- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,014
- 52,623
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It is based on the false assumption that a big universe is an old universe.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is based on the false assumption that a big universe is an old universe.So what is this 13.7 billion years all about?
That is the age of the universe. Or, more precisely, it is the duration for which the universe has been expanding. What happened longer than 13.7 billion years ago is anyone's guess (according to Hawking, anything that happened then has absolutely no influence on what happened after, so we may as well consider it to be the start of the universe, for all intents and purposes).So what is this 13.7 billion years all about?
Can you demonstrate they're false without resorting to the Bible?It is based on the false assumption that a big universe is an old universe.
No.Can you demonstrate they're false without resorting to the Bible?
Yes.Can you demonstrate they're false if I let you use the Bible?
You lost me at “Hawking”.What happened longer than 13.7 billion years ago is anyone's guess (according to Hawking, anything that happened then has absolutely no influence on what happened after, so we may as well consider it to be the start of the universe, for all intents and purposes).
No.
Yes.
Bully for science ---Um... then your argument has no merit, and the scientific community is perfectly correct in considering it your personal religious belief, and ignoring it.
Bully for science ---
Just why are you in the science forum then?
Yup ---Fishing
Matthew 4:19 said:And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Simply being hypocritically antagonistic towards science, that's all.Just why are you in the science forum then?
I liked pgp's answer better.Simply being hypocritically antagonistic towards science, that's all.
I thought so. Thanks for answeringNo. Yes.
I thought I might. He's a very smart man, much smarter than you or I. That doesn't make him automatically right, but it does make him an expert on the field. I, for one, defer to his expertise over those of a layman.You lost me at Hawking.
I believe you mean the particle horizon. Event horizons are associated with black holes.The reason is because astronomers hypothesized the observed dark flow we discussed as being influenced by gravity beyond the event horizon which we cannot observe.
If you're going to use his epithet, use the right one. He's a professor at Cambridge.Astronomers seem to see an influence between the then (beyond the event horizon) and the after (the observed universe), so I guess when Mr. Hawking made that statement the dark flow was not yet observed. Either that or he is not keeping up with his work load.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Calm down ladies, I don't want my shiny thread sullied by a flame war.
I thought they were use interchangeably, are they not?: Event horizon of the observable universe. Am I wrong?I believe you mean the particle horizon. Event horizons are associated with black holes.
We'll see if that's true when they continue to find more. And I believe they will.Anyway, dark flow simply refers to a supposed net movement of galaxies towards a patch of sky. If there is such a movement, and there is much debate on whether it actually exists as a statistical phenomenon, I hardly see that as a problem for our theories.
No problem for me, but they're sure to become a problem for big bang theorists. I'm sure they'll just tweak the model to make them fit, though.What, exactly, is your problem with dark flow?
I thought they were use interchangeably, are they not?: Event horizon of the observable universe. Am I wrong?
Let's not jump the gun.We'll see if that's true when they continue to find more. And I believe they will.
I'm sure they will. All science works that way: adapting to new data, throwing out the old if it proves unworkable.No problem for me, but they're sure to become a problem for big bang theorists. I'm sure they'll just tweak the model to make them fit, though.
Why does coca-cola and menthos explode?
it's beautiful ... is it what all scientists want for Christmas?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?