PDA

View Full Version : The Edge Of The Universe



jsc248
2004-May-09, 12:40 PM
<_< Hi All,
The other day a young nephew of mine asked me the question, Whats at the end of the Universe? I tried to answer as best as I could but found myself doubting my own answer&#33; I had answered that according to current thinking that the Universe will go on for ever and therefore have no end ( I didn&#39;t put quite like that my nephew is only ten&#33;).
My problem is this, Almost all astronomers now agree that the Universe began with the Big Bang. Before this there was nothing, no space, no time, nothing. The Universe by this model therefore must be finite and therefore must at one point, have an end. My question for all is this:-

If a space craft from here, or anywhere else for that matter, managed to reach this edge, what would he find? Would it be possible to cross this barrier? Would you return to a place of no space and time?

I know that there is no current practical theory to explain "beyond the boundary" as I am an astronomy student(at 43 a very mature one &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;) but I&#39;d like to hear what people think.
Thanks and get the thinking caps on.
jsc248.

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-10, 11:28 AM
Take a look here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=944)

newc
2004-May-10, 12:12 PM
Hi there,
If I were in your shoes I would answer my nephew something like this: "the universe is like a baloon, when it started it was floppy. Then someone blew in air and it got inflated (the big bang). We are currently living on the surface of this baloon. Therefore there is no boundaries, you just go around the surface"

My understanding is that one of the currently most accepted theory holds that the universe is a 4 dimensional sphere with no boundaries. In other words, if you keep on going for 15 billion light years, you will come back to earth (pretty much like a ship going around the surface of earth) -we are simplifying this example by assuming that this 15 billion light year travel is instantaneous, and that the universe does not expand during the travel-

However you should keep in mind that there are MANY theories about the structure of the universe, some holding that it is a multiverse (various spheres), some holding that it is a multidimensional (branes and strings universes), etc etc.

I personally came to like the multidimensional ones. Specially for the part the string/branes theory justifies the presence of the graviton and the dilaton. I never really liked the current physics based on hierarchy of forces (weak and strong), and this approach seems to find a reason why we see it.

Should any real physicist read this article and find it imprecise I offer my apologies in advance.

Best regards to all.

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-10, 12:21 PM
.......the presence of the graviton and the dilaton

Dilaton is a term new to me. Has it been postulated as an expansion particle responding to an expansion field working in opposition to gravitons?

newc
2004-May-10, 01:31 PM
Hello there,
My understanding of the dilaton is that it is the particle responsible of exchange of information regarding the supersymmetry. My (poor) grasp of the concept -if you want I can quote the book I recently read about it- is that every particle has a supersymmetrical equivalent, just like every particle has an anti-particle equivalent. The dilaton should be the particle responsible for this paricular type of exchange (together with: graviton for gravity, electron for charge, photon for ... can&#39;t remember what, sorry).
The other thing that makes it very intresting is that it is a very good candidate for dark matter (together with the graviton), and that it leads to a picture of the universe that might explain the reason why we find dark energy.

Again physicists will have to excuse me if I misinterpreted or misquoted any of the information. I guarantee that I will not be offended if anyone corrects these errors.

Best regards

ASEI
2004-May-10, 05:07 PM
Well, our universe can&#39;t be closed if the critical density isn&#39;t exceeded. So far, we have only found something like 4% of the mass required for the critical density. In this case, our universe should be open and unbounded. An astronomer friend of mine said that many of the best models for the universe assume that it is infinite in extent. This doesn&#39;t in any way violate the big bang, the initial condition of the big bang was probably infinite in extent as well. Over time, the density and expansion force (energy?) have decreased as the "specific volume" of the universe has increased.

Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that our universe is indeed flat, with no significant spatial curvature within our current visual range.

zephyr46
2004-May-11, 06:17 AM
jsc248,

I&#39;d ask him what he thinks :)

I think it&#39;s infinate, and being aware of limits on our little blue planet, we shudder with cosmic agoraphobia with such endlessness.

I also still don&#39;t beleive in the big bang, parts may be partly right, but otherwise, I don&#39;t believe time started 15 to 20 billion years ago, I think time is infinate as well, always been, always will be.

But, I like to think that you eventually reach a great big continuous wall of dirt that sourrounds everything, that goes on for ever, or that there are infinate universe within every particle and outwards, that surround us as a particle.

But like I said, I would ask what he thinks :)

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-11, 04:00 PM
What&#39;s beyond the universe is the place of its birth which is void and without form.

It seems natural to expect that back when the universe was no larger than a sphere of one light year radius (donning my big bang hat), fairly homogeneous, and reasonably isotropic that the equipartition of kinetic energy commensurate with the extant temperature amongst the protons, neutrons (or hadrons) and electrons would cause the differentiation of the particles. Since the photons were busy making sure that neutral atoms did not form and could move much faster than the electrons which could move faster than the protons or neutrons, one of the more probable configurations is a "cloud" of mostly neutrons (nearer the center than protons since they are not mutually repelling as are the protons) and protons (or hadrons) forming the neucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons (and maybe lotsa positrons) with a buffer of photonic energy between the electron cloud and the horizon until sufficient time lapsed for the particle types to reach the horizon and establish radial homogeniety. What I don&#39;t know how to guess at is the effect of the intense gravitational field which should be dominating the spacetimescape during this period and should be overwhelming all other forces as well as dilating time. Time dilation may have caused seconds to last a very long time by today&#39;s standards but how would we ever know; all those clocks would have agreed?


If the description above has merit and assuming that after the inflation era (10^-35 seconds after BB) the rate of expansion was much less than the velocity of light, within a relatively short time, cosmologically speaking, (100 to 100000 years) light from each point in the universe should have, due to its much greater speed, reached every other point. Had there been observers, they could have seen this.

Now semantics gets sticky. I used the term horizon in the quote above which is tantamount to the set of all points at the furtherest extent of the universe at a specific time and suggests boundary or edge but only semantically not cosmologically nor physically i.e., I don&#39;t know what I&#39;m talking about, but I"ll slog on anyway. I also asserted that the photons which would soon outrun the post-inflation expansion would reflect from the horizon which seems absurd. I avoided addressing the neutrinos which possess a significant fraction of the total energy of the early universe; the absurdity of their being reflected off the horizon is overwhelming. If the absurdity of reflection holds, neutrinos and photons have been piling up at the horizon since the end of inflation. By now this is a very thick wall and very difficult to penetrate. So quit worrying about what&#39;s on the other side of it. You don&#39;t need to know.


Have I just demonstrated the absurdity of the big bang?

StarLab
2004-May-11, 06:34 PM
Have I just demonstrated the absurdity of the big bang?
No, you have just demonstrated the absurdity of your own knowledge. :o
Don&#39;t hype about neutrinos...at least in my view, they interact within our universe very little - they are concentrated mainly just outside our universe, so they obey different physical laws (which would explain why they just might travel faster than light) and on occasion a bunch may penetrate our universe, and some - a small fraction - would interact with other particles in the universe and fade away, while the rest make it to the other side and thru our universe.

Keep in mind that our one universe may be two different universes that overlapped during the big bang, so time is absolute, and each universe,in turn, is composed of overlapping dimensions.

I Hope I cleared up a few things for all of you. ;)

StarLab
2004-May-11, 07:00 PM
Hi there,
If I were in your shoes I would answer my nephew something like this: "the universe is like a baloon, when it started it was floppy. Then someone blew in air and it got inflated (the big bang). We are currently living on the surface of this baloon. Therefore there is no boundaries, you just go around the surface"
Newc, if before the BB space was deflated, wouldn&#39;t there still be stuff in the balloon? Since the universe inflated, wouldn&#39;t we be inside the balloon rather then on its surface? If not, what&#39;s inside the balloon? :huh: :unsure: :blink:


the universe is a 4 dimensional sphere with no boundaries
Newc, Regardless of the boundaries - which I believe exist - what are these 4 dimensions you speak of? <_<


My understanding of the dilaton is that it is the particle responsible of exchange of information regarding the supersymmetry. My (poor) grasp of the concept -if you want I can quote the book I recently read about it- is that every particle has a supersymmetrical equivalent, just like every particle has an anti-particle equivalent. The dilaton should be the particle responsible for this paricular type of exchange (together with: graviton for gravity, electron for charge, photon for ... can&#39;t remember what, sorry).
OK, Newc: the particle responsible for the exchange of information is the photon. Why? Because when we lose a photon in a black hole, we also lose information. Photons are light. Light is information.
There are only four forces that require exchange particles. You were right about gravity; charge is not a fundamental force, therefore electrons do not &#39;carry&#39; and &#39;transfer&#39; charge; photons carry/transfer the electromagnetic force. There are two more you didn&#39;t get: strong force carried by gluons hold neutrons and protons together, weak force [carried by W(+/-) and Z neutral] holds other particles (such as electrons) to nucleons.


I think time is infinate as well, always been, always will be.
Zephyr46, I agree with you wholeheartedly. B)


But, I like to think that you eventually reach a great big continuous wall of dirt that sourrounds everything, that goes on for ever, or that there are infinate universe within every particle and outwards, that surround us as a particle.
I believe that our universe is just one of a few in a larger, plasma-filled electrical field. ;)

ASEI
2004-May-11, 07:42 PM
Don&#39;t hype about neutrinos...at least in my view, they interact within our universe very little - they are concentrated mainly just outside our universe, so they obey different physical laws (which would explain why they just might travel faster than light) and on occasion a bunch may penetrate our universe, and some - a small fraction - would interact with other particles in the universe and fade away, while the rest make it to the other side and thru our universe.

Neutrinos obey perfectly normal physical laws. They are simply charge neutral electrons. They exist in the same family as positrons and electrons (though they have much smaller rest mass). We know they exist because of conservation of boson number, and conservation of momentum during nuclear reactions, even though we can barely detect them otherwise. If physicists finally nail down their rest mass as positive (like one might expect), then they travel slower than light. If it is zero, then they travel at the speed of light.

StarLab
2004-May-11, 09:19 PM
But please can you guarantee to me that they are NOT faster than SpeedOfLight?&#33;

zephyr46
2004-May-12, 01:39 AM
Cherenkov light (http://education.jlab.org/qa/radglow_01.html) my freind, is the best I can do, and and of course a picture (http://URL=http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/cherenkov.html)

I still have found any thing that travels faster than light, outside of a solid, water or glass etc.

But jsc248, I would still ask your your nephew what he thinks :)

newc
2004-May-12, 06:36 AM
Thanks for your clarifications StarLab.

The example of the baloon I gave bears the many limits of using two dimensions to try and explain a 3 (or more?) dimensional subject. That together with my obviously limited knowledge. ;)
The four dimensions I was referring to in that example are the usual x,y,z + time, which I thought were the only one accounted for before the introduction of the string/brane physics. :huh:

Personally I like the idea that the big bang is a mere passage in the existence of an ever lasting universe of infinite extension. From what I understood this is what the string/brane physics seem to lead to.

Have a nice day y&#39;all&#33;

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-12, 12:57 PM
Hope I cleared up a few things for all of you

Nope&#33; But don&#39;t feel bad, it&#39;s a difficult subject. If neutrinos have no mass, what is traveling? How are the energy transfers in nuclear transactions balanced?

madman
2004-May-12, 01:38 PM
j/k


{Header}
SCIENCE-BLAST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;NEWSFLASH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;010404&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;NEWSFLASH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;SCIEN CE-BLAST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;NEWSFLASH&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

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

------------------SCIENCE-BLAST&#33; BREAKING NEWS-------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{Title}


"10 Yard Line" Discovered Near Edge Of Known Universe&#33;
Newest Hubble discovery sends shockwaves through science&#33;.....Astronomical community stunned, Elated&#33;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{Main article}


Full story edition:

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

Today, scientists operating the Hubble Space Telescope on what have now become routine cursory inspections of the very deepest extents of space, have made a totally unexpected finding.
A "1 dimensional" line, possibly infinite in length was discovered literally within feet of the edge of the universe. The mysterious phenomenon is said to have no precedent in physics and has "shocked to the core" astronomers seeking to unravel the mysteries of our universe. (at first i thought this sounded too bizarre to be true, but, i guess you have to hand it to the guys at NASA for another first. ED)

World leading cosmologist Stephen Hawking was present during the discovery and was interviewed by Science-Blast&#33; earlier this evening about the finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Blast&#33; Exclusive.

Stephen Hawking: "It was quite a shock, we were playing Tball in the hallway adjacent to the cafeteria when Joe (the technician in charge at the time. ED) stopped to check the tracking and monitoring computers. This happened frequently throughout the day, but everything had always been running smoothly the other times and Joe wouldn&#39;t be gone that long."
"Well, this time he didn&#39;t return, and after a while i got a bit worried and went to check on him."
"I should add here that the Hubble facility was built in "ancient days" as we call them, way back in the late 1980&#39;s, and like many facilities and residences it is portentiously close to a nuclear missile silo and can be a deathtrap if you are not carefull."
"So having recalled that fact i became more and more fearfull for both of our safety as i wheeled cautiously along the dimly lit corridors."
"When i finally reached the control room i found him standing very silently and staring slackjawed in the direction of one of the monitors, I went over cautiously to see what he was looking at, and i too fell silent. On the screen was a sharply defined line, it was not what i expected, truly it was not explicitly apparent what we were looking at, not at all."

Science-Blast&#33; comment: Soon though, there was pandemonium&#33;

Stephen Hawking: "I guess we would have looked a bit manic at the time if anyone had seen us, running and wheeling around trying to operate the thousands of intricate controls of the telescope, but we were so terribly excited that i doubt we would have even noticed "the almighty" in the room if he had actually been there."

Science-Blast&#33; comment: Confirmation of the sighting soon came in from several gps satellites which pinpointed the exact location.

Stephen Hawking: "We cannot release the exact figure according to national security concerns, but can say that it is approximately 10.042337 yards away from the edge of the universe and so Joe has dubbed it "The 10 Yard Line", which i think is apt considering the circumstances."

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

Science-Blast&#33; has checked with the Russian and European Space Administrations to see if they know anything of the new discovery, but as we go to press they will neither confirm nor deny the sighting. (well maybe we just beat their sorry asses to it. that makes sense&#33; ED)

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

Story continues:

Science-Blast&#33; comment: Unique though the discovery is, it was not totally unexpected by some, it appears&#33;
The result has also confirmed predictions based on the work of Albert Einstein. That it should generally be required to find a material edge relatively near to the very edge of the universe. An edge necessarily distinct from the true edge of the universe, otherwise matter sitting on the exact edge would exist half-inside and half-outside of spacetime itself&#33;


Science-Blast&#33; exclusive quote

Stephen Hawking: "I have studied this problem extensively and had previously predicted the probability of such an occurence by using a specially grouped subset of recursive improbability algorithms in 1972. I almost included that result in my first book ("Nano-second to the Big Bang" ED), but decided not to as there was a greater probability that it would not be well received by the mathematics community at large, particularly because we did not have a precise enough measurement of the age of the universe. Those concerns were recently alleviated by the data returned by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, and i can now quantify the odds in a manner that would seem perfectly clear to any sane man."

"It will sound strange, but, the odds are just as great as having Britney Spears as your girlfriend, in your dreams of course. But then to be startled awake to find that:

(1) she really is your girlfriend (woohoo&#33; ED)
(2) you&#39;ve just gone to bed with her for the first time, and
(3) she&#39;s all over you like a rash and you haven&#39;t even lifted a finger yet to excite her."

"The probability of the result is "that close" to reality&#33;"


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


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{cont}

Science-Blast&#33; Exclusive.

Stephen Hawking: "Of course we had expected that this might be found eventually, simply because the probability was greater than 0."
"Most probablities are greater than zero by default, so in cosmology we find there are many highly improbable things yet to be seen."

"When we finally get to this edge, having gained this position, we can confidently believe that the goal is almost within reach and that we have just to step over this line and go a little bit further to truly find the edge of the universe."
"beyond that, who knows?"





{end article}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


staff writer: Yuri Lee Donaugh.


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

------------------SCIENCE-BLAST&#33; BREAKING NEWS-------------------------

newc
2004-May-12, 03:02 PM
Ladies Gentlemen,

I just found a great article about this very subject on the american scientific site.

Sorry about the way I posted it before, please try it out now.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...4F483414B7F0000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000)

Again, regarding the baloon example, it was just an example used to simplify things. Obviously when you simplify many concepts are distorted and some are plain wrong. Anyhow, even though I never thought you could correctly represent a multidimensional space using a two dimensional example, the point was to help picture the idea of how possibly there could be no (two dimensional) boundaries in a (two dimensionally) finite universe.

QJones
2004-May-12, 04:13 PM
Can you change the link so that it&#39;s not a "mailto:", please?

imported_BrownDwarf
2004-May-12, 05:24 PM
I think the balloon idea of the universe makes most sense for us to perceive what&#39;s happening. It would make understanding Hubble expansion easy and would fit in with the universe being infinite in extent but existing for a finite time. But probably the &#39;balloon&#39; doesn&#39;t just exist in the four dimensins we perceive, but 11 or 12 I think is the general concensus - but that&#39;s a bit more difficult to visualise&#33;

StarLab
2004-May-12, 10:59 PM
What&#39;s difficult for me to visualize is what the H*** we are doing on the surface of a sphere, and what the H*** is inside the sphere if our entire known universe in on the edge of this sphere. Like, if this sphere were the earth, and our known universe is all located on the crust, what the H*** is in the mantle and core?&#33;

StarLab
2004-May-13, 04:51 AM
Tell you what, GH, I will open a forum under Theories on the following:

If neutrinos have no mass, what is traveling?
i think it makes for an interesting discussion... ;)

madman
2004-May-13, 07:19 AM
cross-section of the expanding universe.

the squares represent possible zones/areas of the visible universe.
http://hometown.aol.com.au/Profnim/expansion3.jpg

if expansion is linear, there will be differences in the length of axes in any zone except one...are we by coincidence in the one zone (green square) that has equalised expansion?

StarLab
2004-May-13, 01:17 PM
What is the length of time between each arc as we go out from the BB center?
What do you mean:equalized expansion?
What do you mean: linear expansion?

madman
2004-May-14, 05:30 AM
"What is the length of time between each arc as we go out from the BB center?"

it&#39;s arbitrary...just an example (they are equal distances in this case).

"What do you mean:equalized expansion?"

the x,y,z dimensions (length of the sides) of the box are the same.

"What do you mean: linear expansion?"

equal increments..like inches on a foot ruler.(maybe linear was the wrong term..sorry)

**************************************

the cross section shows a different aspect (effect) of the "surface of the balloon" model.
dots on the stretched surface of a balloon will always remain at the same relative distances to each other (those relative distances just become bigger), but any incremental (1+1+1 etc) or varying (1+2+2.5+2.2+3+5+1+1.5) expansion of the big bang will cause the axis along the radial line from the big bang to alter...we would see a stretching or compression of that axis...which would be a pointer to the centre of the big bang...and oppositely, the direction to the edge of the universe. the same argument stands if we are only seeing variations in the expansion of the visible universe.

ASEI
2004-May-14, 01:15 PM
The universe does appear to be flat though, so it shouldn&#39;t be bounded in a spherical fashion space-wise. Our vision can be limited by the time when matter becomes too dense to see through (1/H, or 14 billion years ago), but that region does not determine the full extent of the universe.

setiman
2004-May-15, 09:24 PM
:o Well just to add some excitement to discussion on the shape, size, future, etc. of the universe here is some interesting input from Physics Web which is the website of the Institute of Physics. Here goes:

Quote
;) It is well known that the amount of information that can be processed and stored in any device is ultimately limited by the laws of quantum mechanics. However, Krauss and Starkman have shown that the nature of the universe itself also places limits on computation because it is not possible to transmit or receive information beyond the so-called global event-horizon in an accelerating universe.

:ph34r: The acceleration of the universe is driven by something that has repulsive rather than attractive gravitational interactions. However, although this so-called "dark energy" is thought to account for around two-thirds of the universe, no one knows what it is made of. Possible explanations for dark energy include a "cosmological constant" or something known as quintessence
End of quote.

If you would like to know more, go here:

PhysicsWeb (http://physicsweb.org/)

:D Cheers

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-16, 02:21 AM
something known as quintessence

Bah humbug&#33;&#33; Unless that&#39;s another name for the Higgs field seeking its zero energy state.

setiman
2004-May-16, 08:11 AM
Uhh Gourdhead, I believe that was a bit of Brit tongue in cheek. Actually when you think about it the cosmologists are going nuts trying to get even a start on an explanation of "the dark forces."

Actually, when you really think about it, the majority of our explanations on the behavior of the universe still reside in theory, thus open for dispute and modification as observation and experimentation provide. Pretty exciting.

We need more robotic explorations designed to test some of our observations. To me, as much as manned exploration is exciting, it will create more problems than explanations. I doubt putting a tired and irradiated astronaut on Mars is going to reveal much about dark matter or energy.

Cheers

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-16, 12:47 PM
I doubt putting a tired and irradiated astronaut on Mars is going to reveal much about dark matter or energy.

The seeds of serendipity originate from mysterious sources, germinate in strange environments, and produce fabulous results. Be of good cheer&#33;&#33;

StarLab
2004-May-16, 06:14 PM
You know, regarding madman&#39;s diagram, disregarding the BB thing on the left side, I think madman has a good point. After all, if we are unique in this universe, and the appearance of life is ideal in the universe, then that proves he might be right about the area with equalized expansion. Though, I think it&#39;s more than that...I think it has to do with matter and energy in a perfect gridlock. As long as matter and energy are in a state of perfect harmony, as it seems to be in our sector of the universe, I think life is the ideal outcome...

GREAT MIND
2004-May-18, 02:40 AM
THINK ABOUT THIS>>>

Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these {stars,} The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of {His} power, Not one {of them} is missing. Isaiah 40:26

zephyr46
2004-May-18, 03:46 AM
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art/19th/gauguin/gauguin00.jpg

Gee, this Gauguin is really nice&#33; :)

You know, I never looked at his art before. Strange that I should be pointed to it from a Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000) artticle about time. Thanks for the link newc.

I have a freind who pointed me to the Center for the story of the Universe (http://www.brianswimme.org/), Brian Swimme is one of those theologians reconcilling the bible and the big bang. I often ponder, if science can&#39;t get over the concept of infinate time, infinate space, what human discpline can? We can see the struggle in the church, it really wasn&#39;t nice of God to leave out the big bang, was it?

Was he fibbing? Or is it just a trade secret of creators, how exactly they create time and space? Big Bang, Big Crunch, strings and What was the other scientific theory?

The way brian swimme puts it, time and space begin at the same instant, and the center is all, everything expands outward uniformly, created in the same instant.

The still had to be space before, to put the BB, and the substance/energy comes from somewhere, and, I believe there had to be, Time before, wher the substance/energy came from.

Iradiating an astronaut on a red rock a few million miles away will reinforce, we are here&#33; Of that we can be sure :)

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/art/19th/gauguin/gauguin004.jpg

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-18, 04:04 AM
...it really wasn&#39;t nice of God to leave out the big bang, was it?
Was he fibbing? Or is it just a trade secret of creators, how exactly they create time and space? Big Bang, Big Crunch, strings and What was the other scientific theory?

It wasn&#39;t left out. It (the universe) was void and without form. How better to describe nothing. And God said: "Fiat Lux" (He knows Latin) and He saw that it was good. What is a better description of the big bang than: "Let there be light"? For light to be there had to be space and time for it and eventually observers to appreciate the whole shebang. But then this is an atheist&#39;s view. Don&#39;t forget that a Jesuit Priest, Friedman, strongly influenced the concept of a big bang.

zephyr46
2004-May-18, 04:50 AM
Fine, but he doesn&#39;t mention pre–big bang and ekpyrotic scenarios either, WHY NOT? Are they not good? Are they not, at the very least, OK?

We are small before his greatness, I can dig that&#33; But for crying out loud, Through us a bone man&#33;

No, actually, don&#39;t bother, we&#39;ll figure it, thats what we&#39;ll do&#33; :)