:
I have found absolutely no facts about the Universe's creation, and no proof about it, either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second part of this statement is true. The first part isn't: It is a fact that Microwave Background Radiation exists. It is a fact that the observed concentration of elements in the Universe matches that predicted by the theory of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It is a fact that other galaxies can be observed to be moving away from ours, a la Hubble Expansion. Whereas none of these can be accepted as Proof of the Big Bang, they are undeniably Evidence. These two terms have become muddled throughout this topic, and I have to thank you for unpicking them...
|
Well, that's what I was trying to say...they are facts in that they exist, but they are not neccessarily a result of the Big Bang.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Universe exists, and it exists in 11 dimensions. The first three of these deal with space, the fourth deals with time, and all the others deal with the dimensions of sub-atomics. Therefore, our plane of existance is a physical one that actually exists. That is a fact (real basics here).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what word to assign this. 'Bullshit' doesn't quite fit, but it'll have to do. The fact is that there are only 5 dimensions that have been proven to exist: 4 of Space, 1 of Time. Further Dimensions have been postulated, but then some scientists have counted up to 124, so there is no real reason to choose any figure between 6 and 124... It's generally adequate to stick to the proven 5...
|
Duh! Silly me, I forgot that fourth of space. No, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic, girth I seem to remember it as. Anyway, beyond time, dimensions are dealt with on a sub-atomic level. I was just trying to get across the point that the Universe does exist, and it's not the imagination of some divine computer.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard, here in fact, 'theory' described as an offered proof to a fact. Well...sort of. A theory is an idea offered that has not yet been prooven (prooved?), whether it be to describe facts, or whether it just be a cool idea you have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
|
I'm just saying a theory is an idea. I needn't try to explain a fact.
:
|
So, here we are, we have a Universe (ours, coincidently enough) which exists. This is the 'fact' of the arguement. It is not actually a fact because a fact operates on an abstract level. More on stuff like that later.
|
Here I'm going into English language. The Universe is not a fact, but it existing is a fact. Also, a fact is a noun, but it is not an item. You can't pick a fact up. It is abstract, like a dream, or happiness.
When I said 'more on stuff like that later', it turned out that later would be in part 2, or even much later than that. I would basically go on that the Universe has to exist beyond its dimensions, because there is thought, which cannot be 'measured'. But, like I said, later.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here we are, we have a Universe which exists. This is the 'fact', and we are assuming that it was created somehow. Remember that that too is just an assumtion. I could branch out into the ouroboral existance of God here, and use offered proof for his existance to disproove him, but then I'd never finish this paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old 'Babel Fish' Conundrum, eh? Personally, I suspect that the use of a posh word like "ouroboral" here was an attempt to seem knowledgeable...
|
Of course it was done intentionally...eternal is such an over-used wrd, I thought I'd coin a new synonymn.
What I meant by that sentance was that we asume that the Universe hasn't always been around. Some people believe that the Universe was created by God who is eternal. But if that's the case, it's logically possible for the Universe to have existed long before the proposed creation of it, and that some super-galactic disaster mearly wiped out whatever was in this Universe before now. I'm long-winded.
The basis for that is the anti-arguement of some argument proving God's existance. I'd have to get my RS textbook to explain it, and that's at school. Urg, school tomorrow.
I've just noticed Abe22's post, and it's put me off. What was I going to say?
Oh well. I can say that the response I recieved was much brighter than the intense flamming that came to me in my nightmares.
Oh well. Look forward to Part 2 in a later post.