Jump to content
Islamic Forum
noxiouspython

Logical Proof Of Creator, Above Creation!

Recommended Posts

Lol, did you know that alpha means "beginning"? Identification is representation of something, is it not?

no....no....no.... :D

 

 

You completely missed or ignored my point :D

 

I'll take it from a programming perspective so its easier to understand. Let us say in my program I have declared a variable "X". Now I will tell you that X is a calculator object that contains a series of integer variables as well as functions that can be used to operate on these variables (like an addition fuction).

 

"X" both identifies and represents the calculator object BUT IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OBJECT, THIS MEANS IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SERIES OF INTEGER VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS OR THAT THEY EVEN EXIST. HELL, IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE OBJECT BEING A CALCULATOR OBJECT.

 

THIS 'X' USED TO IDENTIFY THE CALCLULATOR OBJECT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE INFINITE SYMBOL BEING USED TO IDENTIFY INFINITE! JESUS CHRIST!! DO YOU SEE THE LUNACY IN USING HOW A SYMBOL LOOKS TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT REPRESENTS??

 

 

"It's not the end and it's not an extention, so what is it?" ----->>>"The beginning."

:D :D :D :D

you must be a religious person eh? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
:D :D :D

you ppl are very confusing, lol

 

I think that infinite being damn ridiculously large would not have a beginning nor an end.

 

The amount of numbers, between 0 and infinite, and -infinite and infinite, are the same ---------->infinite - see what I mean? There is no definite beginning, if a 0 point was the beginning of infinite, it wouldn't be infinite since something starting from -1 to infinite would be longer - hope I didn't lose you.

 

This means an infinitely long stick cannot have a beginning nor an end - if either existed, then it would be finite.

Well considering that the nothingness extends forever, I'm gonna have to say that questions flawed as it assumes an ending.

 

but just for fun,

 

seeing as how time = distance/velocity = infinite distance over infinite velocity = he'd be there in an instant or something like that.

but knowing that newtons laws are absolute sh*t at extreme measures, this does not work ^_^

 

 

:D

 

 

hmm.... ok.

 

 

Infinite time is equal to never reachable (pardon my english).

 

am i right????

 

oh yeah..... could infinite time ever pass!

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infinite time is equal to never reachable

 

never reachable "by you".

 

Time like the number line, extends forever - to infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
never reachable "by you".

 

Time like the number line, extends forever - to infinite.

 

:D

 

 

the same question arises again... The extend forever... but do they ever reach infinite??? Do they????

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if by "they" you are refering to the number line or time then ofcourse they do, if they didn't go to infinite they would be finite (have a beginning and end - a limit). It's either or.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if by "they" you are refering to the number line or time then ofcourse they do, if they didn't go to infinite they would be finite (have a beginning and end - a limit). It's either or.

 

:D

 

No i think you missed my point according to what you said....

 

base case, n and n+1

prove the nth case and the n+1th case

just need to prove that 2 exists after 1

and then prove that there is a n+1 after n

and also n+2 after n+1

so ultimately it's proven then

 

 

So according to this the number line can go and reach any value, but cannot reach and non numerical value... Am i right???? And infinite is not a numerical value. So the numbers cannot reach infinite. They can go on forever but not reach infinite! can they. and if they could rach it, then infinite would not be a infinite, would it??? :D

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no....no....no.... :D

You completely missed or ignored my point :D

 

I'll take it from a programming perspective so its easier to understand. Let us say in my program I have declared a variable "X". Now I will tell you that X is a calculator object that contains a series of integer variables as well as functions that can be used to operate on these variables (like an addition fuction).

 

"X" both identifies and represents the calculator object BUT IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OBJECT, THIS MEANS IT DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SERIES OF INTEGER VARIABLES AND FUNCTIONS OR THAT THEY EVEN EXIST. HELL, IT DOESN'T EVEN SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE OBJECT BEING A CALCULATOR OBJECT.

 

THIS 'X' USED TO IDENTIFY THE CALCLULATOR OBJECT IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THE INFINITE SYMBOL BEING USED TO IDENTIFY INFINITE! JESUS CHRIST!! DO YOU SEE THE LUNACY IN USING HOW A SYMBOL LOOKS TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT IT REPRESENTS??

"It's not the end and it's not an extention, so what is it?" ----->>>"The beginning."

:D :D :D :D

you must be a religious person eh? :D

 

:D It's great having you in a hype.

 

Infinite Knot:

 

Wheel Of Law:

 

Flag Of Victory:

 

No recognizable depictions of literal concepts here? You're blind.

 

(www.)"http://encyclopedia.laborlawtal#####/Infinite"]encyclopedia.laborlawtal

/Infinite[/url]

 

"... I can see in space the possibility of any finite experience ... we recognise [the] essential infinity of space in its smallest part." "[Time] is infinite in the same sense as the three-dimensional space of sight and movement is infinite, even if in fact I can only see as far as the walls of my room."

"... what is infinite about endlessness is only the endlessness itself."

 

Infinity in cosmology

 

An intriguing question is whether actual infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there infinitely many stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an important open question of cosmology. Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By walking/sailing/driving straight long enough, you'll return to the exact spot you started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology; if you fly your space ship straight ahead long enough, perhaps you would eventually revisit your starting point. (My thoughts, no?)

Edited by Undertaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe how terrible this communication barrier is :D

 

#1 - We are discussing mathamatical symbols, you know? The family of stuff like alpha, beta, gamma? The symbols themselves are not very descriptive of what they represent.

 

#2 - The programming analogy works well because the system used for identifiers is an exact dupllicate of the relations between symbols and their values in mathamatics. The X to the calculator object is very very very similar to the infinite symbol to infinite.

 

#3 - Symbols are simple pointers. A picture of "Bob" with the name "Bob" at the bottom is not a very good symbol of "Bob" - hopefully you can understand this as it defeats the purpose of being a symbol.

 

#4 - Those pictures you gave are nothing more then just abstract works of art. Whatever you have called it are whatever your imagine it to be. You have no rationale in believing the things you do about those images. Hell, there isn't even probability on your side.

 

The Infinite Knot does not scream "infinite knot" at me

 

The Wheel of Law looks like a ships steering wheel with blue flames coming out of four of its sides. How you made the connection between this and "Wheel of Law" law is beyond me.

 

The flag of victory does not scream "flag of victory" as it just looks like an abstract painting.

 

Every image you posted can only be recognized as what it is because the bloody name of the value represented by the images are right there below the images. Pretty crappy symbols. Present those symbols to ppl without including the extra text and callem blind for not seeing it as what it is.

 

If we were both presented with the same picture of Jesus,

I'd say the image proves jesus is a man possibly of the hippie variety.

You'd argue that the image proves that he's god :D

 

You have made no logical counter points to any of my arguements and continue to post nonsensical information. You're in the wrong thread, the arguements in this thread are based on rational and logical lines of thinking which none of your arguements are based on.

 

Go to school, learn how to think logically and come back when you understand the answer to why the symbol for "pi" sez nothing about the digits in pi.

 

Just pls stop ruining this thread with your irrational nonsense ok? :D

 

noxious, u with me on this one?

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe how terrible this communication barrier is :D

 

#1 - We are discussing mathamatical symbols, you know? The family of stuff like alpha, beta, gamma? The symbols themselves are not very descriptive of what they represent.

 

#2 - The programming analogy works well because the system used for identifiers is an exact dupllicate of the relations between symbols and their values in mathamatics. The X to the calculator object is very very very similar to the infinite symbol to infinite.

 

#3 - Symbols are simple pointers. A picture of "Bob" with the name "Bob" at the bottom is not a very good symbol of "Bob" - hopefully you can understand this as it defeats the purpose of being a symbol.

 

#4 - Those pictures you gave are nothing more then just abstract works of art. Whatever you have called it are whatever your imagine it to be. You have no rationale in believing the things you do about those images. Hell, there isn't even probability on your side.

 

The Infinite Knot does not scream "infinite knot" at me

 

The Wheel of Law looks like a ships steering wheel with blue flames coming out of four of its sides. How you made the connection between this and "Wheel of Law" law is beyond me.

 

The flag of victory does not scream "flag of victory" as it just looks like an abstract painting.

 

Every image you posted can only be recognized as what it is because the bloody name of the value represented by the images are right there below the images. Pretty crappy symbols. Present those symbols to ppl without including the extra text and callem blind for not seeing it as what it is.

 

If we were both presented with the same picture of Jesus,

I'd say the image proves jesus is a man possibly of the hippie variety.

You'd argue that the image proves that he's god :D

 

You have made no logical counter points to any of my arguements and continue to post nonsensical information. You're in the wrong thread, the arguements in this thread are based on rational and logical lines of thinking which none of your arguements are based on.

 

Go to school, learn how to think logically and come back when you understand the answer to why the symbol for "pi" sez nothing about the digits in pi.

 

Just pls stop ruining this thread with your irrational nonsense ok? :D

 

noxious, u with me on this one?

 

Oooh, harsh words. They burn. :D

 

Go learn how to spell. :D

 

Those were Buddhist symbols. Yeah, they were symbols. That was an infinite symbol and, yeah, it does mean that the form of the symbol describes its meaning. It's not always the case but it happens to be so with this one and my other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

don't you guys think we should not fight :D

 

I know it gets confusing [for me] atleast but still you know. We should be polite and give the other person the chance to explain. :D

 

 

as for me, i really do get bummed out by the confusing stuff... but you know its always good to be polite :D

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

here is my question again....

 

:D

 

No i think you missed my point according to what you said....

 

base case, n and n+1

prove the nth case and the n+1th case

just need to prove that 2 exists after 1

and then prove that there is a n+1 after n

and also n+2 after n+1

so ultimately it's proven then

So according to this the number line can go and reach any value, but cannot reach and non numerical value... Am i right???? And infinite is not a numerical value. So the numbers cannot reach infinite. They can go on forever but not reach infinite! can they. and if they could rach it, then infinite would not be a infinite, would it??? :D

w/salaam

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D I give up, I'm gonna ignore the symbols stuff.

 

 

[at]python

Talked it over with a few mathies. The number line goes to infinite - proved by a long annoying mathamatical induction. I'll take their word on this one, and let you look it up if you have doubts. Yes, it seems non numerical numbers (lol) are on the number line and are very essential for the system to work, they indicate that there is always a larger value and a smaller value number regardless of what number you pick. Note that this applies to all number systems cept roman numerals...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

 

Ok. I get what you are saying, BUT i'll just ask one question (might be crude)....

 

Can you ever reach a point on the number line which is infinite???? I mean like when you are at 10 you say i am at ten, when you reach 1,000,000,000 you say i am at a billion and so on. So is there a point on the number line where you would say now i am at infinite???? (try to understand what i am saying....)

 

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

Ok. I get what you are saying, BUT i'll just ask one question (might be crude)....

 

Can you ever reach a point on the number line which is infinite???? I mean like when you are at 10 you say i am at ten, when you reach 1,000,000,000 you say i am at a billion and so on. So is there a point on the number line where you would say now i am at infinite???? (try to understand what i am saying....)

w/salaam

 

In mathematics, the extended real number line is obtained from the real number line R by adding two elements: +∞ and −∞. These new ∞ elements are not real numbers (note that this is not a judgment about their "reality" or lack of it; rather, "real number" has a technical meaning that ∞ and −∞ do not satisfy).

 

It is useful in describing various limiting behaviors in calculus and mathematical analysis, especially in the theory of measure and integration. The extended real number line is denoted R or [−∞, +∞].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In mathematics, the extended real number line is obtained from the real number line R by adding two elements: +∞ and −∞. These new ∞ elements are not real numbers (note that this is not a judgment about their "reality" or lack of it; rather, "real number" has a technical meaning that ∞ and −∞ do not satisfy).

 

It is useful in describing various limiting behaviors in calculus and mathematical analysis, especially in the theory of measure and integration. The extended real number line is denoted R or [−∞, +∞].

 

 

:D

 

 

I don't understand Zulu!!! :D

 

 

please speak english... :D

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamu Alaikum,

 

Spython, he is telling you that infinite has no numerical value, so you cannot be on the number line and say I am at infinite. I see the point you are trying to make and it is very good. I have been following along with this topic to see where it would go but it seems you guys are just talking about infinite and symbols and blah blah blah. The original concept Spython was trying to bring is lost.

 

I mean if you forget negatives and symbols and such and just use common sense, think about the universe, if you say that inifinite years ago I was somewhere than that is a false statement, because like you said infinite has no numerical value. So technically the universe could not have started infinite years ago because that way it couldn't have started and that means you are removing space and time which is impossible.

 

It is true that you say matter might stay constant, today this laptop that I am typing on might be a missile or ruler one day or parts of it, but eventually matter will be destroyed. Life and elements are something I believe we cannot reproduce for example if you do not have hydrogen initially you cannot produce it, same with life, we need life to make life, we cannot produce it but it has an end. If I was to put this same laptop into a black hole we would never be able to use it again nor any of the components or elements that it was made up of. Therefore matter has been destroyed. That means that it does not exist forever, so if something was to happen to space and time than all matter would be destroyed. Matter needs to be in space and time to be existent.

 

If you agree that the universe had a starting point (13.7 billion years ago?) then it has to have an ending point and if it does than space and time will be destroyed and thus matter will be destroyed. That means nothing has an infinite "life span", it might be very long, but not infinite.

 

(My theory)In the Qur'an Dunya is always mentioned and it says how it is not everlasting and everything will be destroyed and etc, so I am thinking that the Dunya is like matter, everything that surrounds us, we believe that it is infinite but in reality it is all going to perish. We use money, electronics, and thousands of years ago the stuff we used for that 100 dollar bill was a something else, maybe humans don't exist to see it, but all matter is being reused until the end of time, judgement day and than everything will perish. Matter is just a test, it is the material world and eveyrthing else, I mean in reality, matter has no real worth.

 

I just wrote this down as I was thinking, give me your opinions about it, I'm sorry if I am straying from your topic guys, but I think this is what Spython is talking about in some way.

 

Salamu Alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you were following the topic before it got derailed you would have noticed the following being brought up--

 

*Matter and energy cannot be destroyed* - They are interchangable, we have seen how matter can be converted to energy - we have not discovered or noticed it but I believe there is a reverse process as well - kinda like sublimation :D

 

If I was to put this same laptop into a black hole we would never be able to use it again nor any of the components or elements that it was made up of.

Just cause "we" humans would not be able to use it in our life span does not mean that its components and elements have dissapeared - if that were the case, a black hole wouldn't be the terrible sucking monster it is.

 

[at]python, no there is no "point" for it would make it an absolute thing which infinite is not.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you were following the topic before it got derailed you would have noticed the following being brought up--

 

*Matter and energy cannot be destroyed* - They are interchangable, we have seen how matter can be converted to energy - we have not discovered or noticed it but I believe there is a reverse process as well - kinda like sublimation :D

Just cause "we" humans would not be able to use it in our life span does not mean that its components and elements have dissapeared - if that were the case, a black hole wouldn't be the terrible sucking monster it is.

 

[at]python, no there is no "point" for it would make it an absolute thing which infinite is not.

 

:D

 

 

So how can time have reached today which is infinite years from its start????? (if it is infinite years old then it would take it infinite years to get here, so it cant possibily get here!!!)

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I feel like we made no progress and are back at square one :D

 

I suppose I should explain this more explicitly, everything I've been saying is directed at saying time does not have a beginning nor an end. There is no "start" that you speak of as there I see no rational in believing that there exist a time which has no past. It's like the same thing with numbers

 

 

past time, present time, and future time<----------> smaller number, current number, larger number

 

The time line, and the number line have a lot in common. Though I cannot say that time absolutely has no beginning, I know that to prove such a thing would require you to prove that there exists a time which has no past, but has a present and future. I see no way to conclude this, and since the past, present, future thing proves by way of induction that there is no beginning or ending, I'ma take the side with more probabilty and say "time has no beginning, no ending"

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, I feel like we made no progress and are back at square one :D

 

I suppose I should explain this more explicitly, everything I've been saying is directed at saying time does not have a beginning nor an end. There is no "start" that you speak of as there I see no rational in believing that there exist a time which has no past. It's like the same thing with numbers

past time, present time, and future time<----------> smaller number, current number, larger number

 

The time line, and the number line have a lot in common. Though I cannot say that time absolutely has no beginning, I know that to prove such a thing would require you to prove that there exists a time which has no past, but has a present and future. I see no way to conclude this, and since the past, present, future thing proves by way of induction that there is no beginning or ending, I'ma take the side with more probabilty and say "time has no beginning, no ending"

 

This is terrible logic. Saying "I see no rationale in believing that there exists a time with no past" is a worthless axiom to start with, and basing your argument (which is effectively "I don't know how it could be done, so it must not be so") on that is logically idiotic.

 

If you could prove conclusively that time had no beginning, and if you could somehow make a logical argument to say that everything with a beginning had an ending (which you can't), then you could say "time has no beginning, no ending". Everything you've said here is basically psychobabble.

 

"the time line and the number line have a lot in common"??? What? How does that logically follow? Where did you create this argument? Why is your conclusion more likely? (even though likelihood of truth is not a conclusive way to determine what is actually true).

 

 

So how can time have reached today which is infinite years from its start????? (if it is infinite years old then it would take it infinite years to get here, so it cant possibily get here!!!)

 

It's a good thing that the current belief is that the universe is not infinitely old. Based on the current estimates, the universe is 13.7 × 10^9) years old. It is possible that the model is incorrect, which would change this date, but all signs point to a universe that does have a "start date"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spython, he is telling you that infinite has no numerical value, so you cannot be on the number line and say I am at infinite. I see the point you are trying to make and it is very good. I have been following along with this topic to see where it would go but it seems you guys are just talking about infinite and symbols and blah blah blah. The original concept Spython was trying to bring is lost.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you're incorrect about a few things:

 

It is true that you say matter might stay constant, today this laptop that I am typing on might be a missile or ruler one day or parts of it, but eventually matter will be destroyed. Life and elements are something I believe we cannot reproduce for example if you do not have hydrogen initially you cannot produce it, same with life, we need life to make life, we cannot produce it but it has an end. If I was to put this same laptop into a black hole we would never be able to use it again nor any of the components or elements that it was made up of. Therefore matter has been destroyed. That means that it does not exist forever, so if something was to happen to space and time than all matter would be destroyed. Matter needs to be in space and time to be existent.

 

This is incorrect. It is possible to take other elements and convert them into hydrogen. A better example for your purposes would be to say that energy cannot be created from nothing, it can only change it's form (matter and energy are equivalent).

 

In a black hole, mass and matter still exist. They are merely "crushed" under the extraordinarily strong gravitational forces. Energy can be converted to a worthless form (like heat), and eventually the universe will experience a "heat death" where all of the energy has been converted to useless heat and no useful work can be done, so that might be a better comparison for you to make.

 

If you agree that the universe had a starting point (13.7 billion years ago?) then it has to have an ending point and if it does than space and time will be destroyed and thus matter will be destroyed. That means nothing has an infinite "life span", it might be very long, but not infinite.

 

The universe does not logically "have" to have an end point. It might merely expand forever, in which case the universe will be unable to support any sort of life and all matter will be torn apart by the expansion, but the universe would still exist. It seems at this point, though, that eventually the universe will end when the "big crunch" occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should really read more of the thread or atleast the whole post itself before responding with a half assed comment.

 

What I said previously is that it can't be proven conclusively that time is infinite nor that it had a starting point. So I look for theories that support either side.

 

My point was to relate the fact that there is always a future and a past to there always being a larger or smaller number which is part of the induction steps in proving the number line has no bounds -->has no absolute beginning or ending.

 

If we use a reference point Z as 5 seconds from the present---> there an X seconds which is smaller then our reference point (linking negative time as being in the past - physics) and a Y seconds which is larger then our reference point.

 

The induction theory that sez the number line is infinitely long sez the same about this. Essentially it does not matter what you point in time you set Z as, there will always be an X and Y.

 

This increases the probability that time is infinitly long in both directions and it is based on this probability (similar with the number line) that I believe time is infinite. There is no logical steps to prove that time has a beginning, at least we have induction supporting the infinite time theory.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should really read more of the thread or atleast the whole post itself before responding with a half assed comment.

 

What I said previously is that it can't be proven conclusively that time is infinite nor that it had a starting point. So I look for theories that support either side.

 

My point was to relate the fact that there is always a future and a past to there always being a larger or smaller number which is part of the induction steps in proving the number line has no bounds -->has no absolute beginning or ending.

 

If we use a reference point Z as 5 seconds from the present---> there an X seconds which is smaller then our reference point (linking negative time as being in the past - physics) and a Y seconds which is larger then our reference point.

 

The induction theory that sez the number line is infinitely long sez the same about this. Essentially it does not matter what you point in time you set Z as, there will always be an X and Y.

 

This increases the probability that time is infinitly long in both directions and it is based on this probability (similar with the number line) that I believe time is infinite. There is no logical steps to prove that time has a beginning, at least we have induction supporting the infinite time theory.

 

That is not logically consistent. Just because the real number line is infinite in both directions doesn't mean that time is as well. You're basing your argument about time on a false pretense.

 

If the universe was static, then it would be true that there is always a time +x seconds and a time -y seconds, but because it is very likely that there is a "start" time, this is absolutely false.

 

How is it illogical to say that there is a "start time"? There is a large amount of evidence that time started a large number of years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is very likely that there is a "start" time, this is absolutely false.

 

How is it illogical to say that there is a "start time"? There is a large amount of evidence that time started a large number of years ago.

 

If its such a large amount of evidence maybe I'm just not searching in the right places - I'd like to hear about some of this evidence you speak of - I'm all ears...errr...eyes now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If its such a large amount of evidence maybe I'm just not searching in the right places - I'd like to hear about some of this evidence you speak of - I'm all ears...errr...eyes now.

 

Here are many things that suggest that the universe has a beginning. Here are some:

 

 

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) shows that the universe has a thermal black-body spectrum which peaks in the microwave range.

 

The CMB gives a snapshot of the Universe when, according to standard cosmology, the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms, thus making the universe transparent to radiation. When it originated some 400,000 years after the Big Bang — this time period is generally known as the "time of last scattering" or the period of recombination or decoupling — the temperature of the Universe was about 3000 K. This corresponds to an energy of about 0.25 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. Since then the temperature of the radiation has dropped by a factor of roughly 1100 due to the expansion of the Universe. As the universe expands, the CMB photons are redshifted, making the radiation's temperature inversely proportional to the Universe's scale length.

 

Star Birth Rates

 

It is a fact that the early universe created stars formed out of dust and gas at a very high rate.

It is a fact that Star birth rates are declining.

It is a fact that all the stars will stop burning and die out as time moves forward.

The universe had a beginning and eventually all stars will die.

It is a fact that the universe is dying and cannot sustain itself.

 

Galaxy Birth Rates

 

The pictures (from the hubble telescope) show that baby galaxies were very small at the beginning. Some think we see only the center part of a galaxy forming. As time passes, the galaxies grow bigger and change to having spiral arms or other shapes.

 

How does a baby galaxy get bigger? Let’s review two methods.

 

One way is that the galaxies crash into one another and join. The Hubble space telescope has taken many pictures of galaxies crashing into one another. Sometimes more than 2 galaxies crash into each other.

 

A second way that baby galaxies grow larger is by pulling in gas and other matter. The gas and materials would have come from the Big Bang, which spread the materials around the universe.

 

Just as important was the discovery that the inner cores of distant galaxies give out extremely bright light. The surpassing brightness is due to quasars in the early universe. Scientists tell us that quasars are the brightest objects in the universe. The measured brightness of a single quasar could be like a thousand galaxies combined. Astronomers discovered quasars in the 1960s. Many people have pondered how these distant points of bright light also emit radio waves. Today, most scientists think that quasars formed at the center of young galaxies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×