Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
And Void Main, yeah, that's one take on the Big Bang, is that it's part of a cycle of bangs, just as you describe.
as smart as we think we are, we're actually completely clueless.
imho
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
He wasn't against quantum physics though. He spent the later years of life trying in vain to tie together his existing theories with those of quantum mechanics.
As for the idea of the universe contracting back in on itself. It was at one point thought to have been slowing, but more recent data has shown that the expansion continues to accelerate. Thus the search to explain dark energy. The theoretical force thought to be driving the expansion. Other than that, the idea that it is some sort of cyclical event is most certainly correct.
The distance between galaxies, the empty void of space if you will. Has shown to be growing further apart at an accelerating pace. This is where it's thought that dark energy is overpowering the force of gravity.
I forget the specific type of celestial body they were talking about last time I read about it, but they made it sound like this particular celestial body was an exception to the overwhelming rule.
According to the laws of physics another force must be in play to be causing this. It's no different than the theory that atoms existed and our modern ability to observe them.
The math tells us it's there. Now it's a race to understand and/or observe it.
Check out the TV series "The Universe". It got some very interesting stuff in it. I downloaded the first two seasons. A lot of the science in it is very recent stuff. They cover much of the stuff we've been discussing here, plus a whole lot more.
Pit Row
Out of the four forces, gravity is the weakest. But they argued that gravity may appear weak because of how the force acts between the dimensions. Pretty interesting stuff (from what I could wrap my head around).
But it did get me thinking. I'm a devote atheist as may be apparent. But the concept of what existed before the big bang does make one think. Sometimes you sit and think and say, well, something had to create us. We had to come from somewhere. I am sure a lot of you "believers" use that argument often. But, then, if a "creator" created us, then surely, something must have created the creator.
Is that a paradox? In order to have a creator, the creator must have a creator? Saying there was a creator and leaving it at that does not get anyone closer to the truth.
And no, space is not absolute zero. And at the time of the big bang, compressed matter would have been superheated anyway.
Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable.
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind.
If God has made the world a perfect mechanism, He has at least conceded so much to our imperfect intellects that in order to predict little parts of it, we need not solve innumerable differential equations, but can use dice with fair success.
(Max Born, on Quantum Physics)
Does God play with dice?
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future.
An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion,
and all positions of all items of which nature is composed.
If this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula, the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
The bottom line cornerstone of the "We don't know shit" postulate is based on the following:
Humans can only explain the 'universe' in terms of phenomena that are detectable through our 5 senses and in terms of our own concept of 'existence' as an interpretation of data received with those 5 receptors. Consequently, the entire body of human 'science' is limited by that fairly significant constraint. One simply cannot rule out that humans are completely numb (don't have the sensors), and therefore, completely ignorant of, literally, infinite 'stuff', 'dimensions' if you will, that surrounds us on all sides all the time. We just don't know it's there because we have no way of detecting any of the stuff's existence. And that those things may interact with and influence those forces and materials we actually can observe in ways we may never comprehend because of our limitations.
And, humans can only observe things, using our 5 senses, from this one infinitesimally small, fixed, spatial position in this thing we call 'the universe'. In other words, our capacity to understand 'ALL' is hopelessly myopic and constrained by our own limitations.
These two indisputable principles guarantee that we don't know, and probably will never know, shit. Which, by the way, means that one cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of a so-called 'God'. Why? Easy. Because we don't know shit.
Perception *is* reality. But reality is not necessarily real.
Discuss ....
Perception *is* reality. But reality is not necessarily real
This goes for all things today. IMHO perception has taken over reality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/l…
And Max Born is not the end-all, be-all of physics, nor was Einstein.
Here's Hawking's entire quote:
"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Goedel's theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists."
And Steven Hawking is also not the end-all, be-all of physics. No one is. That's the thing about science is that there is no hierarchy. A person with no formal education can still make discoveries that flip the entire field on its head. Quoting a top scientist doesn't necessarily mean they're right or you're right. Einstein was wrong more than he was right, as was every other scientist ever.
But that doesn't mean people can't rule out specific things about specific gods, just that they can't rule out non-specific things about non-specific gods.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
it does make my head hurt though .
Post a reply to: so if ABSOLUTE ZERO is.....