Impossibility of the universe

All I can say is that it takes as much courage to accept being assigned a value of infinite measure by an all knowing, all loving, all powerful creator God, as it does that of a negligable speck of dust operating within what amounts to a meaningless absurdity. Call me crazy, but I believe that there is an absolute objective reality and that life has an intrinsic meaning, purpose and value, and therefore, judgement, who's final standard is that of forgiveness. I've used my own rational faculties to test it out, the God hypothesis, from a whole host of reference points, most of them philosophical in nature, and it comes up sound every time and even lends itself to description. I think it may even be more couragious in fact, to be willing to consider the God hypothesis in SPITE of one's prejudices and assumptions regarding religious sentiments and their issues with the church (what I call churchianity).


[edit on 20-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by Welfhard
... and some of us aren't going to make rash leaps of faith based on nothing to our own comfortable conclusions.

As you continue your search and investigation, you may very well do so, but it may happen like a quantum leap born of a gnosis (sudden penetrating insight) on the very cutting edge between knowledge and faith, between the rational and the ultra-rational, and it could happen tomorrow when you step out your door and behold the magnificence of God's creation while giving thanks for having been included within it.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
All I can say is that it takes as much courage to accept being assigned a value of infinite measure by an all knowing, all loving, all powerful creator God, as it does that of a negligable speck of dust operating within what amounts to a meaningless absurdity.

We are all negligable speck of inifinity in an infinitely larger infinity.

Call me crazy,

Ok.

but I believe that there is an absolute objective reality and that life has an intrinsic meaning, purpose and value, and therefore, judgement, who's final standard is that of forgiveness.

The ultimate truth is perfect subjectivity with all things objective to it. Also of course if there is an ultimate purpose, what is the point of it?

I've used my own rational faculties to test it out, the God hypothesis, from a whole host of reference points, most of them philosophical in nature, and it comes up sound every time and even lends itself to description.

I try to escape but there is nowhere to run. Eternity is the ultimate trap, infinity the ultimate cage. If I could leave it, I would still be in its grip.

reply to post by Jim Scott


I don' t mean to offend you or belittle you in anyway. I haven't really checked out all the posts so I may be going off topic here. If I am out of line forgive me.

I can't help but notice that you are talking about discrepancies in Time. I take it that you take Time for granted. I think that Time is an illusion. This is something that is really abstract and hard to define as it is something that cannot be objectively quantified (measuring the passage of Time does not give us real insight as to what Time really is, it just goes to show that Time [appears to] happens). As far as we can tell the only "Time" that exists is the present moment. None of us has ever lived in the past or in the future, there exists only now. Making a statement like this is really futile as it is not inherently comprehensible for most people. In fact most people deny this as the past or the future is really important to them. It will take a little contemplation but it is possible to see this (if only abstractly).

To see the validity of this statement consider the past. Can we prove that the past, even the most recent past (forget about 800 million years or 13 billion light years) ever happened? We all rely upon memory to give us a picture of the past. There is no real concrete proof to show us that the past really existed. Our picture of the past lies solely in our memory of it (you can argue that there are artifacts from the past, or that there is video footage from 1976 that gives us proof of the past, no, it just proves that those things exist now and they just conform to your memory of the past).
There are many things like collective memory (by this I mean that many people remember the same thing like for example JFK was president) that seem to prove that the past happened. I can cross check my memory of the past with someone else to confirm what happened. Just because we remember the same thing doesn't mean that it actually happened, all it does is confirm that we remember the same thing, it gives no proof, as memory is insubstantial. I'm sure that we can all agree that memory can be very fickle and unreliable. Sometimes what you remember as happening is not what others remember or it's not what really happened. You can have a vivid dream and wake up with memories of that dream. But you know that it's just a dream and never really happened. Knowing that it was a dream doesn't make the memory of that dream any less real or forgettable. You remember what you did in the dream, just like you remember what you did yesterday. Who's to say which is real and unreal?

Now I'm getting off topic. OK, so if the past is nothing but a memory can we say that Time is real?

I think this line of thought has no real bearing on what you guys are discussing so I leave it here. Let me know if you want to hear more, I would be happy to divulge more.

The point I wanted to make was this: why are you guys worried about this discrepancy in Time if Time is unreal?

There is nothing impossible about the universe..

The problem is not the universe.. the problem is US.. we don't understand it, that's the problem!

Time Gravity Space Atoms Planets Galaxy's ect ect

All the same thing.. why?


they are ALL inside of "it".. Something MADE our universe just the way YOU and ME was made..

It may not have a reason to us lot.. but step back and it has a reason why??

well you are here.. that's a reason if any


the universe is alive.. and so are we

OP here. Good discussions. The point made about not exceeding light speed: that only applies to matter. When the matter has not yet become matter, it is in a state of energy, according to E=mc^2. This is an energy expression in joules, which notes that the square of the speed of light is the change point. As long as the energy maintains this high speed, the matter cannot form.

In infinity, without boundaries or resistance, the energy would pervade the vacuum at unrestricted speed. However, when this energy cooled, through entropy, it would condense into matter, reducing it's speed. Due to this immediate cooling transition, the matter would be energy in high speed, thus having "infinite" mass. This high mass number would account for the formation of groups of matter in a hurry. As the cooling continued, the masses would slow their conglomeration, and their energies would become orbits.

However, the highest concentrations of masses at the center of each conglomeration would form a black hole. Hence, galaxies have a black hole at their centers.

The formation of the universe would indicate a high speed dispersal, a "condensation", a conglomeration - including over-massed centers, and entropy following.

However, on this scale, the speed of the motion would indicate there was already an inherent medium to promote the dispersal. Think of it like an explosion, pushing particles through the air. However, in this case, the medium in space would be like hitting a steel beam with a hammer. Sound travels faster in steel than in air. Something in space provided the freeway for the energy transfer at such high speeds. It may be the dark energy, and it may have preexisted the universe---you might say it "greased the skids."

As we see the universe continuing to remake itself through novas and black holes, it makes one wonder if there ever was a beginning. Think of it like going to visit the northwestern redwoods. One would look around and only see redwoods of up to a certain age, like 3500 years. What was there before those redwoods? Perhaps there were more redwoods, but their record of existence is missing. It may be that the microwave signal from deep space is the record of the universe as it existed before the present 13.7 billion year old universe we can see. If so, we may be in a universe that has existed forever, without beginning or end, and the processes we see of recreating heavy elements, etc are ongoing and also never-ending.

It may be that life is complex and widespread due to the exogenesis of life in the universe that has been in existence forever. Usually, time does not allow for the probability of life. However, if the universe has never had a beginning, that argument goes out the window when you include the concept of exogenesis. Now you have an infinite time to create life, the universe could be infinitely beyond googles of years old, and we are flying along on a ball in the middle of all of it.

Welcome to my world.

The Facts

Age of the universe: 13.7 billion years. How we calculate this

Data from the WMAP orbital observatory confirms that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, plus or minus 137 million years.

Size of the universe: No-one really knows. The most-quoted current estimate is 93 billion years (factoring in the rate of expansion as indicated by cosmological data), but according to some it's much bigger than that. An experiment is now under way using the Kepler planet-hunting telescope to get an accurate figure by observing Cepheid variables.

Centre of the universe: the universe has no centre because it didn't explode outward from a point in space but, rather, space itself expands. How we know this

Expansion of the universe: the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. The acceleration is very small. How we know this

* * *

The picture the OP refers to shows the universe as it was, not 800 million years ago, but as it was when it was 800 million years old. Big, big difference. The light from those galaxies has taken 13 billion-odd years to reach us and we know this because red-shift measurements put them at a distance of 13.7 billion light-years. There is no paradox, no confusion.

Two more useful links:

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology from the UCLA Dept. of Astronomy web site.

Scientific American article on Misconceptions about the Big Bang.

Read, enjoy and experience an end to confusion!

reply to post by Astyanax


Awesome post dude, Its like Carl Sagans Bookmarker Folder was posted.
Nice Job.

Star it ATS, yes even you IDers that so love Astyanax.
Everyone say Isotropic Expansion from singularity 1...2....3.....

reply to post by Astyanax


nice post!

gave a star also !

(not a fan of this new thing, type type type type 20 more type type)

bingo... ; )

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
God was the bringer of rain at a time.
God was the bringer of death at some time.
God was the bringer of life at some time.

He still is according to some.

Keep in mind science is not exact all the time, but offers the best explanation. In my mind, God was at the very start of science...just an age old explanation. We have moved on to more logical explanations...or at least most of us.

actually science is quite exact. the purpose of scientific method is to be able to get the same result for the same conditions. whenever we don't know an answer we research and when we have the answer it's always correct.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
And some of us are simply open minded enough to consider the possibility that the universe was created by, enveloped within, and infused by, a self aware conscious being or universal spirit of infinite intelligence that is all powerful and embued with a perfect will, a God of light and love who upholds and collapses the universal wave of probability, so that the moon is still there, even when we are not looking at it.

the universe may be conscious but it was not created by that same consciousness. each iteration of the universe completely destroys everything inside at the quantum level. so even god would be killed (or created) by the big bang or a brane collision.

i do believe there are beings we could see as GODs but they have evolved after the big bang and are energy based beings which most likely created physical beings which in turn may have seeded life elsewhere (including on earth)...

Originally posted by DarkSecret
i do believe there are beings we could see as GODs but they have evolved after the big bang and are energy based beings which most likely created physical beings which in turn may have seeded life elsewhere (including on earth)...

Maybe they didn't create physical life.

Maybe, forged in the hotter fires of creation's aftermath and already very old, their race watched ours evolving, and the sight filled them with fury, or ambition, or disgust.

So they meddle... powerless as yet to do more, prevented by the laws of physics and the limits of their science.

But as we evolve, they too are evolving.

And one day will come a judgement.

ok i think my thread is kinda related to this topic..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

its a simple question but it relates to the reasons impossibility and so forth

dont want to derail just wanted to give abit of thought into this from another angle

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
To see an object 13 billion light years away means it must have been 13 billion light years away 13 billion years ago. If 13BLY corresponds to an age of 800M years, then then universe must have been at least that large at 800M years old.

Anything moving away at superluminal velocity from space expansion would not be visible to us since it's outside our light cone.

That sums it up pretty well.

Something does seem paradoxical here... Either something is wrong with the model or the way the information is presented gives people a false impression. I'll be the advocate for the latter for the time being.

It works, according to that Scientific American article I linked to earlier, because the expansion of space is a general-relativistic phenomenon - nothing to do with matter and energy (dark energy being something else again) and hence not subject to the speed limit imposed by special relativity. It's just space that's expanding, and nothing stops it expanding at faster than the speed of light. That's what elfie's quote meant where it says 'c is not significant at cosmological scales'.

I think part of the solution to this is considering that space is expanding considerably during the light travel time.

Bingo! The rate of spatial expansion increases with distance. Why? Because the farther you look in space the farther you see in time. Very, very distant objects are very, very old objects; we're seeing them as they were when the universe was young, and the expansion of space was much more rapid than it is now.

So the more distant from one another two bodies are in space (at cosmological distances, not galactic ones), the faster they are moving apart from each other.

This is what sets a limit on the extent of the observable universe - a limit known as the Hubble distance. A beam of light from a galaxy beyond the Hubble distance would travel at the same speed as light anywhere in space - 300,000 km/sec - but because we're expanding away from the galaxy faster than that, it'll never catch us.

So no paradox, though I suppose it sounds - literally - a bit far-fetched. Still, it fits the data, so on we go...

reply to post by Jim Scott


It is not the univere that is impossible, it is the big bang theory that is false. Try to think a little deeper...

reply to post by _damon


Let's go deeper. Here's a hypothesis: a large body composed of dark matter and dark energy has a surface disturbance, like a solar prominence or sunspot. There is a leak of that dark matter and dark energy, a cooling, and matter forms from that leak. That leak point is coming from a higher dimension, where there is more that length, width, height, and time. When it escapes that dimension, where it was under magnetic and gravitational pressure, it now rushes forth into a lesser dimension (us) and some of the matter condenses into hydrogen. As time passes, it forms the universe.

The point of the leak is the origin point of the big bang, and that accounts for all the matter coming from a speck, as well as the ongoing expansion of space.

But I digress. The point of this thread is the impossibility. Folks here have misunderstood one statement I was making about the Hubble photo. They have thought I did not understand that the photo is of the universe at 800 million years old, and they thought I did not understand it took the light 13 billion years to arrive at the Hubble telescope. Not so. My point was this: the space shown by the photo, wall to wall, would be a distance inside the photo that would take over 800 million years for the matter to disperse from one end to another. Because the matter could not disperse that far that fast, due to light speed limits, it is impossible for the matter to be there.

This argument was countered by the theory that matter is not traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light, it is the space that is expanding faster than the speed of light. The matter is not moving that fast inside the space, therefore it is, by point of reference inside the space, not moving faster than the speed of light. This presupposes that the point of reference is relative, hence a theory of relativity. Think of it as walking on a train. The train is moving at 120 mph, you are walking at 2 mph. Since the high speed of space has no effect (no matter) on the space, and the matter is moving slower than the speed of light within the space, we have no conflict of physical properties.

Does this make sense?

I find it interesting that the matter is moving faster than the speed of light because the space is carrying it. Seems like it would still categorically be moving faster than the speed of light, and hence gain greater than infinite mass, but what do I (we) know... This concept of space expanding faster than the speed of light while matter does not is interesting, but can it be proven? If not, then it is taken on faith. If on faith, what is the difference between that faith or the faith that it was created aged in present position, light created enroute, etc? Don't Christians have the right to have their faith? In the absence of provable science, what's the difference to you?

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 24-4-2009 by Jim Scott]

the bing bang was a cop out...

There was no bang

there was birth.. BIG birth NOT big bang

in order for life to be here one would require what? "life" how does that make sens?

Well look around you its all over the place on earth.. what we are in IS living and its GROWING...

the universe is a living thing and we are here to keep it going "life"

its a function.. your question / postulation about the impossiblity of the universe...

how impossible is it that you are even here to question it?


funny dont you think? ; )

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Here's a hypothesis: a large body composed of dark matter and dark energy has a surface disturbance, like a solar prominence or sunspot.

We don't know what dark matter and dark energy are, but they have never been observed to form bodies. Since dark energy is what pushes space apart, it is rather unlikely that it could be associated with a coherent, massive body.

So however the universe originated, it certainly didn't come into being the way you describe.

The point of this thread is the impossibility. Because the matter could not disperse that far that fast, due to light speed limits, it is impossible for the matter to be there.

It was pointed out earlier that the 'light speed limit' applies only to matter and energy moving through space. It does not prevent space itself from expanding faster than the speed of light, and taking the matter and energy it contains with it. However, you seem to be uncomfortable with that:

Does this make sense? Seems like it would still categorically be moving faster than the speed of light, and hence gain greater than infinite mass, but what do I... know...

Categorically? Are you suggesting that there is some point in space that can be regarded as stationary, from which all other speeds can be 'categorically' judged? Sorry, neither General nor Special Relativity will allow that; there are no privileged frames of reference.

This concept of space expanding faster than the speed of light while matter does not is interesting, but can it be proven?

Yes, it can, and moreover it is 'proof'* even a nonscientist can easily understand.

First of all, it is known that the universe is expanding and that the rate of expansion between any two points depends on the distance separating them. How do we know this? Red shift.

From General Relativity, a theory for which the evidence is so abundant we may as well regard it as proof, we can derive a formula relating cosmological (as opposed to Doppler) red shift to speed of recession. According to the formula, light whose wavelength is redshifted to one and a half times or more greater than the lab reference is coming from a sourc moving away from us at or faster than the speed of light.

So no, it is not taken on faith.

Don't Christians have the right to have their faith?

You have your constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of conscience. Isn't that enough for you? You want that the rest of the world should lie to itself just in order to make you and your coreligionists happy?

*But see above, stander's comments on the meaning of 'proof' and 'evidence' in science.

Originally posted by Astyanax
So however the universe originated, it certainly didn't come into being the way you describe.
It was pointed out earlier that the 'light speed limit' applies only to matter and energy moving through space. It does not prevent space itself from expanding faster than the speed of light, and taking the matter and energy it contains with it. However, you seem to be uncomfortable with that:

Categorically? Are you suggesting that there is some point in space that can be regarded as stationary, from which all other speeds can be 'categorically' judged? Sorry, neither General nor Special Relativity will allow that; there are no privileged frames of reference.

First of all, it is known that the universe is expanding and that the rate of expansion between any two points depends on the distance separating them. How do we know this? Red shift.

From General Relativity, a theory for which the evidence is so abundant we may as well regard it as proof, we can derive a formula relating cosmological (as opposed to Doppler) red shift to speed of recession. According to the formula, light whose wavelength is redshifted to one and a half times or more greater than the lab reference is coming from a sourc moving away from us at or faster than the speed of light.

So no, it is not taken on faith.

Red shift is an indication of an object moving away from our location, correct? Is there any way for a scientific instrument to discern between an object that is inherently red, and an object that may be blue but is moving away at a high speed?

Are there any objects in space that are moving toward us? Of course. Our solar system is moving toward a collision with Sirius, and our galaxy is moving toward a collision with Andromeda. If the universe is filled with points that are expanding away from each other, how can we have collisions?

It seems there are inherent flaws in the reasoning behind the expansion rates and the general expansion concept.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Is there any way for a scientific instrument to discern between an object that is inherently red, and an object that may be blue but is moving away at a high speed?

That's funny, though I know you don't mean it to be.

In electromagnetic terms, the words 'colour' and 'frequency' are equivalent. 'Redshift' therefore means 'downward frequency shift'. Redshift can make gamma rays and x-rays visible, or shift visible light down into the infrared where it's invisible to the human eye - and further still, through the microwave spectrum all the way down to longwave radio frequencies.

Despite that little howler, you ask a valid, intelligent question. The answer is yes, there is such an instrument. It's called a spectroscope.

I'll explain beginning from first principles. It's very simple and I think you, as well as others on this thread, will appreciate it.

We start with Newton's famous prism experiment, as reproduced on this world-famous album cover.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/819841bb3bad.jpg[/atsimg]
In 1655, Newton did this experiment to prove that white sunlight is actually a mixture of light of different colours (frequencies).

Now let's shine the light refracted through the prism onto a strip of photographic film. If we use the right kind of film, we can reproduce the full visible spectrum and some of the infrared and ultraviolet ranges too. Here's a picture:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/adeae403c5c4.jpg[/atsimg]
Look closely at the picture. Scattered across it are narrow lines of pure black. What do they mean?

They mean that the sun is not emitting light at these frequencies.

But how can that be? Nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, causes electromagnetic emission across the whole spectrum. How come some frequencies are not represented?

The answer is that certain common elements suspended in the solar photosphere absorb the light at those frequencies so that it never leaves the sun. Every element has its own absorption frequency: hydrogen absorbs light at 656.281nm, iron at 527.039 and 382.044nm, and so on.

The emission spectrum of sunlight never changes; what's more, it's typical not only of the sun but of other stars of similar size and age. In fact, stars are classified by spectral type, which is determined by spectral variation in the intensity of light they emit (i.e. the 'colour' of the star) as well as by the disposition of Fraunhofer lines. Galaxies, too, are classified the same way.

Dust-clouds and other cosmic objects also have their own characteristic emission spectra, each with its own arrangement of Fraunhofer lines, well known to astrophysicists.

Now, you're right that if an object in the sky is red, we can't tell just by looking at it whether it's stationary relative to us and giving off red light, or giving off blue light that's been redshifted because the object is speeding away from us. But we can analyze the light using a spectroscope. And when we do, we'll see a characteristic pattern of Fraunhofer lines. However 'blue' or 'red' the light we're observing is, the arrangement of lines across the spectrum is always the same for any known object.

Thus we can

1. identify what type of object we're looking at. Before Hubble and its successors, this was the only way of classifying distant stars and galaxies; distant objects were just blobs of light in optical telescopes and the really faraway ones couldn't be seen at all, only 'heard' on radio telescopes;
   
   
2. directly measure the object's redshift by checking how far down the electromagnetic spectrum the characteristic pattern of absorption lines has shifted;
   
   
3. calculate its speed of recession from us.
   

So, to answer your question in a sentence: the difference between 'an object that is inherently red, and one that may be blue but is moving away at a high speed' is shown by the displacement of the characteristic absorption spectrum of the type of object in question.

Here's a picture that compares redshifted galactic spectra to ordinary ones, showing the displacement of the hydrogen line:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8c70568f4baf.gif[/atsimg]

* * *

If the universe is filled with points that are expanding away from each other, how can we have collisions?

The speed at which the points are expanding away from each other varies from zero for points in close proximity to one another, to faser than the speed of light for two points at the extremity of the observable universe from each other. Obviously, for relatively nearby objects like stars in our galaxy or galaxies in our local cluster, the speed of recession is tiny and easily negated by other physical factors. It doesn't even begin to be an issue.

[edit on 27/4/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Man that takes me back! I remember in 7th From physics spending a whole week on light frequencies. It blew my mind that you could deduce what a star is composed of by examining it's emitted light spectrum. Once we learned how to do it, it was the COOLEST thing.

I remember being told that helium was first detected in this way, by analysing out own sun, which is why it's called helium, after the Greek God of the sun, Helios, the Roman equivalent was Sol. It all makes so much sense when you know a bit of history!