most likely untrue.

2) God only exists in the part-form of the soul which is apparent in all.
this alone remains that infinite energy source and as this source is not tangible as such, we cannot extract that source for our own purposes to maintain our material world.

Prince Rai
05-30-2006, 02:00 PM
well then that means people control god, and can shut god off and or limit the amount of god used. so he's not infinite.

the confusion here is how you came with this observation, excuse my ignorance to the source of this statment.

however, i would argue that we cannot control God at all. neither do we have the capabilities to shut him off like some sort of light switch whenever we need it/him.

His source of energy is confused with the energy we require to fuel our planet. His energy is numerous and as there are multiple dimensions in the universe, his energies may come in so many ways, ways which we ourselves are not familiar with.

The purpose of God's energy is to maintain his realm. the created realm of the physical world is materialistic to him, and he built this world with intention.

What the intention is, is worth another debate that we may want to pursue.

Urban_Journalz
05-31-2006, 04:20 PM
The bottom line is, we don't know. Even if we did, what the hell could we do about it anyway? We have enough problems down here we don't take the time to solve. I see no sense in trying to find new ones.
Peace

Prince Rai
06-01-2006, 01:01 PM
true, there be many a energy source in the world that we dont know about, and even if we did we probably wouldnt know how to use it buut to attribute this all to god is somewhat limiting is it not?

no no, i get u!

i also think nobody should jump to conclusions.
my conviction of the existence of God still forces me to determine many factors in life by use of further discussion etc..

peace legato..