The Universe is doomed!!!... or is it?
Omnius
arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Such superb
organization suggests an Organizer. Also, all those heavenly bodies are
governed by definite physical laws. That suggests a Lawgiver. And on
earth, ever so many special conditions exist for life, suggesting a
purposeful Life-Giver. Commenting on this, Science News says:
“The universe we see around us looks to us unique, and when we study it
a little we begin to see that it has certain very special properties
without which we could not exist. . . . they seem to require very
special initial conditions.
“The laws of physics that operate in our universe seem very special too.”
These things bother scientists who are evolutionists and atheists. These
feel that the universe “evolved” by itself, without a Supreme Organizer,
Lawmaker, and Life-Giver.
But that is contrary to reason and to our experience. Everything
organized has an organizer. Every law has a lawmaker. Every living thing
on earth has a parent. Should not the far more complex organization and
laws in the universe, as well as life on earth, have an Organizer,
Lawmaker and Life-Giver too? An article in Scientific American notes:
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of
physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it
almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we
were coming.”
The more that is learned about the universe, the more evident it becomes
that there is design behind it, which requires a Designer. Regarding
this, Science News states:
“Contemplation of these things disturbs cosmologists because it seems as
if such particular and precise conditions could hardly have arisen at
random. One way to deal with the question is to say the whole thing was
contrived and lay it on Divine Providence.”
Are most scientists willing to do that? No, but humble persons are
willing. They acknowledge that such immensity, precision, law, and
unique conditions for life could never happen by accident, but are the
products of a superior mind.
Since many astronomers do not believe in a God that controls the
universe, this has led to conflicting theories about the nature and
future of it.
In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble concluded that the universe was steadily
expanding. Later observations of other astronomers seemed to confirm
that the clusters of galaxies were moving apart from one another. This
theory apparently supported the idea that the universe began with a “big
bang,” from a central mass, and then spread out from there.
Some astronomers now suggest that the rate of expansion is slowing down
slightly. They think that eventually this expansion will come to a halt,
and that then gravity will pull the galaxies inward, back to where they
began, merging in a mass of matter. Then, they theorize, that will “blow
up” again in another “big bang.” This process, some believe, will be
repeated over and over again, so that the universe would be
“oscillating.” How much time is given for such a process? About eighty
billion years for each cycle—forty billion to expand, and forty billion
to contract.
How sound are such calculations? Admittedly it is all speculation.
Scientists do not know what will happen in the future. True, today their
instruments seem to indicate an expanding universe—but one that is
slightly slowing down. Yet, in view of the repeated abandoning of past
theories, it would be foolhardy to think that such present theories are
ultimate truths.
For instance, scientists admit that the amount of matter in the universe
does not appear to be nearly enough to supply the powerful gravity
needed to slow down, stop, and then reverse the expansion believed to be
taking place. If that is so, then the clusters of galaxies would
continue to fly apart forever, as many astronomers contend.
Yet, Dr. James Gunn of the California Institute of Technology notes that
it has long been known that there is also not enough material to provide
the gravity needed even to hold the galaxies together in clusters. So
every cluster of galaxies should long ago have broken up. Each galaxy
should long ago have drifted away from the others in its group. But,
admittedly, that has not been the case, for they are bound together in
clusters.
It is obvious that, while much has been learned about the awesome
universe we live in, far more is unknown. Theories come and go. What was
“certain” yesterday is uncertain today. Thus, after a recent
astronomers’ conference, the New York Times stated: “As has become
evident in the talks here, there is still no consensus as to the nature
of the cosmos.” And Science News concluded: “To sum it all up, cosmology
is far from settled (if we can hope that it ever will be). Observation,
theory and argument bubble on.”
thomas p
<Synchroni...@earth.net> wrote:
>The size of the universe is truly awesome. But so is its very unique
>arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
Compared to what? Have you compared our universe to thousands of
others? If not how can you say it is unique?
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
Starlord
that the bigger ones are distroying the smaller ones and some are even
colliding with others. Heck look at the Milkyway and you'll find that it is
ripping apart a small galaxy at this very time and at lest two other smaller
galaxies in orbit are feeling the tearing forces of our galaxy working on
them and add to that, we are on a headon crash with another very BIG galaxy.
I've got an idea, go jump into a Black Hole and let us know how well it's
organized inside.
In the meantime : PLONK
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
"Omnius" <Synchroni...@earth.net> wrote in message
news:DkC2f.45$d%3.51...@news.sisna.com...
Starlord
see to the edge of time itself.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
"thomas p" <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:13jmk1l0nt66ep1t0...@4ax.com...
Dubh Ghall
>The size of the universe is truly awesome. But so is its very unique
>arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
Well there is a pointless opening.
How many different arrangements can "one" have?
Erasmus
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:56:33 -0400, Omnius
> <Synchroni...@earth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>The size of the universe is truly awesome. But so is its very unique
>>arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
>
>
> Compared to what? Have you compared our universe to thousands of
> others? If not how can you say it is unique?
>
>
How many Universes are in exsistence? Give us a few names and locations.
DC multiverse don't count.
Pete Lawrence
<tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:56:33 -0400, Omnius
><Synchroni...@earth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The size of the universe is truly awesome. But so is its very unique
>>arrangement of galaxies, and clusters of galaxies.
>
>Compared to what? Have you compared our universe to thousands of
>others? If not how can you say it is unique?
The cosmologists nightmare! You can't draw a meaningful graph with one
data-point ;-)
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
thomas p
Little difficulties like that do not disturb fools who talk about
unique arrangements of galaxies. This particular idiot didn't even
bother to respond, which was pretty predictable.
thomas p
chuck
news:YpydnU0NM82...@inreach.com:
> There is only ONE Universe and it contains all the Star;s and Galaxys
> we can see to the edge of time itself.
>
>
Correction we can see to the edge of when OUR universe was created (or
almost) and have NO idea about the existance/non-existance of any others
which might exist outside of that observable space-time.