Who here believes in aliens?

[payney8]

yeah i agree with team9 Humanity will not survive another 1000 years in the rate of growth we have at the moment, i also agree with schwarz that we really are simple minded beings with our heads so far up our asses we believe everything was created for us and if we do as the big man says we will live forever in our own perfect world.

[TwoJ's]

It is finite but still unfathomably large. So large in fact that the odds of there being other inhabitable planets and intelligent beings are actually very good.

I'm not disputing that. I was just pointing out that when someone says something like "the universe is infinite", it becomes very obvious that they don't know what they are talking about and they are likely regurgitating something they saw someone write about astronomy on a car forum or some other place filled with idiots.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was making a funny about Armchair Quarterbacks before the Super Bowl starts. It was a joke.

[kronus]

I was making a funny about Armchair Quarterbacks before the Super Bowl starts. It was a joke.

Before the what starts?

[Farbin Kaiber]

Dammit.

[E30Kaiser]

I'm not disputing that. I was just pointing out that when someone says something like "the universe is infinite", it becomes very obvious that they don't know what they are talking about and they are likely regurgitating something they saw someone write about astronomy on a car forum or some other place filled with idiots.

The way the universe is expanding though is very hard to conceptualize though, to merely say it is expanding is just as much to regurgitate something you heard on tv or something. It isn't like you can see the edge slowly but surely moving off into oblivion. It is so hard to visualize the expansion because it is more like the space between objects is increasing more so than the universe is expanding like ripples from the impact of a stone in a pond.

[Hallen]

I'm not disputing that. I was just pointing out that when someone says something like "the universe is infinite", it becomes very obvious that they don't know what they are talking about and they are likely regurgitating something they saw someone write about astronomy on a car forum or some other place filled with idiots.

You have to back up your arguments with a few theories or facts if you want to be effective. Just calling everybody else stupid because you think you know better, isn't very worthwhile.

In a 2d space, Earth is infinite. You can keep going around it forever. In a 3d space, it's obviously finite. So, to an extent, it depends on your perspective, doesn't it? Or are you referring to dimensional membranes that all the universes are bound by (in theory)?

Also, is the universe just the portion that is occupied by stuff (the results of the big bang)? Or is it everything beyond that as well? Is there anything beyond the stuff that exists today? What is the definition of universe? To most of us, it is everything inclusive of the area filled with stuff and the area without. Your definition seems to include only the area filled with stuff that is expanding and therefore finite. But what is it expanding into??

I love the Science channel. :)

[LBJefferies]

I am pretty sure that the commonly held scientific view is that space is actually curved.

[TwoJ's]

You have to back up your arguments with a few theories or facts if you want to be effective. Just calling everybody else stupid because you think you know better, isn't very worthwhile.

In a 2d space, Earth is infinite. You can keep going around it forever. In a 3d space, it's obviously finite. So, to an extent, it depends on your perspective, doesn't it? Or are you referring to dimensional membranes that all the universes are bound by (in theory)?

Also, is the universe just the portion that is occupied by stuff (the results of the big bang)? Or is it everything beyond that as well? Is there anything beyond the stuff that exists today? What is the definition of universe? To most of us, it is everything inclusive of the area filled with stuff and the area without. Your definition seems to include only the area filled with stuff that is expanding and therefore finite. But what is it expanding into??

I love the Science channel. :)

What arguments would you like me to back up? I have no desire to comment on every person's babbling in this thread. And I don't claim to know all about this subject, but I do know that I wouldn't comment unless I knew about what I was specifically saying. We could go back and forth all day with different theories but that doesn't interest me. I'd only like to discuss theories that have been accepted by the collective scientific community.

The way the universe is expanding though is very hard to conceptualize though, to merely say it is expanding is just as much to regurgitate something you heard on tv or something. It isn't like you can see the edge slowly but surely moving off into oblivion. It is so hard to visualize the expansion because it is more like the space between objects is increasing more so than the universe is expanding like ripples from the impact of a stone in a pond.

On the contrary. It IS expanding like ripples in a pond, only in three dimensions. Sure, I am regurgitating as well, but the difference is that I present with fact contrary to many people in this thread. And I didn't see it on some show on TV, or hear it from some guy, I studied it in an astrophysics course (among other things).

[E30Kaiser]

On the contrary. It IS expanding like ripples in a pond, only in three dimensions. Sure, I am regurgitating as well, but the difference is that I present with fact contrary to many people in this thread. And I didn't see it on some show on TV, or hear it from some guy, I studied it in an astrophysics course (among other things).

Not really, because if it was expanding like ripples in a pond, it would imply there is a center, which we can't detect at this time and will most likely never be able to if there is one. Not to mention all points in the universe are moving away from us beyond our subcluster at increasing rates, that doesn't happen when one uses a model like ripples from a pond. I too have taken astronomy courses, and like most things it is all theories. There is little evidence to back up your idea of a ripple model from what I have seen beyond "Western Logic".

[LBJefferies]

Not really, because if it was expanding like ripples in a pond, it would imply there is a center, which we can't detect at this time and will most likely never be able to if there is one. Not to mention all points in the universe are moving away from us beyond our subcluster at increasing rates, that doesn't happen when one uses a model like ripples from a pond. I too have taken astronomy courses, and like most things it is all theories. There is little evidence to back up your idea of a ripple model from what I have seen beyond "Western Logic".

Yeah. The universe isn't expanding away from one central point like ripples in a pond. Instead, everything is moving away from everything else.

Also, if spacetime is curved like many scientists believe, then the universe can be infinite. There are two different senses of the word infinite. There is the linear sense which is like counting 1, 2, 3, 100, 1,000,000, and on. There is also the circular sense which is like a circle which goes round and round without hitting any sort of limit. So if space time is curved, then space travel would be in circles. Naw mean?

[TwoJ's]

Not really, because if it was expanding like ripples in a pond, it would imply there is a center, which we can't detect at this time and will most likely never be able to if there is one. Not to mention all points in the universe are moving away from us beyond our subcluster at increasing rates, that doesn't happen when one uses a model like ripples from a pond. I too have taken astronomy courses, and like most things it is all theories. There is little evidence to back up your idea of a ripple model from what I have seen beyond "Western Logic".

The existence of a "center of the universe" and our capability to "see" it are not mutually exclusive. Also, I don't know where you get your info, but not everything is moving away from us. The fact that you said that concerns me greatly. Do you realize what it would mean if everything was moving away from us? Think about it -- it would imply that earth, or our solar system, or the milky way was the center of the universe; which we know is not the case. I never said everything is moving away from the "center" at a constant rate. Something that is theoretically closer to the origin; or "center", may be getting farther away without being moving away from us. Get it? It's simply moving from the center at a lesser rate than "we" are.

And I actually haven't taken any astronomy courses... just a bunch of physics courses that included astrophysics. And your reference to "Western logic" is extremely out of date. There is no longer a Western model of logic, math, physics, or science -- we all function within the same paradigm nowadays, and have for a century or so now. If you need more info on how the universe is moving, you should read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. You will learn all about this stuff. Actually, if you were willing to pay for shipping and promised to return it, I'd be happy to loan you my copy.

[E30Kaiser]

The existence of a "center of the universe" and our capability to "see" it are not mutually exclusive. Also, I don't know where you get your info, but not everything is moving away from us. The fact that you said that concerns me greatly. Do you realize what it would mean if everything was moving away from us? Think about it -- it would imply that earth, or our solar system, or the milky way was the center of the universe; which we know is not the case. I never said everything is moving away from the "center" at a constant rate. Something that is theoretically closer to the origin; or "center", may be getting farther away without being moving away from us. Get it? It's simply moving from the center at a lesser rate than "we" are.

And I actually haven't taken any astronomy courses... just a bunch of physics courses that included astrophysics. And your reference to "Western logic" is extremely out of date. There is no longer a Western model of logic, math, physics, or science -- we all function within the same paradigm nowadays, and have for a century or so now. If you need more info on how the universe is moving, you should read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. You will learn all about this stuff. Actually, if you were willing to pay for shipping and promised to return it, I'd be happy to loan you my copy.

When I say that you fall prey to "Western Logic" it is because you fail to understand that everything can be moving away from our cluster, but we are not the center of the Universe. Why do you think every galaxy beyond our supercluster is redshifted? Not to mention if you look in any direction you see galaxys are uniformly distributed relatively. Why is that? Wouldn't you expect them to be much more dense in one direction and much less dense in the other if you had a ripple model?

BTW I am not saying that you are wrong, like I said before, Astronomy is the field probably most made up of theories so almost every debate over it is based loosely on facts and mostly on whatever you think is the most probable answer.

[LBJefferies]

The existence of a "center of the universe" and our capability to "see" it are not mutually exclusive. Also, I don't know where you get your info, but not everything is moving away from us. The fact that you said that concerns me greatly. Do you realize what it would mean if everything was moving away from us? Think about it -- it would imply that earth, or our solar system, or the milky way was the center of the universe; which we know is not the case. I never said everything is moving away from the "center" at a constant rate. Something that is theoretically closer to the origin; or "center", may be getting farther away without being moving away from us. Get it? It's simply moving from the center at a lesser rate than "we" are.

And I actually haven't taken any astronomy courses... just a bunch of physics courses that included astrophysics. And your reference to "Western logic" is extremely out of date. There is no longer a Western model of logic, math, physics, or science -- we all function within the same paradigm nowadays, and have for a century or so now. If you need more info on how the universe is moving, you should read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. You will learn all about this stuff. Actually, if you were willing to pay for shipping and promised to return it, I'd be happy to loan you my copy.

Actually everything is moving away from us. Technically everything is moving away from everything else. This implies that there is no center of the universe.

[Hallen]

What arguments would you like me to back up? I have no desire to comment on every person's babbling in this thread. And I don't claim to know all about this subject, but I do know that I wouldn't comment unless I knew about what I was specifically saying. We could go back and forth all day with different theories but that doesn't interest me. I'd only like to discuss theories that have been accepted by the collective scientific community.

So then don't comment at all. If you don't want to take the time to make an argument, then don't bother writing anything. If it doesn't interest you, then why say something?

You just said the universe is expending and therefore it is finite. That answer leaves open huge gaps in both logic and physics. So if you don't want to defend your position, don't bother posting in the first place. This is just for fun. You aren't going to teach the entire internet to be smart, but between us, it's just a bit of fun.

And btw, I don't think the collective scientific community has much agreement at all on the size, shape, or composition of the universe. We just have a bunch of questions and several hypothesis, of which, some look to be more promising than others.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html

Notice he doesn't answer the question in that piece. He just says it's expanding at a faster rate than it used to be indicating that dark energy has gotten the upper hand somewhat recently.