Maybie You're a week old...

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Yes, that i understood, what's your point with that? Are you saying that energy is constantly created that goes nowhere but space and that someday we'll all be hot because all mass is converted to enrgy?

No, because only a small part of the matter contained in stars is actually undergoing fusion, and from all calculations, the uniiverse is expanding faster than this fusion is supplying new energy, so the net effect is colder average temperatures.

Well, shit, blank on procedure, i think the energy is released somewhere on channeled into matter or something :/
Lost it right now, but it's late, i should be sleeping, but hey.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
There is no correlation, positive or negative, between the accuracy of the Big Bang theory and the question of the existence of God. Anyone who assumes such a thing is stupid. Even if the Big Bang theory is completely and utterly disproven/discredited, the question of God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief and faith. God's existence will remain a matter of religious belief until such time as measurable, quantifiable evidence is found that supports that existence, and repeatable controlled scientific experimentation can establish a case that supports that existence.

As a corollary, no amount of belief in God, positive or negative, can possibly have any bearing on the question of whether God exists. God either exists, or does not.

Once again I was only presenting the argument in the context in which i first heard it. I was not seeking to gain any enlightenment regarding the existence of god. I don't want to discuss theology here.

Ok.. Then in that case, let's just say that if evidence comes to light that discredits/disproves the Big Bang theory, then that theory should be modified if possible to account for the new evidence, or scrapped altogether in favor of a new theory if evidence comes to light that supports a new theory. That's all. The concept of God's existence is entirely superfluous to that.

Yes, That's what would happen. What I want to know is if the basic premise behind this argument is a valid point. If viewed from a statistical angle, is the big bang scenario less likely than the appeared-spontaneously-from-nothing scenario? Forget questions like "Well how did it appear from nothing?". Assume, that if it did, the agent of that creation is wholly unknown to us. I suppose that there is no way to quantify entropy and calculate its effect on probability regarding the origin of the universe, but given given knowledge of physics/statistics/mathematics, someone should be able to find the holes in this argument (if there are any).

 

[ElFenix]

what would happen if the universe round... shaped like a basketball. say the big bang happened at the top where you put in the air needle. if the galaxies then exploded outward across the surface of the basketball, then, until the galaxies all passed the centerline of the basketball, and that information were transmitted to an observor (in one of the galaxies, mind you) then it would appear that all galaxies are accelerating away from the observor, even though they are traveling a constant, or maybe even a decelerating rate. It would even appear this way until quite a while after the observor passed the centerline, due to how slow the speed of light is.

all i'm really saying is, we think we know where the galaxies are moving from, yet our observations cover an extremely short period of time and are using horrendously old data sets.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what would happen if the universe round... shaped like a basketball. say the big bang happened at the top where you put in the air needle. if the galaxies then exploded outward across the surface of the basketball, then, until the galaxies all passed the centerline of the basketball, and that information were transmitted to an observor (in one of the galaxies, mind you) then it would appear that all galaxies are accelerating away from the observor, even though they are traveling a constant, or maybe even a decelerating rate. It would even appear this way until quite a while after the observor passed the centerline, due to how slow the speed of light is.

all i'm really saying is, we think we know where the galaxies are moving from, yet our observations cover an extremely short period of time and are using horrendously old data sets.

Interesting analogy