This is something Brian Cox touched on recently in The Human Universe, well worth watching if it is still available.
An agnostic ? I do believe we are predisposed to believe in something, it is part of the glue that holds us together, but that could just be coincidental and doesn't prove anything.
So how come we are to accept that the universe is expanding, btw we cant find the edge regardless what wiki says, and that before the boomalang lang event there was nothing, from which something appeared miraculously, yet not that all that happens now is since a divine intervention, who knows maybewhat was before the boomalang lang, and that some events in histpry recorded as fact actually are. For all we know, the red sea was divided, Jesus did heal people and he did have a prostitute wofe shared by the other disciples I just want Man to land on Mars and see what there.
Except all the evidence, not bits of it or bits from different sets of scientits etc, but all of it suggests Man does need to believe in something, even if its nothing... Fwiw firmly agnostic here. Edging my bets, because you just dont know
Well maybe you should - I'm sure you would condemn a typical 'sect'? So why not an established 'sect' which is what religions are. The only difference is people are brain washed from an early age by each subsequent generation and they do not realise. The born agains are more like newly formed 'sect' victims but the majority are 'got at' early in life.
That is of course if we are truly alone in the cosmos - then we are more than significant. Probably not though :Bag:
Not a chance. And the arrogance needed to suggest we are is baffling. Unless, of course, we are made in Gods image
Because in whatever direction we look the galaxies are moving away from us. We know this due to a Doppler shift in the absorption lines, a quantum effect, in the spectra from those galaxies being red shifted.
We believe they are moving away. Even woolworths never had anything long enough to measure it. All joking aside, this is based on computer generated model giving an expected outcome. Similar theory based models have been used for global warming as well as outbreaks of bird flu etc. its all guess work, educated granted, but guesswork none the less. Now stick a spark next to methane and it lights. That is fact which is proven.
The red shift in emissions from distant galaxies is real and can be measured, it isn't a computer simulation. Agree with you on Global Warming though which is heavily reliant upon computer modelling.
So, if there was a big bang as such and the universe is expanding - what is in the middle, is there more and more matter oozing out or a big expanse of nothing. If nothing then is the universe expanding or simply diluting matter into a vast emptiness that was there before? :Finger:
It is believed that the universe is expanding and everything is moving further apart, eventually the lights in the cosmos will go out as stars move further away. There wasn't a vast emptyness, there was nothing in any way we can comprehend before the big bang.
Was there not a rival hypothesis to the expanding universe that involved the speed of light changing over time, I don't think its been disproved so although the observations may be fact the reasons for them are not 100% settled. Now a lot may find that a bit of a jump BUT imagine trying to get you're head around the idea of time being relative to the observer or whatever Einstein came up with in the Edwardian era.
The thing is, it doesn't matter whether you believe in physics or not , its still true. It doesn't matter whether any one of us can understand it or not it is also still true. Physics can and does make predictions, which is an accepted test of proof by all scientists.
So now there is nothing but nothingness in the middle for millions of light years? So the Universe isn't expanding at all - just spreading out?
In addition, it doesn't matter what aspect of quantum physics you struggle with ,or whether you believe its weirdness it has passed every experiment and test ever made. Argue over the finer points of the words truth or proof if you like but thats good enough for me.
The difference between science and religion is that if all scientific knowledge were lost to mankind tomorrow, every bit of it could be discovered again in time; but if all knowledge of religions was lost, none of it could ever be discovered again, it would be gone for good. Religion is a part of human culture, like paintings or poems or music - it was invented not discovered. A fresh lot could be invented, but it would be nothing like the old lot.
