Last modified on August 25, 2019, at 13:52


Return to "Universe" page.

Talk:Universe/Archive 1

I think the statement, "the common view among cosmologists is that the universe comprises more than the three dimensions that we see, and that the universe is expanding in another dimension," is incorrect. The expansion/contraction of the universe is governed by general relativity, which is a theory about the intrinsic geometry of spacetime. As such, the universe isn't really expanding into another dimension like a balloon would, but rather there is an increase in distance between two nearby points in the universe over time, which is colloquially interpreted as expansion. I'm going ahead an changing this to avoid confusion. However, the analogy drawn in the next paragraph is a good one. --Quantumdot 20:50, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Questions on Age

In the source material that is given as evidence that the measurable age of the universe may not truly reflect the actual age of the universe, it is stated that because clocks run faster at the top of tall buildings, this is evidence of time running faster because of the decreased effect of gravity. However, I cannot understand how the effect of gravity on a human instrument of measurement can be said to be affecting the actual time constant. That is; how do we know that it is not only our instruments which are affected by gravity, but the fabric of time itself? I find this article very interesting, though there are one or two more problems I have with it, I might need to read the book before I bring them up --Entheogenicorder 16:59, 5 August 2008 (BST)

Origin of the universe

The scientific theory on the origin of the universe isn't that it "erupted from nothing", but that a quantum singularity burst outwards because of an explosion created from the immense pressure and heat. I've changed the article, but the citation is still something that twists the idea into something it isn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grapes (talk)

The citation is explaining the view of a Big Bang expert, so can't be said to be "twisting" the idea. And a singularity is something that has no dimensions—i.e. it's synonymous with nothing. Philip J. Rayment 22:24, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Would it be alright to write a comprehensive section on the age of the universe from the mainstream secular science POV. The age of the universe is virtually non-existent except for the YEC point of view and it be good to have more balance. --BMcP 20:51, 25 December 2009 (EST)

I have an open mind about this, but I couldn't object more and I can't imagine that such a section would be useful. We don't have a section on Hindu creation myths, or on the pre-1900 scientific view, I really don't see the point to having another nonsensical history of the Universe. If you want to add anything, put it in a special section called "Atheist viewpoint" or something like that, to keep it from being presented as settled fact. JacobB 22:13, 25 December 2009 (EST)

On the first day

God created The Heavens and the Earth. It is safe to assume he created The Heavens first. Without The Earth the definition of a day is arbitrary as a day is defined as the time it takes to spin once on its axis. With this is mind we can assume that The Earth is only thousands of years old while The Universe could be much older, even up to 13 billion years old. A young Earth does not necessarily equate to a young Universe. --Chewy Suarez (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2019 (EDT)