Does God exist?

[Coyote]

Actually, the Old Testament is full of incredibly vicious and cruel punishments for minor crimes. Right after the Ten Commandments were recited, Moses had 3000 people killed for worshipping a golden calf.

That's the story, but I don't believe the numbers. There would not be a tribe of 3000 people to begin with, much less one that could absorb 3000 casualties and still be viable. If the story of Moses killing those people is true, there would be a dozen or so dead-- not that this makes it any better! What I got from the explination was that here was God, who'd just led his people out of Egypt and opened & closed the Red Sea and protected them, guided them, etc... and they still lose faith and build idols to some damn bull. God, vain and jealous that he is, lashes out in anger for their fecklessness.

Truth? Probably Moses or another junior leader in the tribe had the ringleaders arrested and their heads lopped off to gain favor. Inflate the body count as the years go by to impress/scare later generations.

How narrow is your vision of the valid portions of the Bible? Literally a few paragraphs after the Ten Commandments straight from God's mouth, it's already corrupted crap? Why accept the former if not the latter?

My view of Biblical validity is pretty narrow indeed, and this is where my interpretation kicks in well beyond the traditional interps. I mean, c'mon-- Adam and Eve? Magic fruit? The comment about the Bible being like Star Trek, "fiction by idiots" is fitting-- you've got these magical horns that blast the walls of an enemy fortress, right? Use them once and in next week's episode they don't exist? Back to old-fashioned siege towers? WTF?

Adam and Eve? Nowadays we can see them as an allegory to the first people that could truly be referred to as 'human' in the scope of sapient evolution. Back then, they were a great tale that coupled nicely in a time when the next-door neighbors thought that Athena was born, whole and in armor, by cutting open Zeus's head. Our ability to comprehend and accept truth is really a fairly recent event, up until the Renaissance the Ptolemaic view of the cosmos was predominant, and the Holy See did not forgive Copernicus until, what, 1985? So much of the Bible I take with a grain of salt (hell, a whle salt lick) as metaphorical stories that could be swallowed by a Bronze Age society.

Intolerance and monotheism have gone hand in hand since the very beginning, for an obvious reason: monotheism cannot, by definition, accept belief in more than one god.

A truth I cannot dispute. But again, ideally the people holding monotheistic beliefs should adhere to their own stated beliefs about loving their neighbors. At worst, missionary activity (which Judaism rejects but Christianity and Islam accept) is the most radical action that should be legitimized by the 'Big Three'. A person who says 'no' would-- ideally-- be thanked for his time and left alone, and later that night the missionaries would pray quietly that the person has a change of heart. Crusades and Jihads are, in my pov, human rationalizations for shitty bahavior.

No, that's why I went and read the Bible for myself. After reading it (and being horrified by most of its contents), I realize that my initial negative reaction was not strong ENOUGH.

The good in that book is heavily buried under mounds of bloodthirstyness and crap, I'd rather have a root canal than read more of it.

Worse yet, when you look at what monotheism has wrought in the world, you can see that the problems it creates are far more than fiction.

And here's where I say that the ideals of the faith have been twisted. The Bible contains contradictory messages: supposedly, God implies that we should be honest and upright folks (and, yes, worship him) but at the same time is portrayed engaging in bestial behavior. But I ask, "what is the stated objective of God and the faith?" The stated objective is love and peace. It doesn't square with the bestial behavior. Humans, OTOH, have demonstrated a capacity for deceitful and cruel behavior regardless of their professed faiths or lack thereof; so I question the validity of much of the texts that rely on pain, fear, and hate for their message. Perhaps, IMO, they are human additions to justify themselves.

God is a redundant term in that equation (the Big Bang theory-- Coyote). He can be removed and it works just as well.

Absolutely; as I admitted it is a view I have on it that fits my feelings on the matter that does not contradict or question your thoughts on the observed facts.

So no, my views are obviously not the dogmatic perspective that has been used to warp and twist the ideal. I hold to the standards of fair and ethical treatment of my neighbors, and regard with suspicion any 'quote' or 'commandment' that I am to smite 'infidels' or whatever...

[Coyote]

This is the problem with the name "Big Bang Theory." Every 2-bit moron who knows what the words "big" and "bang" mean( well, gosh... --Coyote) thinks that they are qualified to discuss... the big bang theory... There was no "little ball of matter"...

Sorry, but I have always had it presented to me in that manner. As I am sure it is obvious to all on this board now, I am not well versed in the hard science backgrounds; my statistics and number-crunching ability are virtually nil, and my most in-depth exploration into Astronomic matters comes from seeing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series as a kid and later reading Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and enjoying the explanations while struggling with the equations (I was told that Hawking once admitted that "every equation in a book cuts your readership by half").

I'm a humanities kind of guy, yeah, a damn artist and writer and philosophy type that majors in things like history and minors in writing. I already know that my employment marketability is a punchline, so don't bother.

There couldn't possibly be photographs of the singularity that existed "before" the big bang any more than there can be photographs of a black hole singularity.

Actually, I know just enough to defend myself with the comment that the photograph bit was a rhetorical comment.

There was no time or space "prior" to the big bang, hence the quotations. There was no light; it wouldn't be around until about 10^-12s after the big bang...

So, in the beginning, there was no light and no dark? Sorry, couldn't resist...

And, no, the universe is not "spinning" out.

Poor choice of words on my part, I conceed that, and I suppose that 'expanding' would have been better. In fact, if I understand correctly, it is still gaining speed, expanding ever faster rather than slowing down as was once thought? Latest Hubble pix seem to indicate a universe much younger than originally theorized. Good-- I don't want to be around when it starts needing "Depends".

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

This is the problem with the name "Big Bang Theory." Every 2-bit moron who knows what the words "big" and "bang" mean( well, gosh... --Coyote) thinks that they are qualified to discuss... the big bang theory... There was no "little ball of matter"...

Sorry, but I have always had it presented to me in that manner. As I am sure it is obvious to all on this board now, I am not well versed in the hard science backgrounds; my statistics and number-crunching ability are virtually nil, and my most in-depth exploration into Astronomic matters comes from seeing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series as a kid and later reading Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and enjoying the explanations while struggling with the equations (I was told that Hawking once admitted that "every equation in a book cuts your readership by half").

I'm a humanities kind of guy, yeah, a damn artist and writer and philosophy type that majors in things like history and minors in writing. I already know that my employment marketability is a punchline, so don't bother.

There couldn't possibly be photographs of the singularity that existed "before" the big bang any more than there can be photographs of a black hole singularity.

Actually, I know just enough to defend myself with the comment that the photograph bit was a rhetorical comment.

There was no time or space "prior" to the big bang, hence the quotations. There was no light; it wouldn't be around until about 10^-12s after the big bang...

So, in the beginning, there was no light and no dark? Sorry, couldn't resist...

And, no, the universe is not "spinning" out.

Poor choice of words on my part, I conceed that, and I suppose that 'expanding' would have been better. In fact, if I understand correctly, it is still gaining speed, expanding ever faster rather than slowing down as was once thought? Latest Hubble pix seem to indicate a universe much younger than originally theorized. Good-- I don't want to be around when it starts needing "Depends".

Your employment marketability might be better than you think, if you're any good at writing. There's a saying that the only way to fail as a writer is to give up. (Of course, giving up is not normally one of my failings. Failing to give up sometimes is.)

[Icuthere]

My feelings about religion are:

a) God is not real, it is just a way for people to deal with their fear of death, and it is accepted for being able to do that

b)Most miracles are explainable by Science, and the few that arent will be explainable by science. I mean look back into the early 700 A.D.s. People back then believed that an Eclipse was a) a sign that judgement day was coming or b) God was going to punish them for something. Look at us now, we know that is happens because of the way our Solar System works, not because of some Deity.

c) Having life is not a work or god.. it is simply luck.

D) Religion is the cause of the worlds suffering. Look at the Middle East or at September 11th. It is all about Religion. Even look at WWII. Hitler was against Jewish religion. I think that if we were all to develop a logical state of mind we could live in peace. Unfortunately, in order to do that, we would have to get rid of the very thing that makes us human, emotions. This is also why there will most likely never be world peace, just close to it.

[Archaic`]

There was no time or space "prior" to the big bang, hence the quotations.

Now, I'm only a business major, and my knowledge of science is poor at best, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "Big Bang" as described by M theory mean there must have been time and space before it? Not time and space in this universe of course, since it didn't exist before the big bang, but still, nevertheless, time and space.

[Nick]

There was no time or space "prior" to the big bang, hence the quotations.

Now, I'm only a business major, and my knowledge of science is poor at best, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "Big Bang" as described by M theory mean there must have been time and space before it? Not time and space in this universe of course, since it didn't exist before the big bang, but still, nevertheless, time and space.

As I understand it, the things that existed prior to the formation of the universe have so little to do with 'time and space' as we understand them, that referring to them by means of the terms 'time' and 'space' is profoundly misleading, and a very bad idea (because you might mistakenly expect them to behave the way normal time and space do).

The problem is akin to that of attempting to use our intuitive ideas about relative velocity when deal with velocities which are a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Our intuition about relative velocity is based on the Newtonian mechanics which we experience in everyday life - velocity A & velocity B, gives relative velocity C = A + B. This intuition breaks down when dealing with speeds where relativistic effects come into play (for example, light always appears to have the same velocity, regardless of how fast you are moving) - and so the thing to remember is this: "Your intuition will be wrong. Your ability to visualise will be inadequate. The non-mathematical 'laymans description' is always an oversimplification. If you cannot follow the mathematics, you will never understand more than the general gist of it. If your intuition says one thing, and the math says something else, trust the math."

For some people who actually study this stuff properly, their intuition may be "re-trained" such that they can deal with relativistic problems intuitively. Sometimes there are good ways to visualise prolems to make them more comprehensible. But generally, for dabblers like us, trying to rely on our intuition is more likely to confuse us than help us.

This gets even worse when considering things like the origin of the universe, because one of the things that starts to break down at this point is our basic understanding of the principles of cause and effect. Everything in our brains is wired on the principle that, if A causes B, then A must happen before B (our brains are so reliant on this principle, that they will try to run it in reverse saying, if A happens before B, then maybe A caused B). We are also conditioned to believe that everything has a cause. If B happens, then something (such as A) must have happened to cause it. Both of these assumptions are reliant on time - and since time, as we understand it, did not exist until well after the big bang, these assumptions are NOT valid until shortly after the big bang (Please note the contradiction in that last sentence - it is such a bizarre concept that there is no way to properly express it in English)

Essentially, what I am saying is that, unless you are prepared to put in the time and effort to fully understand the mathematics, do not place too much weight on the way theoretical physicists attempt to explain their ideas to non-physicists. These layman's explanations are interesting, and often a lot better than knowing nothing, but never make the mistake of assuming that it is reasonable to extrapolate from them, simply because we don't know what simplifications the physicists have had to make in order to render their ideas at least remotely comprehensible to people who can't follow the mathematics.

Trying to follow the theories about how the 'big quiet extraordinarily rapid expansion' (aka the 'big bang') came about is an entertaining pasttime, but no-one is really going to get it unless they are able to follow all of the associated mathematics. And, in the long run, does it really matter? Why not just accept the Universe as something which simply is, with no cause worth worrying about? After all, most people seem to have no problems with applying this idea to God - why should it be any harder to apply it to something we know exists?

[Nick]

D) Religion is the cause of the worlds suffering. Look at the Middle East or at September 11th. It is all about Religion. Even look at WWII. Hitler was against Jewish religion. I think that if we were all to develop a logical state of mind we could live in peace. Unfortunately, in order to do that, we would have to get rid of the very thing that makes us human, emotions. This is also why there will most likely never be world peace, just close to it.

This observation is wrong. It contains some elements of truth, but the sentiment imparted by the whole is very, very wrong.

D) Religion is the cause of the worlds suffering. Look at the Middle East or at September 11th. It is all about Religion. Even look at WWII. Hitler was against Jewish religion.

Religion is not the cause of the world's suffering. A lack of foresight (the ability to understand the consequences of our actions) is the cause of the world's suffering. This means that ignorance, irrationality, and dogmatism are the cause of the world's suffering:

• Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, which means our actions may be self-destructive, as we do not know enough to accurately predict the consequences of our actions.
• Irrationality is a lack of the ability to accurately combine existing knowledge to produce new knowledge, which means our actions may be self-destructive, as, even if we have the knowledge, we cannot accurately combine it to predict the consequences of our actions.
• Dogmatism is a lack of the ability to critically examine our own ideas and adjust them in the light of increased knowledge, which means our actions may be self-destructive, as we are unable to admit our ignorance and irrationality, and hence are unable to learn from our mistakes.

Religion is merely a manifestation of ignorance, irrationality and dogmatism. Racism and homophobia are other manifestations. When these traits are combined, they result in a lack of foresight, as they may lead to the choice of actions which are self-destructive.

Believing that religion is the problem is a mistake, as it will distract us from trying to deal with the underlying problems of ignorance, irrationality and dogmatism. Of course, the fact that many religions revere ignorance, irrationality and dogmatism means that those religions are a problem.

I think that if we were all to develop a logical state of mind we could live in peace. Unfortunately, in order to do that, we would have to get rid of the very thing that makes us human, emotions.

To get rid of the very thing that makes us human would hardly be a logical course of action, now, would it?

'Logic' and 'emotions' are NOT opposing forces. It is possible to harmonise them. Our emotions exist for a reason - it behooves us to understand them. If we understand our emotions, than we better understand ourselves - which will improve our foresight, and lessen the chance of our choosing self-destructive actions.

The trick is to understand that our emotions should not be allowed to dictate our actions, but they should be allowed to influence them. The goal is not to eliminate emotion, but to channel it. Our emotions are a major element of this experience we call life - indeed, some would say that feelings of awe, wonder and joy are the sensations that make life most worth living. Love, tenderness, empathy, fear, disgust, anger, etc - emotions are not something to be suppressed or feared, but something to be acknowledge, accepted, and directed appropriately.

This is also why there will most likely never be world peace, just close to it.

There could be world peace, if every individual in the world abhorred ignorance, irrationality and dogmatism. While such a society would probably still have crime (because there will always be isolated idiots), there would not be sufficient collective idiocy to generate genuine warfare.

My opinion is that humanity will either eventually achieve such a state, or we will annihilate ourselves. Of course, I expect we'll just continute stumbling along for a few more centuries first.

[Graeme Dice]

OK, you're right - I may have misinterpreted your argument slightly. However, your line of reasoning above is still invalid because it does not construct the decision matrix correctly - it fails to properly account for all of the possible outcomes. In fact, it appears to consider only 3 of the possible 9 outcomes (if one interprets it as covering only 2 of the possible outcomes, then it describes Pascal's Wager - obviously, this is the way I interpreted it intiially).

Let us assign annihilation on death a utility of zero (0). It's neutral - you're not around to care, so it isn't going to bother you. Let us assign an enjoyable eternal life a utility of infinity (+inf). Let us assign an eternal life of suffering an infinite negative utility (-inf). (Once the infinities get involved, considering any outcomes with finite, non-zero isn't particularly valuable - with one exception which I will describe later)

You've assigned a negative value to continued existence, which is only a valid option if the person is suicidal. I am stating that there is no possible way to have an outcome worse than non-existence.

If we assume that all outcomes (with the possible exception of the first) have equal probability, then you will find that all of the positive infinities and negative infinities cancel out, and both faith and atheism end up with an expected utility of zero.

Since faith has the non-negotiable cost of requiring you to suspend rationality with respect to part of your life, an argument based purely on decision theory is going to favour atheism, not faith.

No, it will favour atheism only if you can show that there is a cost associated with suspending rationality, while considering that nothing humans do is ever purely rational.

The only way to get the outcome to favour faith is to adjust the probabilities such that faith gives you a better chance at an enjoyable eternal life (for example, assigning 0 probability to the powers that be choosing to annihilate or eternally torment believers in a particular faith - this is something both your comment and Pascal's Wager do). And what could possibly justify arbitrarily altering the probabilities like that? Why, faith, of course!

This only matters if it is possible to have a negative outcome from eternal existence, which is not the case, as it will still have some infintessimally small positive value no matter how horrible a punishment might be.

[Durandal]

Sorry, but I have always had it presented to me in that manner.

So it's been presented incorrectly to you all this time.

As I am sure it is obvious to all on this board now, I am not well versed in the hard science backgrounds; my statistics and number-crunching ability are virtually nil, and my most in-depth exploration into Astronomic matters comes from seeing Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series as a kid and later reading Steven Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and enjoying the explanations while struggling with the equations (I was told that Hawking once admitted that "every equation in a book cuts your readership by half").

Then why are you commenting on such matters?

I'm a humanities kind of guy, yeah, a damn artist and writer and philosophy type that majors in things like history and minors in writing. I already know that my employment marketability is a punchline, so don't bother.

Then please refrain from acting like you can authoritatively comment on or present modern cosmological theories, especially when berating and demeaning them by referring to them as "faith-based."

Actually, I know just enough to defend myself with the comment that the photograph bit was a rhetorical comment.

And it was meaningless rhetoric, borne from ignorance on your part. You assume that we must witness each event in order to theorize about it, which is incorrect.

So, in the beginning, there was no light and no dark? Sorry, couldn't resist...

There was only dark, if you define dark as the absence of light. However, the early universe was opaque for a period of about 500,000 years, because all the photons kept scattering off each other, not reflecting. Then, the universe made the switch from radiation-dominated to matter-dominated.

Poor choice of words on my part, I conceed that, and I suppose that 'expanding' would have been better. In fact, if I understand correctly, it is still gaining speed, expanding ever faster rather than slowing down as was once thought? Latest Hubble pix seem to indicate a universe much younger than originally theorized. Good-- I don't want to be around when it starts needing "Depends".

The expansion rate is speeding up by virtue of a "dark energy" that we know nothing about. However, this energy could account for the missing energy in the universe. The universe is still theorized to be around 15 to 17 billion years old, as far as I know.

Now, I'm only a business major, and my knowledge of science is poor at best, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the "Big Bang" as described by M theory mean there must have been time and space before it? Not time and space in this universe of course, since it didn't exist before the big bang, but still, nevertheless, time and space.

There was energy, but no time and space. The general theory of relativity predicts that, in a singularity state like the universe was in at the beginning, there would be no time dimension.

Think of it this way. There was no space before the big bang, so everything was crunched together in one, self-defined point. That meant that any reaction which took place must have taken place instantaneously. Since, by virtue of the temporal dimension, there is no such thing as an instantaneous reaction, time could not have existed.

[Archaic`]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Nick. Very informative. I'll remember it in future.

[Nick]

You've assigned a negative value to continued existence, which is only a valid option if the person is suicidal. I am stating that there is no possible way to have an outcome worse than non-existence.

Not really. I have stated that there are three possibilities for an afterlife:

Infinitely positive (you don't seem to have a problem with this)
Neutral (or non-existence - again, you don't seem to have a problem with this)
Infinitely negative (because if I'm going to believe in an afterlife which is infinitely better than this one, then why not concede the possibility that an omnipotent being is going to be far more creative than I am in coming up with eternal torments which extinguish the benefit of continued existence?)

You don't have any logical reason for eliminating the last possibility - you are simply trying to imagine a state of being which would be worse than non-existence, and finding that you can't come up with anything. But you are assuming the existence of the thing which makes suffering worth tolerating - hope for a better future. Continued existence is worthwhile, because there is always the chance that things will get better. There is always something to appreciate - a smile from a loved one, a beautiful sunset - always something to make us ask ourselves 'Hey, is it really all that bad?'

When I describe the possibility of infinite negative utility, I am talking about a situation where every single one of the elements which makes suffering in the real world endurable has been stripped away. No hope, no little joys, no chance of a better future. Not even the choice to seek refuge in death. Utter powerlessness to do anything except spend every moment of your eternal existence focusing on your excruciating torment.

In other words, if you admit the possibility of Heaven, you should logically admit the possibility of Hell, even if your particular faith doesn't include the concept. After all, decision theory is all about dealing with "But what if I'm wrong?"

No, it will favour atheism only if you can show that there is a cost associated with suspending rationality, while considering that nothing humans do is ever purely rational.

Quite true, humans are rarely entirely rational. Basically, the reason I think that there is a cost associated with faith, is that energy is expended on reconciling your faith-based beliefs with your observations of reality. This energy could be better spent simply seeking to increase your understanding of reality, rather than trying to bring it into concordance with a human invented fiction.

However, I'm quite aware that people who believe in something transcendental aren't going to agree with that point - this is why I am an atheist, and they are not. And I haven't got a problem with that, so long as they recognise that their beliefs do not have a rational foundation.

[Graeme Dice]

Not really. I have stated that there are three possibilities for an afterlife:

Infinitely positive (you don't seem to have a problem with this)
Neutral (or non-existence - again, you don't seem to have a problem with this)
Infinitely negative (because if I'm going to believe in an afterlife which is infinitely better than this one, then why not concede the possibility that an omnipotent being is going to be far more creative than I am in coming up with eternal torments which extinguish the benefit of continued existence?)

There is an infinite distance between zero and infinity. You don't need to have an infinitely negative result in order to have the infinitely positive one.

You don't have any logical reason for eliminating the last possibility - you are simply trying to imagine a state of being which would be worse than non-existence, and finding that you can't come up with anything. But you are assuming the existence of the thing which makes suffering worth tolerating - hope for a better future. Continued existence is worthwhile, because there is always the chance that things will get better. There is always something to appreciate - a smile from a loved one, a beautiful sunset - always something to make us ask ourselves 'Hey, is it really all that bad?'[/qote]

Suffering is worth tolerating not because there is hope for the future, but because it is better than non-existence because you still exist.

When I describe the possibility of infinite negative utility, I am talking about a situation where every single one of the elements which makes suffering in the real world endurable has been stripped away. No hope, no little joys, no chance of a better future. Not even the choice to seek refuge in death. Utter powerlessness to do anything except spend every moment of your eternal existence focusing on your excruciating torment.

Which has a value of zero, not negative infinity.

In other words, if you admit the possibility of Heaven, you should logically admit the possibility of Hell, even if your particular faith doesn't include the concept. After all, decision theory is all about dealing with "But what if I'm wrong?"

And you can only tell me that a negative infinity value exists if you can measure the utility of each of the possible outcomes for myself.

Quite true, humans are rarely entirely rational. Basically, the reason I think that there is a cost associated with faith, is that energy is expended on reconciling your faith-based beliefs with your observations of reality. This energy could be better spent simply seeking to increase your understanding of reality, rather than trying to bring it into concordance with a human invented fiction.

That is an opinion that also requires you to be able to measure the utility that someone else receives from a choice, which is an impossibility.

[Coyote]

Coyote--As I am sure it is obvious to all on this board now, I am not well versed in the hard science backgrounds...


Then why are you commenting on such matters?

I don't have a right to an opinion?

...please refrain from acting like you can authoritatively comment on or present modern cosmological theories, especially when berating and demeaning them by referring to them as "faith-based."

Actually, at the time I thought I had access to the proper interpretation of modern cosmological theories. With only the information I was presented and no reason to suspect that the outlines of the theory had changed or been redefined in a different term.

And I wasn't "berating" the theory-- I was comparing that theory to creationism, and saying that in their own ways, both are based on faith. Despite an arts & humanities background, I know that for a theory to be proven it must be observable and repeatable, and since that hasn't happened with the "Big Bang" or the "Overlarge Expansion" etc then we just have to take it on a type of faith that it happened. Yes, there is evidence of the expansion to back up this faith and there is also evidence (of another type) that seems to correlate the Biblical version.

I'd remind you that I find the "Big Bang" theory to be much more believable and the Biblical theory to be allegory, in fact I stated plainly that I agreed with the Big Bang and the evolutionary model of life, so why would I berate my own beliefs? Read more carefully and do not be so quick to jump on someone because of your own prejudiced suppositions.

...the photograph bit was a rhetorical comment...(--Coyote)

And it was meaningless rhetoric, borne from ignorance on your part. You assume that we must witness each event in order to theorize about it, which is incorrect.

Excuse me, but I saw no restriction on the posting of minor rhetorical comments. Of course there couldn't be a photo of the event, don't be rediculous! But in the future, I will refrain from making comments that you might take too literally. And as for theories, I know that you can make a 'theory' about anything you wish without observation, but in order for the theory to become accepted as 'fact', it must be witnessed and the results predictible through repeated observation. That's why the Big Bang theory, despite the evidence backing it, remains technically a theory.

So, in the beginning, there was no light and no dark? Sorry, couldn't resist...(--Coyote)

There was only dark, if you define dark as the absence of light. However...

I actually appreciate the information, since it is obvious that you put much more time into this field than I do, but again you are taking me extremely literally. It was another rhetorical comment, the likes of which will be excised if there is any future commentary.

(Durandal):... this energy could account for the missing energy in the universe.

Just out of curiosity (and no rhetoric implied) what is the current thought on dark matter? I've heard that it is the mass that hold the universe together and I've also heard that it is possibly what is fueling the outward expansion. Also, is it theorized mostly by what is not there rather than by what is?

[Darth Wong]

As I am sure it is obvious to all on this board now, I am not well versed in the hard science backgrounds...
Then why are you commenting on such matters?

I don't have a right to an opinion?

You don't have the right to make statements of fact about scientific methods or scientific validity.

Actually, at the time I thought I had access to the proper interpretation of modern cosmological theories. With only the information I was presented and no reason to suspect that the outlines of the theory had changed or been redefined in a different term.

What you lack is comprehension of scientific methods, so you interpret that theory in a hackneyed way.

And I wasn't "berating" the theory-- I was comparing that theory to creationism, and saying that in their own ways, both are based on faith. Despite an arts & humanities background, I know that for a theory to be proven it must be observable and repeatable, and since that hasn't happened with the "Big Bang" or the "Overlarge Expansion" etc then we just have to take it on a type of faith that it happened.

Wrong. No scientific theories are EVER proven; they are only shown to be consistent with observation. Your arts & humanities background has led to an obvious ignorance of the scientific method, which is the real problem here.

You are confusing repeatability (independent verification of observation) with the notion that nothing can be considered valid unless you can reproduce it in a lab (even if it's something that cannot be reproduced in a lab). Take nuclear fusion; do you consider the theory that the Sun employs nuclear fusion rather than angel-power to be "faith-based?" Because that theory rests on the exact same kind of observational evidence as the Big Bang does.

[Coyote]

You don't have the right to make statements of fact about scientific methods or scientific validity.

Technically speaking, I have the 'right' to make these statements but I also have to face up to the fact that I am not well-prepeared to comprehend them properly; along with this 'right' is a responsibility to own up to my mistaken perceptions.

I know that for a theory to be proven it must be observable and repeatable, and since that hasn't happened with the "Big Bang" or the "Overlarge Expansion" etc then we just have to take it on a type of faith that it happened.--Coyote)

Wrong. No scientific theories are EVER proven; they are only shown to be consistent with observation... You are confusing repeatability...with the notion that nothing can be considered valid unless you can reproduce it in a lab... Take nuclear fusion; do you consider the theory that the Sun employs nuclear fusion rather than angel-power to be "faith-based?" (--Darth Wong)

No, my original comment was that it is "a type of faith in its own way," meaning that it is a theory that fits the known and observed facts but remains positively unverifiable without a shadow of a doubt due to our inability to test it in some manner. The use of the word 'faith' is a loaded term in this particular instance, and conjures up an attempt to make science into a sort of religion or alchemy-- not my intent.

Another example: Einstein's Theory of Relativity which, in my admittedly basic, layman's understanding states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, is of course a theory because we cannot prove or disprove it. But many take it as a fact, despite the inability to prove to disprove it, and from my perspective, they take it as 'a sort of faith' (not the religious connoctation, but the 'I-know-it-to-be' sort of faith).

[Darth Wong]

You don't have the right to make statements of fact about scientific methods or scientific validity.

Technically speaking, I have the 'right' to make these statements but I also have to face up to the fact that I am not well-prepeared to comprehend them properly; along with this 'right' is a responsibility to own up to my mistaken perceptions.

OK.

No, my original comment was that it is "a type of faith in its own way," meaning that it is a theory that fits the known and observed facts but remains positively unverifiable without a shadow of a doubt due to our inability to test it in some manner. The use of the word 'faith' is a loaded term in this particular instance, and conjures up an attempt to make science into a sort of religion or alchemy-- not my intent.

Wrong. "Testing" is simply comparison of prediction to observation. Observations do not necessarily have to be conducted through experimental reproduction of a physical process. For example, we consider it a "fact" that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. No one refers to this as "faith", even though no experiments have been performed. We consider it a fact because it is the only explanation which makes sense in light of the geological and fossil evidence.

Another example: Einstein's Theory of Relativity which, in my admittedly basic, layman's understanding states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, is of course a theory because we cannot prove or disprove it.

The fact that I exist is a theory. You cannot absolutely prove that I and the rest of the universe are not just figments of your imagination. Nevertheless, you do not consider it a "faith", do you?

But many take it as a fact, despite the inability to prove to disprove it, and from my perspective, they take it as 'a sort of faith' (not the religious connoctation, but the 'I-know-it-to-be' sort of faith).

Some people do take science as a faith. However, that does not mean that science actually is a faith; it only means that some people are too lazy to understand it properly. Any given scientific theory can be simply described as "the only explanation that makes any damned sense". There is no faith required for that characterization.

[Durandal]

I don't have a right to an opinion?

You have the right to say whatever you want, but the fact remains that you have no place authoritatively commenting on or criticizing cosmological theory since you have nothing more than a rhetorical understanding of the words "big" and "bang" to work from. Theories involving the creation of the universe just aren't simple little deals that anyone can understand. No one really seems to get that.

Actually, at the time I thought I had access to the proper interpretation of modern cosmological theories.

Then you were severely mistaken.

With only the information I was presented and no reason to suspect that the outlines of the theory had changed or been redefined in a different term.

The theory never stated what you proposed. "Big Bang" was originally a derogatory term used by Hoyle, who, in his infinite idiocy, dismissed the theory because of his ignorance. He went on to propose another theory that time and space were being arbitrarily created out of nothing on the "edges" of the universe. If the theory were called "Spatial Singularity Expansion Theory" I doubt that people would be running around claiming to understand what the Hell it meant by relying on the theory's name and extremely dumbed-down descriptions.

And I wasn't "berating" the theory-- I was comparing that theory to creationism, and saying that in their own ways, both are based on faith. Despite an arts & humanities background, I know that for a theory to be proven it must be observable and repeatable, and since that hasn't happened with the "Big Bang" or the "Overlarge Expansion" etc then we just have to take it on a type of faith that it happened. Yes, there is evidence of the expansion to back up this faith and there is also evidence (of another type) that seems to correlate the Biblical version.

So, despite your arts and humanities background, you continue to make sweeping and unbelievably ignorant statements about science in general? Nothing in science is ever "proven." Going by your take on the scientific method, Newton's laws of motion would have been proven and set in stone, and relativity could not have contradicted them on large scales. There are no dogmas in science.

Also, the scientific method does not necessarily demand experimentation, just consistency with observation. Observations can be gleaned from experimentation in a lab setting or by star-gazing.

I'd remind you that I find the "Big Bang" theory to be much more believable and the Biblical theory to be allegory, in fact I stated plainly that I agreed with the Big Bang and the evolutionary model of life, so why would I berate my own beliefs? Read more carefully and do not be so quick to jump on someone because of your own prejudiced suppositions.

You do so by taking big bang theory and relegating it to the same category as creationism, which is pseudoscience. You may do it unknowingly, but your own ignorance and apparent unwillingness to learn more about matters in depth before commenting on them is not an excuse.

Excuse me, but I saw no restriction on the posting of minor rhetorical comments. Of course there couldn't be a photo of the event, don't be rediculous! But in the future, I will refrain from making comments that you might take too literally. And as for theories, I know that you can make a 'theory' about anything you wish without observation, but in order for the theory to become accepted as 'fact', it must be witnessed and the results predictible through repeated observation. That's why the Big Bang theory, despite the evidence backing it, remains technically a theory.

You've got it completely ass-backward. Theories aren't facts. The only things considered factual in science are observations (a ball falls to Earth). A theory explains the mechanisms behind an observation (the ball falls because of spacetime curvature), and a law simply states what will happen (the ball will fall at a rate dependent upon the two bodies' masses, radii, and distance) with no explanations.

Just out of curiosity (and no rhetoric implied) what is the current thought on dark matter? I've heard that it is the mass that hold the universe together and I've also heard that it is possibly what is fueling the outward expansion. Also, is it theorized mostly by what is not there rather than by what is?

The universe itself isn't held together by dark matter, as far as I'm aware, but galaxies are. When you look at a CD spinning, the outer edge's rate of spin will be lower than the inner part because of conservation of angular momentum and a fairly even mass distribution. When we look at galaxies' spin, we see that the outer and inner edges spin at approximately the same rate. The only explanation is that there is some mass we cannot see that is in the galaxy disturbing the relatively uniform mass distribution. That's where we get the idea of dark matter from, even though we can't see it.

Dark matter falls into two categories that we know of, exotic and non-exotic. Non-exotic dark matter is made up of black holes, neutron stars, brown dwarfs and white dwarfs.

Exotic dark matter is made up of MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects), WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and neutrinos. Exotic dark matter is extremely weakly interacting with light and other matter, so we can only detect it indirectly (such as with galactic spin).

Oh, and dark matter is theorized to make up about 26% of the total energy in the galaxy.

[Coyote]

"Big Bang" was originally a derogatory term used by Hoyle...

Never heard of Hoyle, sounds like I'm lucky. And his alternate theory sounds stupid, even to this layman.

Nothing in science is ever "proven." ...Also, the scientific method does not necessarily demand experimentation, just consistency with observation.

So at what point do we have a repeatable/observable lab proof and one that is simply deduced from observation? Is there a difference in the validity of a deduction based from direct observation and one deduced from the known results?

See, from my pov it's like... walking into a room and noticing shards all over the floor. I do not need to have seen a vase fall to know that it had fallen, the shards are enough proof. But at what point can you positively say that the cat knocked it over or a kid with a baseball? Especially if you have no definitive proof one way or the other?

Wong's point with dinosaur extinction, also: no, we do not need to clone and revive dinosaurs and watch them die to know that they lived, thrived, and went extinct. But when people say, "It was an ice age" or, "It was a meteor strike", well, where do we define speculation and possibility? And no, I'm interested in the scientific pov here, not trying to lead-in/tie-in with a Biblical comparison.

your ...apparent unwillingness to learn more about matters in depth before commenting on them is not an excuse.

No, you assume I'm not interested in learning. But I'm here now.

The only things considered factual in science are observations ...A theory explains the mechanisms behind an observation ... and a law simply states what will happen ... with no explanations.

So, if I understand that correctly, it is a law that the universe is expanding (due to observed action) and if we back-plot that expansion we can trace its likely area of origin, and theorize the existance of the original matter of the universe. And it didn't just "start moving" one "day" because there was no time (entropy?) to measure it with. Is this it, or am I picking up live wires? So this would mean that entropy slowly unfolded as the matter itself "unfolded" (2-dimensional choice of words, I know). So what we would call "time" now was, back then, highly compressed, in a way?

When you look at a CD spinning, the outer edge's rate of spin will be lower than the inner part because of conservation of angular momentum and a fairly even mass distribution.

Curious; I thought the outer edge spun faster? I remember commenting on the incredibly loud noise that the old Huey UH-1 helicopters made compared to the newer Blackhawks. I don't remember who but I was informed that the outer edge of the helicopter's blade spins faster than the section near the rotor stem, and the tip of the blade disrupted the air in some way that caused the louder sound...

Thanks for the Dark Matter update. I remember when the ideas first got published in the papers and it got pretty wild; then the talk dropped off and I thought maybe it was a theory that had fallen out of favor or some such. You see, here I admit that I get most of my scientific information basically from public news sources. I know better than to do that when it comes to politics but I've always figured that science is neutral, there is no left wing or right wing way for a particle to dissolve.

If dark matter is 26% of the energy, then is its classification as 'matter' simply a convenience?

Thanks. A friend of mine recommended an astronomy book from the university, I'll see what I can glean from it.

[AdmiralKanos]

Nothing in science is ever "proven." ...Also, the scientific method does not necessarily demand experimentation, just consistency with observation.

So at what point do we have a repeatable/observable lab proof and one that is simply deduced from observation? Is there a difference in the validity of a deduction based from direct observation and one deduced from the known results?

See, from my pov it's like... walking into a room and noticing shards all over the floor. I do not need to have seen a vase fall to know that it had fallen, the shards are enough proof. But at what point can you positively say that the cat knocked it over or a kid with a baseball? Especially if you have no definitive proof one way or the other?

Strawman distortion. At no point does "Big Bang Theory" explain what caused it to happen; it only points out that it obviously happened. To use your analogy, it is like saying that the vase was obviously broken. It does not go further than that. If we come up with a physical mechanism which might explain it, that's fine and dandy, but "Big Bang Theory" simply points out what is quite obvious from observation.

Wong's point with dinosaur extinction, also: no, we do not need to clone and revive dinosaurs and watch them die to know that they lived, thrived, and went extinct. But when people say, "It was an ice age" or, "It was a meteor strike", well, where do we define speculation and possibility?

If you've got a better idea than an asteroid impact, then by all means, bring it. And that's basically how scientists challenge anyone who would challenge any theory. As I said before, a scientific theory is considered reliable when it is the only explanation that makes any damned sense in light of the evidence.

[Durandal]

So at what point do we have a repeatable/observable lab proof and one that is simply deduced from observation? Is there a difference in the validity of a deduction based from direct observation and one deduced from the known results?

There is no proof, only evidence. In science, this is not a mere semantical distinction. There is really no difference between a theory formed through lab observations and one formed through simple observations. For example, astronomy relies almost entirely on telescope pictures, but the theories formed in astronomy must be consistent with all the data derived from those pictures.

See, from my pov it's like... walking into a room and noticing shards all over the floor. I do not need to have seen a vase fall to know that it had fallen, the shards are enough proof. But at what point can you positively say that the cat knocked it over or a kid with a baseball? Especially if you have no definitive proof one way or the other?

Big bang theory is more or less an account of what happened. It's comparable to looking at what happened as the vase fell, rather than what caused it to fall -- although big bang theory will, hopefully, someday incorporate the triggering mechanism of the event. The triggering mechanism is still under intense investigation, but I don't think we can ever understand it in terms of cause and effect. On a Planck timescale, our conceptions of cause and effect simply don't apply, which is why particles are created and destroyed spontaneously in a vacuum within a time of 10^-43s.

However, you could investigate what happened to the vase, look for cat hairs, or whatever and derive a reasonable explanation of what happened to make it tip over, provided you have data available.

Wong's point with dinosaur extinction, also: no, we do not need to clone and revive dinosaurs and watch them die to know that they lived, thrived, and went extinct. But when people say, "It was an ice age" or, "It was a meteor strike", well, where do we define speculation and possibility? And no, I'm interested in the scientific pov here, not trying to lead-in/tie-in with a Biblical comparison.

There is no other reasonable explanation. Projected effects of an asteroid impact are in line with geological data from the time period.

So, if I understand that correctly, it is a law that the universe is expanding (due to observed action) and if we back-plot that expansion we can trace its likely area of origin, and theorize the existance of the original matter of the universe. And it didn't just "start moving" one "day" because there was no time (entropy?) to measure it with. Is this it, or am I picking up live wires? So this would mean that entropy slowly unfolded as the matter itself "unfolded" (2-dimensional choice of words, I know). So what we would call "time" now was, back then, highly compressed, in a way?

Time did not exist, so the first thing you have to do is just drop Newtonian preconceptions about time and space, which is extremely difficult to do.

As for entropy, I can at best, give you a reasonable guess -- I'm not too well-versed in thermodynamics, at this point, so perhaps Mike can correct any mistakes I make.

Entropy can be measured with the equation [Delta]S = Q/T. So, dividing the total energy by the temperature will give you the change in entropy in the system. So, entropy was there. The cosmic microwave background was there, it had a temperature, and it had an energy state. As the universe is a closed system, its entropy state was always increasing, right from the point we had energy and time.

You also have to remember that time is relative. There is no universal timeline. The early universe's time would be dependent upon the location and density of mass at that location.

Also, it is impossible to trace the expansion to an origin point. You have to remember that the universe's condition "prior" to the big bang can best be described as a singularity which existed through all space and no time (a point of reference would be a black hole, which exists through no space and all time). It's impossible to visualize the initial few nanoseconds of expansion, because the universe has no center. If you try and picture the universe as a single point, you'll inevitably try to picture it within space. But there was no space. The point was self-defined. It had no spatial coordinates.

A better way to think about it is this. If you neglect the space around your visualization, and imagine that the singularity suddenly expands, where would the "center" be? Nowhere. It would be completely arbitrary. Here's something even simpler. Imagine a point with no spatial coordinates. Then imagine that that point suddenly "expands" or splits into two points. Draw a line between them. The "center" is now the midpoint of the line. Imagine this process taking place in every direction. Where would the center be? That's right, the singularity with no spatial coordinates. So, there is no spatial universal center.

This sounds far-fetched, but it's the only thing that fits observation. Consider this: what would you expect to see if the universe's expansion was spherical (like a balloon, with all of us inside)? What would expansion rates look like? Well, imagine our galaxy, and trace a line from it to the center of the sphere. Now, imagine a galaxy right next to us. Trace a line from it to the center. Now, imagine that the expansion takes place along those two vectors you just traced out, so both galaxies will continue along their respective radius lines. They will grow further and further apart. Makes sense with what we see so far. But, let's throw a third galaxy into the mix. Put that galaxy along our galaxy's radius line, closer to the center. With a constant expansion rate, our galaxy and the third galaxy should stay the same distance apart.

Except that that's not what we see.

What we see is this. Imagine a square. At each angle, there is a galaxy. At each side's midpoint, there is a galaxy. And there is our galaxy at the center. What we see is the other galaxies moving away from us at the same rate in a spherical expansion, like the one described above. So, you say, "Cool! We're the center of the universe!" Sort of. The caveat is that every other galaxy sees the exact same thing. So, any point you want can be designated the center of universal expansion relative to itself. EDIT: This is a good line to drop on a date. Tell the girl that she's the center of the universe, and you'll be more or less correct. Just don't mention the fact that everything is running away from her, and that everyone else is a center, as well. :)

So, when we talk about expansion, it's not like an explosion at all. It's more like the space between massive objects (galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters) is growing at the same rate in every direction (about 72km/s/mpc).

And the special theory of relativity posits that there is no preferred frame of reference. A universal center would imply such a preferred frame, so the universe is consistent with special relativity.

Curious; I thought the outer edge spun faster? I remember commenting on the incredibly loud noise that the old Huey UH-1 helicopters made compared to the newer Blackhawks. I don't remember who but I was informed that the outer edge of the helicopter's blade spins faster than the section near the rotor stem, and the tip of the blade disrupted the air in some way that caused the louder sound...

Think of it linearly. The outer edge of a circle will have greater length than the inner edge. Imagine, instead of spinning relative to a center, you're running around that circle, so to you, you're experiencing spin. It will take you more time to traverse the outer edge's greater circumference than the inner edge lesser circumference.

This is only for uniform density, though. If the mass of the outer edge is greater than that of the inner edge, the same amount of angular momentum will cause it to spin faster, possibly getting faster than the inner edge.

Thanks for the Dark Matter update. I remember when the ideas first got published in the papers and it got pretty wild; then the talk dropped off and I thought maybe it was a theory that had fallen out of favor or some such. You see, here I admit that I get most of my scientific information basically from public news sources. I know better than to do that when it comes to politics but I've always figured that science is neutral, there is no left wing or right wing way for a particle to dissolve.

I'm not going to recommend that you start reading the astrophysical journal for you information, but you have to remember that magazines like TIME have to cater to the lowest common denominator, and they like to blow discoveries way out of proportion -- i.e. all this inane talk of having Star Trek transporters because we managed to replicate a proton's energy state somewhere else. A better source would be from NASA's website.

If dark matter is 26% of the energy, then is its classification as 'matter' simply a convenience?

No, it's actual matter, meaning that it isn't energy.

Thanks. A friend of mine recommended an astronomy book from the university, I'll see what I can glean from it.

That would be wise, but also try and find some cosmology articles. Astronomy and cosmology textbooks tend to go obsolete the minute they are published, which is why my cosmology course didn't use one.

[Darth Wong]

So, if I understand that correctly, it is a law that the universe is expanding (due to observed action) and if we back-plot that expansion we can trace its likely area of origin, and theorize the existance of the original matter of the universe.

Perhaps a simpler way of saying what Durandal said about this is to say that the universe is expanding inside itself (as opposed to thinking that it was sitting inside some big empty space and started expanding from a point in that space).

And it didn't just "start moving" one "day" because there was no time (entropy?) to measure it with. Is this it, or am I picking up live wires? So this would mean that entropy slowly unfolded as the matter itself "unfolded" (2-dimensional choice of words, I know). So what we would call "time" now was, back then, highly compressed, in a way?

Actually, time and entropy are two different concepts. Primordial conditions are still a matter of highly theoretical conjecture AFAIK, but all processes create entropy, and the processes in the early moments of the universe were probably no exception.

[Durandal]

The best analogy I've seen is a balloon with all the galaxies sitting on the surface. As the balloon expands, the galaxies get further apart.

[Nick]

There is an infinite distance between zero and infinity. You don't need to have an infinitely negative result in order to have the infinitely positive one.

I am not saying there is an infinitely negative outcome. I am merely allowing for the possiblity that there might be an infinitely negative outcome, even though I can't really picture what such an outcome would be like. (But then, I can't really picture what an infinitely positive outcome would be like either - yet you don't seem to have any trouble accepting it when I allow for that possibility)

You don't have any logical reason for eliminating the last possibility

Suffering is worth tolerating not because there is hope for the future, but because it is better than non-existence because you still exist.

My argument:
Premise: Non-existence has utility zero.
Premise: There may be an outcome with infinite positive utility
Premise: There may be an outcome with infinite negative utility
Final Conclusion: Decision theory is essentially neutral

Your argument:
Premise: Non-existence has utility zero
Premise: There may be an outcome with infinite positive utility
Premise: Any form of existence is always better than non-existence
Interim Conclusion: Infinite negative utility is impossible
Final Conclusion: Decision theory favours faith.

Graeme, I have been questioning your third premise: justify to me your bald statement that any form of existence is always better than non-existence. You cannot do this by merely restating your reasoning from that point on!

If you cannot do so, then you have NO logical basis for dismissing the possibility of infinite negative utility, as your third premise is NOT self-evident when we are talking about a hypothetical eternity.

If we are talking about real life, then yes, it is self evident that existence is better than non-existence, and your interim conclusion is logical. But we're not - we are talking about an afterlife about which we have absolutely no objective evidence. If it is possible to conjecture an infinitely positive outcome (even though no such outcome is possible in the real world), then there is no reason not to conjecture the possibility of an infinitely negative outcome (even though no such outcome is possible in the real world).

Utter powerlessness to do anything except spend every moment of your eternal existence focusing on your excruciating torment.

Which has a value of zero, not negative infinity.

Only if one accepts your premise that existence, even an existence of eternal torment with no hope of reprieve, is always better than non-existence.

In other words, if you admit the possibility of Heaven, you should logically admit the possibility of Hell, even if your particular faith doesn't include the concept. After all, decision theory is all about dealing with "But what if I'm wrong?"

And you can only tell me that a negative infinity value exists if you can measure the utility of each of the possible outcomes for myself.

No, I am merely allowing for the possibility that such an outcome might occur, regardless of who is doing the reasoning. You are rejecting that possiblity a priori, with no rational justification - and this is why I am telling you that your decision matrix is incorrectly constructed, and hence any conclusion you draw from it is invalid.

This energy could be better spent simply seeking to increase your understanding of reality, rather than trying to bring it into concordance with a human invented fiction.

That is an opinion that also requires you to be able to measure the utility that someone else receives from a choice, which is an impossibility.

Yup - which is why it is not a central part of my argument. It's just a little addition that helps to point out the essential absurdity of trying to use decision theory on the concept of an afterlife in order to justify having faith in the transcendent.

When it comes to practical results in the real world, some people simply aren't emotionally equipped to deal with some of the natural outcomes of a firm commitment to atheism. For example, can you accept the statement, "The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning"? Or, "Life has no other purpose except that which we give it"? People who can't cope with these two statements have no business trying to live life as an atheist - their lack of purpose and inability to find meaning will ensure a descent into depression, or a retreat back to the reassurance of faith. Far better for them to accept some form of Deism or Buddhism, or heck, even Theism, and be able to function as a rational human being, rather than to try to force themselves to believe in something they simply cannot accept emotionally.

[Nick]

The best analogy I've seen is a balloon with all the galaxies sitting on the surface. As the balloon expands, the galaxies get further apart.

An interesting one I got from Paul Davies in "The Mind of God" (no pictures on here unfortunately, so be prepared to exercise your visualisation skills - let me know if I need to describe some of it better).

Start by picturing the universe as a vertical cylinder.

The bottom of the cylinder is the 'start' of time. For the purpose of this exercise, we'll assume that the cylinder has no top (i.e. it keeps going on forever). This means we don't have to deal with whether or not there is an end of the universe

A horizontal slice through the cylinder gives us a circular two-dimensional 'space' at the particular instant in time. Slices higher in the cylinder occur after slices lower in the cylinder. Our third dimension (height in the cylinder) is our time axis.

Now, take the bottom of the cylinder, and start shrinking it until it becomes a single point. Now your cylinder has become a cone, with the point at the bottom. As you take slices higher in the cone, the circles you get are bigger - in other words, you have a two-dimensional universe which expands with time, but with the expansion occuring evenly across the whole of the universe.

Obviously, that single point at the base of the cone is our 'big bang', but we aren't quite done with modifying our mental image, yet. The final step is to 'round-off' the bottom of the cone, so that it is no longer a sharp point.

This means that, initially, there was no real time dimension! The base of our (not quite) cone is actually horizontal. As we move away from the base, the sides of the cone gradually assume the familiar expansion rate in the main body of the cone - gradually, the time dimension assumes its familiar orientation. So, considering it in reverse, as we get closer to the origin of our 2d+1 circular universe, the time dimension behaves less and less like we expect it to based on observations of the 'stable expansion' part of the cone.

To convert this to give a vague description of the real universe, simply change those 2D circular slices into 3D spheres, while leaving the rest of it the same - but if you can actually visualise that, well, I'm certainly impressed!

[Coyote]

You know, Durandal, you're right in that the dismissal of Newtonian understanding is the hardest thing to do in this-- the idea of the universe existing in a 'expanse of nothing' (seems oxymoronic now) without spatial reference is a challenge for someone not used to it.

You were right about the university astronomy books not wanting to touch too much on the cosmology issue was right, the writers I got stepped gingerly in the subject but explained it in much the same way. They used the "Rum-Raisin Cake" analogy, that as the cake bakes the raisins grow with the expansion of the batter; each away from each other but in no particular direction. Your explanation actually seemed more precise.

Now, if we cannot back-plot the universe's expansion to an initial point, what about the validity of the 'edge' of the universe? I see where the 'edge' of the universe is actually only the edge that we have been able to observe so far, which at this point is 13 billion years' worth (the 'Hubble limit', it was called, or something like that) and there may be further expanse that we have not been able to see yet (light travelling towards us at a slower, 'redshifted' rate due to the Doppler effect). With time distortion being in correlation with mass/density, would time be moving at a different rate at the 'edge' of the expanse? And presumably, the same could hold true for individual galaxies-- that if we were to travel closer to the center of our own galaxy, the denser gravity there would also cause time distortion (at least to our perceptions)?

Thanks for your time, btw...