Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Since the universe includes everything in existence, there is nothing outside the universe.
2. One cannot use "scientific evidence" if matter and energy as we know them aren't involved.
Thank you. I appreciate your effort in trying to provide an explanation. Unfortunately, it appears to contain some serious flaws.
1. You're right that the universe contains everything in existence, but that ONLY pertains to the contents within the structure of the universe. If the universe includes everything in existence, and there is nothing "outside' of the universe, then it also means the entity you mentioned is a created product of the universe and did not exist before the Big Bang. The entity, by your line of reasoning, is also a finite byproduct of the universe.
If that's the case, then when the universe comes to an eventual end, so does the entity. Why? Because of your explanation: "the universe includes everything in existence, there is nothing outside the universe." The exception would be to assume that the universe is an eternal structure and did not have a beginning. This falls into Hoyle's Steady State theory, which you acknowledged has been ruled out in favor of the Big Bang.
This raises a major question. If the entity did not preexist the Big Bang (which lead to the formation of the universe), then what caused the Big Bang to happen?
2. Here you give a flawed explanation, perhaps because of ypur own limited understanding about science. Science does not claim to have all the answers to everything. But it has provided us with more knowledge about the universe around us.
All matter at the smallest level of mass is made up of a combination of elements known as atoms. Going deeper we find that atoms are composed of energetic sub-atomic particles: neutrons, electrons and protons. Subatomic particles have no known mass, and are not considered to be matter. Going even deeper, these subatomic contain a combination of quarks. Although quarks can't be directly seen, we know they exist because of the tracks they leave from collisions of subatomic particles at particle colliders. We don't know what makes quarks, but it's suspected they probably contain strings. The point is that even though some things can't be directly observed, we can scientifically determine the existence of some things indirectly. The limits of observation and detection is mostly related to the limitations of current equipment. With the invention of more powerful equipment or the development of new techniques, we could probably have a greater ability to detect behaviors that are currently invisible to us.
Another flaw in your explanation is that you only include "matter" and "energy". You've left out fundamental forces and dimensions. While neither of these can be directly observed, we know they exist, indirectly, because of how they effect other things.
While there's nothing wrong with speculating about "...matter and energy as we know them aren't involved", it's a meaningless statement that can neither be proved or disproved. We could just as easily say that some matter and energy exist in an infinite number of Mickey Mouse figurines that are beyond our range of observation and detection. To make such a statment have any meaning, you'd need a valid hypothesis or theory to be considered. I could say we don't really exist at all and the entire universe is nothing more than a simulation game on some kid's computer but it doesn't mean much if it can't be proved or disproved.
Now the most important question here is ,Why planet earth is the only planet that has Oxygen ?
How do you know it's the only planet with oxygen. Been to all of them in the entire universe have you? How do you even know how many planets there are in the universe much less which ones have oxygen or not.
Quote:
if the sun was just a little closer to the earth we would burn up if it was like a centimerer farther we would freeze , Who put that accurate measurement ?
Can you say 'PLONKER'? Don't you even have enough intelligence to realise that the distance between the Earth and the Sun varies by MILLIONS of miles throughout the yearly cycle?? Our distance from the Sun is 91,445,000 miles in January, which is known as "Aphelion" and 94,555,000 miles in July, which is known as "Perihelion". In case you don't have enough intelligence to work it out yourself, that's a difference of 3,110,000 MILES....and you think we would freeze or burn up if the distance changed by "a centimetre".
Why am I bothering with this lunacy??? Burn up or freeze if the distance varied by even a centimetre my arse!!! What a plonker!!!
Quote:
Thats all i wanted to say .
Good...and please don't say any more because you make ignorance into an art form. I'm sorry pal but it has to be said, even if I get banned for it, you are the most scientifically illiterate person that it has been my misfortune to come across since I landed on this planet 61 years ago!! Get your head out of your backside, put your Qur'an down and actually LEARN something about what you are trying to dismiss....
In regards to some of the comments i can say True .. once we lead the world .. now its your turn .. and time will has it course again and we will take the lead again .. i believe we are on the right path .. its the nature of changes .. nothing remains forever but God .
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart
It is indeed rules and laws on it highest level ... specific orders .. if there is a minor malfunction the universe would not support life, and would therefore be unobservable.
If there were no laws, there would be no consistancy.
The universe would be a shapeless mass but then, even mass needs laws to define it as mass .
With lows we can make accurate calculations regarding the nature of many things in our universe, providing said laws do not change. If any of the universal constants changed (natural logarithms for example) then the current laws of physics are negated, and order will be lost .
Now the most important question here is ,Why planet earth is the only planet that has Oxygen ? who knows living would exist here and makes every thing appropriate to the capacity of organisms ?
Actually Oxygen is abundant. In fact, a lot of the oxygen is tied up with hydrogen as water.
Quote:
if the sun was just a little closer to the earth we would burn up if it was like a centimerer farther we would freeze , Who put that accurate measurement ?
Centimeter? That must be a typo, because there is about a variance of 37% in earth's eliptical orbit. That about 50 billion meters - almost out to mars. That must be what you meant, right?
Quote:
Does the big bang hapen to make it that way by coincidence ? why does that coincidence only chose planet earth before organisms even exist?
Quote:
There is no way what so ever that this strict regulation could happen by chance !!
That's right. It is just like after a rainstorm. That puddle of water perfectly fits in the pot-hole on my street by the curb. How incredible is that?
In regards to some of the comments i can say True .. once we lead the world .. now its your turn .. and time will has it course again and we will take the lead again .. i believe we are on the right path .. its the nature of changes .. nothing remains forever but God .
Now the most important question here is ,Why planet earth is the only planet that has Oxygen ?
You might want to do a little bit of simple research first before making such statements.
Oxygen ranks 3rd in terms of abundance in the universe, albeit a small percentage in comparison to (#1) hydrogen and (#2) helium. It would be pretty unlikely that Earth is the "only planet" with oxygen. On Earth, oxygen ranks as the most abundant at 85.84%. In the atmosphere, oxygen ranks 2nd at 20.9%, with nitrogen being the most abundant at 78.1%. Abundance of the chemical elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And speaking of water (which contains oxygen), although frozen, water has been found on the Moon, Mars, some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, comets. So, no, Earth is not the only planet that has oxygen.
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
RESPONSE:
1. Since the universe includes everything in existence, there is nothing outside the universe.
2. One cannot use "scientific evidence" if matter and energy as we know them aren't involved.
>>Thank you. I appreciate your effort in trying to provide an explanation. Unfortunately, it appears to contain some serious flaws.<<
>>You're right that the universe contains everything in existence, but that ONLY pertains to the contents within the structure of the universe. If the universe includes everything in existence, and there is nothing "outside' of the universe, then it also means the entity you mentioned is a created product of the universe and did not exist before the Big Bang. The entity, by your line of reasoning, is also a finite byproduct of the universe.<<
RESPONSE:
No. The universe includes everything in existence.
>>then it also means the entity you mentioned is a created product of the universe<<
No. The entity would preexist the universe, not be its product.
>>If that's the case, then when the universe comes to an eventual end, so does the entity. Why? Because of your explanation: "the universe includes everything in existence, there is nothing outside the universe." The exception would be to assume that the universe is an eternal structure and did not have a beginning. This falls into Hoyle's Steady State theory, which you acknowledged has been ruled out in favor of the Big Bang.<<
No. That doesn’t follow. The universe logically contains an uncreated entity and created entities. The end of a created entity does not mandate the end of an uncreated entity.
>>This raises a major question. If the entity did not preexist the Big Bang (which lead to the formation of the universe), then what caused the Big Bang to happen?<<
A series of intermediate created entities like matter and energy.
Matter is anything that has mass (weight) and volume (takes up space).
Energy is power which may be translated into motion, overcoming resistance, or effecting physical change; the ability to do work.
>>Here you give a flawed explanation, perhaps because of your own limited understanding about science. Science does not claim to have all the answers to everything. But it has provided us with more knowledge about the universe around us.<<
Science deals only with the observation and measurement of matter and energy . It's has those limits.
>>Another flaw in your explanation is that you only include "matter" and "energy". You've left out fundamental forces and dimensions. While neither of these can be directly observed, we know they exist, indirectly, because of how they effect other things.<<
No. The universe includes everything in existence.
I diagree on the basis of the above statement which you previously stated. I do agree that everything within the structure of the universe contains everything it needed to create all it contains. Again, before the Big Bang, the universe contained nothing for the simple reason there was no universe before the Big Bang. Now whether there was some other field or conditions (such as branes for example) that preexisted the Big Bang (and the universe) is a completely different issue. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying the universe includes everything in existence. If that's the case, then the entity would also be contained as a product of the universe. Since the universe if finite, in that it had a beginning, then the entity (included in the universe) would also be finite.
What exactly do you think this "entity" is? I'm sure you have some kind of opinion. Please be more specific. This is where your communication gets unnecessarily cryptic and dodgy which gives the impression of trolling. Frankly interferes with making your point clear. The same thing applies to your one-line responses and statements. You provide no examples or clarification. If you want people to understand you, you need to be more clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
No. They would be matter or energy too.
Matter can be described as dimensional, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that dimensions ARE matter. I think you've got that in reverse. Please give some clear examples of how dimensions are the same as matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.