Edit: For anyone opening this thread, it was spun-off from discussion in another thread about a different topic...

Which laws?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

You know...the part where the big bag happened and the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

I'm not clear on what you mean here. Are you saying that scientists are inconsistent on the matter - claiming that the Big Bang is explainable with known physics principles, but also requiring things to happen that violate those principles?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm no physicist but that's what I've read on the subject. You have the universe that follows the laws of physics but the big bang theory violates some of them.

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Or all of them.

What you have is a huge amount of "something" (time, matter and space) coming from an immeasurable "nothing." That's if you're talking to one of the physicists that beleives in the "big bang." There's a group that beleive in a "static universe."

We don't really even understand this "universe" place we inhabit. We're still thinking, studying and theorizing. Will we ever get past "thinking, studying and theorizing" about it ?

Some beleive we will, others don't beleive we will.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

A static universe is no longer a plausible theory. The Doppler Effect is one of the main theories which proves that we are in fact expanding. We are traveling debris from the radiation inflation which occurred during the Big Bang.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

Well, if we don't even understand this "universe" place we're stuck in, how could we know a being, thing or "place" beyond or outside of it ?

We can't even understand the universe, yet we're going to snit on and on about how there's no "proof" that there's a God ? ?

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

Not true at all. You haven't been keeping up. There is still much recent argument and debate about this.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

as if we could even understand the proof if offered.

now if Jesus had just done card tricks for miracles and the like I could understand....

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

There is no way. A static universe would start to contract and collapse on itself under gravitational force. Thus, the universe is expanding. It's almost a similar reason why a star or planet does not collapse on itself (unless it dies). There is a gravitational force in the center of it that counteracts the force of gravity that is pushing on it. If we were to come from an immense inflation of radiation causing a cosmic microwave, this means the energy wouldn't stop at all or else it would smack back into itself. A static universe is not probable. This is not the model of our universe. Additionally, I assume you have never heard of a "redshift", which has to do with the Doppler Effect, as I had mentioned previously. The way the light shifts shows us that things are moving away from us, which means these things have velocity. If you don't believe that, then you should take it up with Hubble. Shit, he's dead.

Oh I've been keeping up... in fact I'm about 60 years ahead of you it appears.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

You really can't understand what you are saying. The fact that you can interact with us proves that. The people who actually understand and research this don't know how to shower properly and walk down hallways leaning against the wall. You just have too much personality to be as smart as what you claim

__________________
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Umm hmmm.

Here's a little read for you to ponder:

March 2001 issue of Discover magazine

"Very dark energy. Why is the universe expanding faster and faster ?"
By Karen Wright pgs. 70 - 76

This is just a little bit. There's a LOT more to the article:

Pg. 73

One set of studies sought to determine the shape of the universe by considering the density of matter in it. Einstein had shown that matter curves space in predictable ways, so that universes with different densities of matter will have different shapes. His theories allowed for three shapes: negative curvature, in which the universe looks like a saddle; positive curvature, in which the universe is spherical and flat, the most unlikely case, in which the overall density of matter doesn't warp space, and photons travel in straight lines. Flat space isn't two dimensional; it just isn't curved.

Each shape corresponds to a density of matter denoted by the symbol Omega. To create a flat universe, matter must reach so-called critical density, which means Omega equals one. In a saddle shaped universe Omega is less than one; in a spherical universe, it's more than one. Astronomers have sought to determine the value of Omega and distinguish among these geometries by measuring the way space bends beams of light. The light they like to measure isn't visible; it's microwave radiation left over from the big bang that glows at the farthest reaches of the universe.

Pg. 74

In the days before dark energy, astronomers believed that the end of the expanding universe would be dictated by the density of matter in it. Just as matter determined the curvature of space, it would also predict the way that space would expand and whether it would ever contract. Back when cosmic expansion was caused solely by the cataclysmic propulsion of the big bang, the gravity of matter was expected to eventually slow it down, maybe even stop it, maybe even reverse it. In short, density equalled destiny.

Based on that reasoning, astronomers proposed three models for the fate of the universe, each corresponding to a different geometry and density of matter. In each scenario, the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe tugs at the heels of the big bangs momentum like a tireless dog thats latched onto the leg of a running mailman.

If Omega is less than one, the universe keeps on expanding forever, but at an ever diminishing pace. That universe has the saddle shape and is called "open". If Omega is more than one, the universal expansion slows and eventually reverses, collapsing in a cosmic crunch. That universe is spherical and "closed". In a flat universe, where the density of matter is exactly one, the expansion eventually slows very nearly to a stop but never actually reverses.

But if the universe is made up mostly of repulsive, ubiquitous energy rather than matter, then its ultimate fate isn't inscribed in its shape after all.


Pg. 75

.. universe that expands forever and an open universe or a flat universe that collapses."
The only way to figure out the fate of the flat, empty, accelerating universe, says Turner, is to learn more about the dark energy thats impelling expansion. But even as they begin chasing down Einsteins notion of vacuum energy, physicists are having to grapple with problems that range from the numerical to the philosophical. For one thing, when they attempt to calculate the value of Lambda, the theorists come up with a figure that is 120 orders of magnitude too big. Fitting the known universe with a vacuum energy of that potency would be like filling up a water balloon with a fire hose. "It cannot possibly be correct," says Turner. "If it were correct you wouldn't be able to see beyond the end of your nose, the universe would be expanding so fast." The size of the error has emphasized how poorly physicists understand certain aspects of gravity. "That is the biggest embarrasement in theoretical physics," adds turner.



It gets even more embarrasing, because theorists can't explain why the densities of matter and energy are currently so close in value. Theoretically, either of those densities could be anything from zero to infinity, and their ratio could vary accordingly. The odds of their being within a order of magnitude of each other are very low. The precarious balance between matter and energy that exists today in our universe - one third matter to two thirds energy - seems as improbable as the static universe that Einstein struggled to describe. And some find that improbability especially suspicious, because a universe more dominated by dark energy would be inhospitable to life. The excess energy would prevent matter from clumping forming galaxies, stars and planets. Yet here we are.

The coincidence has driven even notorious skeptics like Weinerg to invoke, in exasperation, the anthropic principle. That much-maligned tautology states that human consciousness can question the terms required for its existence only in a world in which those terms have been met. If conditions were any different, no one would be here to ponder them.

--------------------------------------------------

In otherwords we still aren't sure. "Big bang" is very much a theory. Not a strong one either.

Beleive what you will though

You sure have a lot of faith for one who thinks they "know" there's no God. Interesting.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

You see that a lot on internet forums

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

I am real. Believe it, young Padawan.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

Ummmm Captain... your ship is sinking

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade