LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuotePraxus, you are WAY out there in left field dude.Originally Posted by Praxus
It is a universally accepted scientifically proven fact that the universe is expanding.
How about you address my argument, instead of rehashing the same false opinions over and over again.
I fail to understand your problem. Everything in existence, from matter, to causality, to the 'vaccum' of space is part of the Universe. So there can not be anything outside of the Universe, because by definition it would not exist! So I ask again, where does the Universe expand to, if there is NOWHERE for it to expand?If you deny that evidence then you must answer (at least) the following question: What is the explanation for the fact that all distant galaxies are moving away from us at all times in every direction we look?
-dale
If there is something outside of what is currently known of the Universe, then it still falls under the title of "Universe".
The answer to your question, is that all the Galaxies are spreading apart from each other. The only thing that is expanding is the distance between Galaxies, not the boundries of the Universe (as the Universe is unbounded).
Last edited by Praxus; 10 Jan 06, at 21:18.
Praxus, you are WAY out there in left field dude.
It is a universally accepted scientifically proven fact that the universe is expanding.
AGAIN, you make the false and COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTABLE assumption that there is nothing outside the universe.
NO HUMAN has ever been outside, or looked outside, the universe.
So NO ONE can say that there's nothing there...at least not if they have any interest in proving it or looking credible. Hell, a positivist would say, "It doesn't even matter", and would dismiss the whole notion. I don't even see how your argument would be supportable even from a philosophical perspective, really.
BTW, DALE- Not all galaxies are heading away from us. Andromeda is on a collision course with the milky way.
Last edited by Bill; 10 Jan 06, at 22:04.
You can't look outside of the Universe, because nothing exists outside of the Universe. The Universe is not bounded to a particular portion of space, from which you can look into another portion of space, it is a concept which denotes the totality of everything that exists.
If there is another dimension we don't know of, it is part of the Universe. If there are more galaxies out there, that we don't know of, it's part of the Universe, etc.
I would love for you or anyone else who disagrees with me, to demonstrate, where, exactly, I am wrong. And I further challenge you to prove that the Universe could expand into space that does not exist.
Appealing to scientists, is not an argument, nor does it disprove what I am saying. Scientists are vulnerable to the same philosophical errors as everyone else (though most scientists are perfectly rational people).
Last edited by Praxus; 10 Jan 06, at 22:59.
"You can't look outside of the Universe, because nothing exists outside of the Universe."
When you can prove that they'll hand you the nobel prize.
Follow the dream boy...
The very existence of the phrase "The known universe" kinda shoots a big ole' hole in your theory. This is an obvious reference to 'the unknown universe'.
None of us knows what's outside the universe...if anything. We could be on the head of a pin for all we know.
Read my whole post and try to understand what I'm saying."You can't look outside of the Universe, because nothing exists outside of the Universe."
When you can prove that they'll hand you the nobel prize.
Follow the dream boy...
God damn, man.
I understand what you're saying. Your position is unsupportable.
Those phrases are not referring to separate Universes. But rather what is known and unknown about the Universe, respectively.
If anything exists outside of the known parts of the Universe, it is still part of the Universe.None of us knows what's outside the universe...if anything. We could be on the head of a pin for all we know.
In other words Universe is synonymous with Existence.
Could any of you, please tell me what your problem is with what I am saying. None of you, have done it, yet.
Last edited by Praxus; 11 Jan 06, at 04:22.
Nope. Think about it. I'm done here, I have presented my argument. You can be honest and seriously think about it, or you can evade. The choice is yours.
Last edited by Praxus; 11 Jan 06, at 04:32.
I've addressed your argument. Unless you are an astrophysicist having fun with my layman's terminology I am left to assume you don't understand my answers.
Wrong. Our universe could be a zit on the butt of some great heathen god or a mere statistical blip in a zero-sum energy state and we'll never know the difference, because like Snipe has pointed out, we can't get outside to look in. All we know is that it is the sum total of all the time, space, matter, and energy that we can be aware of.I fail to understand your problem. Everything in existence, from matter, to causality, to the 'vaccum' of space is part of the Universe. So there can not be anything outside of the Universe, because by definition it would not exist! So I ask again, where does the Universe expand to, if there is NOWHERE for it to expand?
If there is something outside of what is currently known of the Universe, then it still falls under the title of "Universe".
Then what, in your opinion, is causing them to spread apart from each other?The answer to your question, is that all the Galaxies are spreading apart from each other. The only thing that is expanding is the distance between Galaxies, not the boundries of the Universe (as the Universe is unbounded).
(Snipe - you are correct about local features (I like topics where intergalactic distances can be thought of as "local" and galaxies are "features") having real closure rates, and I attempted to clarify my statements above.)
-dale
Last edited by dalem; 11 Jan 06, at 15:25.
[QUOTE=Praxus]How about you address my argument, instead of rehashing the same false opinions over and over again.
I fail to understand your problem. Everything in existence, from matter, to causality, to the 'vaccum' of space is part of the Universe. So there can not be anything outside of the Universe, because by definition it would not exist! So I ask again, where does the Universe expand to, if there is NOWHERE for it to expand?
QUOTE]
Praxus: Please correct me if I understand you wrongly. The universe needs "space" to expand into? Your other point that per definiton the universe is everything?
1. Regarding your first argument:From all we know even space itself or what you call vaccum could / or is expanding! What is outside the boundaries or what are we expanding into we donīt really know because we lack simply a system of reference to even imagine what is outside our universe. From all we know one day, here coming back to Dalems ballon example, the universe was 2 light years across the next minute it was bigger 2,000001 light years (making up the numbers)
I think you imagine yourself the big bag as a big explosion in a per definition endless room . The matter therefore is simply spread in a 3 dimensional room.
2. Regarding your other point that the universe is per definiton everything: Well, that is now philosophie right? Simply saying something doesnīt make right though. I could say you are dead and you will be still alive. It is a simply word exchange where nobody can be right because we simply define the word universe differentially.
Yes, and as a result, the Universe can not expand, because there is nothing for it to expand into.
What boundries? The Universe has no boundries. It is unbounded, and it is everything.1. Regarding your first argument:From all we know even space itself or what you call vaccum could / or is expanding! What is outside the boundaries or what are we expanding into we donīt really know because we lack simply a system of reference to even imagine what is outside our universe. From all we know one day, here coming back to Dalems ballon example, the universe was 2 light years across the next minute it was bigger 2,000001 light years (making up the numbers)
If there is something outside of the known part of the Universe, it is still part of the Universe. If we live in a gigantic bubble in space, it is still part of the Universe.
It is a simply word exchange where nobody can be right because we simply define the word universe differentially.
Your argument is self-defeating. If you follow it to it's logical conclusion then we must come to the conclusion that your statement claiming "nobody can be right" is not right.
If the heathen god existed he would be part of the Universe.
That's for science to answer. I think you should do some more research on what exactly this red shift data means. There is in no way a universal consensus.Then what, in your opinion, is causing them to spread apart from each other?
How do you know that the universe has no boundries? What is space for you?
Do you believe that the universe consists out of endless "room " lets call it space and somewhere in the middle of is placed a certain number of galaxies which expand from a big explosion (big bang)?
My picture is more in line with the picture Dalem gave you already, the universe is like a ballon which is slowly inflated . The 3 dimensional (the space we move in) is the surface of this 4 dimensional ballon.
My argument isnīt self defeating I am trying simply tell you that you have to define very clearly what the meaning of a word is. Your definiton from the word universe can be different from mine, at least it seems that this is the case.
I tried to give you a pecture how I imagine myself the universe. Now I would like that you give an answer how you imagine the universe is build. Afterwards we can discuss which picture fits our experience best, where are perhaps gaps in the other ones worldview eg.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: