Space is potentially billions of times larger than 13.7 light years across. Space is expanding so fast that information (light) coming from a distant point will never reach earth. If we had a spaceship that traveled at the speed of light and infinite time we could never reach most of the universe.

(see http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2009/03/29/can-the-universe-expand-faster-than-light-apparently-yes/, https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/universe-scale-topic/big-bang-expansion-topic/v/radius-of-observable-universe )

Einstein’s equations state that we must include time with space into what is called the space time continuum. This gets weird. His equations are saying that not only is all space out there but that all time is also out there. The present moment at a distant point in the universe could be 200 years ago for earth time or 200 years in the future depending on which direction an alien is riding his bike in relationship to our position.

(see http://www.wimp.com/illusiontime/ )

I want to understand the universe. If anyone has evidence that contradicts my understanding that all space and all time are contained in the space time continuum then I would like to hear from them.

Mormons reduce reality to simplistic 19th century concepts. This tendency of reductionism seems prevalent in the human mind. Most people seem driven to argue for a reality that they can get their minds around. Much discussion on the board seems to me to be of this simplistic nature; childish talk about reality that is too big to comprehend. My wanting to understand reality is held in leash by my wanting to not be driven to create childish and simplistic models that consist of meaningless labels. This speaks to the value of a not knowing attitude. I value not knowing as a protection to limit my drive to know from making up childish, simplistic, and reductionism mental constructs.


The following quotes are taken from http://crackingthenutshell.com/minds-from-brains-or-brains-from-mind-belief-boxes-reality-and-the-self/
Werner Heisenberg said – “Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”
“Begin challenging your own assumptions. Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” Alan Alda
"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." Arthur Schopenhauer
“Your belief systems limit your reality to a sub-set of the solution space that does not contain the answer” Tom Campbell
“I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.” Gerry Spence
“Those whose minds are jammed with prejudice have room for little else. Growth is dead. Learning is gridlocked.” Gerry Spence
“Although science is now superseding the mechanistic world view, the mechanistic theory of nature has shaped the modern world, underlies the ideology of technological progress, and is still the official orthodoxy of science.” Rupert Sheldrake
“Never believe fully in anybody else’s belief system. […] I don’t care who it is. Don’t swallow their belief system totally. Don’t accept all of their bullshit totally. The second rule is like onto the first: don’t believe totally in your own BS. Which means that as Bucky Fuller said ‘The universe consists of non-simultaneously apprehended events. NON-simultaneously! The universe consists of non-simultaneously apprehended events! Which means any belief system or reality tunnel you’ve got right now is gonna have to be revised & updated as you continue to apprehend new events later in time, non simultaneously. […] But once you have a belief system everything that comes in either gets ignored if it doesn’t fit the belief system, or it gets distorted enough so that it can fit into the belief system. You’ve got to be continuously revising your map of the world.” Robert Anton Wilson
“It is often said that physicists invented the mechanistic-reductionist philosophy, taught it to the biologists, and then abandoned it themselves. It cannot be denied that modern physics has a strongly holistic, even teleological flavour.” Paul Davies
“Nowadays, any tentative philosophical approach to a world-view should take information coming from contemporary physics into account quite seriously. […] Some philosophers do still make unrestricted use of classical notions of quite a general nature, such as locality or distinguishability, taken to be obvious ever since Galileo’s and Newton’s times. Most of them do so without realising that the domains of validity of such notions are known, nowadays, to be severely limited. […] Quantum physics […] imparts to all objects such a status relative to the sentient beings that we are. It is true that some physicists strove to revert to a more classically objective standpoint but they had such serious obstacles to circumvent that […] the outcome of their quest has finally to be considered unsatisfactory.” Bernard d’Espagnat, On Physics and Philosophy
"A philosopher once said: 'It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same result'. … Well, they don't! […] In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions, like those of our philosopher!"
“Nature isn't classical dammit!” Richard Feynman
“[…] man is a microcosm of the universe; therefore what man is, is a clue to the universe. We are enfolded in the universe.”
“Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness.”
“I would say that in my scientific and philosophical work, my main concern has been with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular as a coherent whole, which is never static or complete but which is an unending process of movement and unfoldment…”
“Man's general way of thinking of the totality, i.e. his general world view, is crucial for overall order of the human mind itself. If he thinks of the totality as constituted of independent fragments, then that is how his mind will tend to operate, but if he can include everything coherently and harmoniously in an overall whole that is undivided, unbroken and without border (for every border is a division or break) then his mind will tend to move in a similar way, and from this will flow an orderly action within the whole.”
“The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today.”
David Bohm

“A human being is a part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Albert Einstein
[...] there is a third stage of religious experience [...] rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. [...] The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. [...] How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.” Albert Einstein



From an earlier post - http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1509434,1509470#msg-1509470


Arrogance in believing that a person has a handle on reality is a sure sign of a mind in a box. A driven quickness to defend one’s box as the only rational point of view of reality is of the mentality of Fair. I can’t read writing from this mentality; it is like Charlie Brown’s teacher talking to me ( http://www.orangefreesounds.com/charlie-brown-teacher/ ) To me many of the post on the site come a mentality only a bit removed from that of Fair.

People in boxes need to suck others into the box of their perceptions. I prefer to live in the open; not knowing or pretending to know what I haven’t experienced or can’t comprehend.

****

I think on some level, you do your best things when you're a little off-balance, a little scared. You've got to work from mystery, from wonder, from not knowing.
Willem Dafoe

****

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.
Richard P. Feynman

****
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
Bertrand Russell



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 06:36AM by ab.

I'm not sure what the point of this was...that there's a lot we don't know? Yes, there is.
However, some things we do know pretty well put a bit of a cap of some of the wilder speculation that you (and others you referred to) made.

For example, studies of the cosmic microwave background (including the latest results that include polarization studies from the Planck spacecraft) show the 13.8 billion year age of the universe, from the "big bang," to be quite accurate. As the big bang would have been not just the start of our universe, but of space-time, asking what was "before" that may not even be a valid question.

At any rate, in the space-time "continuum" of our universe, things go back about 13.8 billion years. Give or take a few hundred million. That "cap" from other evidence also puts a "cap" on what "time" in included in the space-time of our universe.

We don't know for certain if space-time in our universe goes "beyond" that. Evidence strongly suggests it doesn't, so that's a reasonable position to take until more evidence shows that incorrect. In any case, not knowing is OK -- we may never know, but we'll keep trying to :)

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.”

Originally "H. L." Mencken, not Heisenberg. I heard it first from Terence McKenna.

The Hubble Deep Field experiments always find something new. The first experiment was controversial at the time because pointing the Hubble telescope at one dark patch of sky for a couple of weeks could be a waste of telescope time. Some people didn't want to try it. As it turns out, it found many galaxies in a patch of sky that supposedly had nothing there. So, now deep field is all the rage.

Given enough time, you could image stars at the edge of the universe (if there is an edge) but it's really not practical to look at a star from which you receive one photon a year.

You know, a photon that travels that far experiences no passage of time. The process of formation, the long trip across interstellar space, and the collapse of the wave function in the detector all happens instantly from the photon's point of view.

Some theories suggest that the emitter and receiver are coupled through consciousness. The observer's and the photon's experience are instantaneous (you might say entangled) even though they are in different reference frames. I don't know much about that.

huh ?

I would think TSCC would grab all this and exploit it, showing that there are infinite portions/galaxies/sectors out there for an infinite number of "Kolobs" and "exalted gods."

"We're only saying that Elohim and Kolob reign over OUR part of this wonderful, infinite Cosmos," said a charming President/Prophet Monson with a twinkle in his eye. "Maintain your Temple Recommend, be worthy and ever-more-worthy! After you enjoy an eon or two or three in the Celestial Kingdom of Elohim (and become even more worthy), you may well have a slice of Infinity to enjoy the rest of Eternity with your Celestial wives and family and your own spirit children. There is literally no limit!"

Hey--think TSCC might want a good PR man?

There is a photo circulating recently that shows Earth as just a very, very tiny blue dot. It was taken by Voyager I as it was hurtling away from our solar system. Looking at that photo made me think about how infinitely small and insignificant we are in the scheme of things. I also thought about the sheer arrogance of any human who claims to "speak for God."

I believe that there are those among us who have worthwhile things to say with regard to moral development and good character. But those words should be accompanied by a strong dose of humility.

The church takes it’s beliefs very seriously to the point of arrogance. To leave the beliefs of the church while taking one’s new beliefs very seriously to the point of arrogance seems sad. I agree completely with your statement on humility.

That's always where the problems start, whether in religion or science. People forget to lighten up.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

I took part in this research, which shows that the universe is not expanding. The current belief that the universe is expanding (which leads to a belief in a big bang, inflation, etc.) is based on an incorrect interpretation of red-shifted light. We don't have a good explanation for why light loses energy as it travels over millions and billions of light years, but it does. Once you give up on the idea of a big bang, you don't have to look for ghost particles and forces (dark matter and energy) for which there is no good explanation or evidence. This is just the tip of the iceberg though. Science is so fascinating, and the more you learn, the more you find out how little you know.

Thanks for the info. I had not heard of this research before. If this data survives the critical examination that is sure to follow, that would force a dramatic paradigm shift.

The comments on this article are really insightful. Some people hold onto scientific positions with the same ferocity as a religion or a political opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 02:03AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Changed Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe
> -not-expanding-01940.html
>
> I took part in this research, which shows that the
> universe is not expanding.

If you really did take part, you wouldn't have made the claim you just did. It does NOT "show that the universe is not expanding." And the actual paper (not the popular news article) on the topic makes no such claim, either.


> The current belief that
> the universe is expanding (which leads to a belief
> in a big bang, inflation, etc.) is based on an
> incorrect interpretation of red-shifted light.

Those aren't "beliefs." They're conclusions based on the best evidence to date, evidence gathered over hundreds of years. Those conclusions *could* be wrong, but this paper does not show that they are. This paper shows there may be some inconsistencies, and more to understand.


> We
> don't have a good explanation for why light loses
> energy as it travels over millions and billions of
> light years, but it does.

Now my warning lights are going off full-time; the observed red-shift is not light "losing energy." Anybody who's taken Physics 101 in college would know that. Wavelength shifts are a result of the doppler effect, not any intrinsic property of the energy level of light. I'm calling bullshit.

By the way, that "research" doesn't hold up.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/claims-universe-is-not-expanding.html

In fact, it's been completely dismissed for its many problems. A quote from the article above:

"So these three men – and a few others – who are struggling to "liberate" physics from the curved spacetime geometry have to reject simpler parts of modern physics – special relativity as well – and they have to make indefensible or manifestly wrong claims about "mysterious new sources of changing frequency". The only result of these problematic steps is that they "explain" one function of distance (or redshift) by another function of distance (or redshift) that they freely invented – it means that they don't explain anything at all. The paper is spectacularly free of correct or meaningful claims or insights."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 11:50AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Aliens ride bikes?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But one thing that did strike me as a bit odd lately, when I encountered some mormons recently, is the mormon denial of big bang theory and support of young earth creationism on conflicting rationales.

The evangelical christian beef with big bang is easy to grasp as they have the same rationale behind dismissing it as they have for espousing young earth creationism. Along comes mormonism where the beef with big bang is totally at odds with young earth creationism. In mormonism the everlasting chain of souls that were once men and now are gods requires a universe that has always existed and isn't created.

The mormon scheme of salvation requires a god that is in fact NOT omnipotent, a skilled engineer of nature for sure but not it's actual origin. As far as mormons are concerned 'in the beginning' god created the milky way and that's it. And it was created from pre-existing matter and energy, and by manipulating some mysterious but still in a sense "natural" laws that even gods have to obey. God is even a 3-dimensional physical creature that physically resides in a centrally located solar system, Kolob, in our own galaxy.

The only ways christianity can reconsile a literal reading of genesis with modern cosmology and biology hinges on their god being a creature that exist outside the universe. The neoplatonic interpretation of genesis for example is god creating these perfect platonic forms from which the material world then emanates. In the mideval mind, where christianity indeed was heavily infused with neoplatonic thinking, the 7 days of creation is about including the 7-day week as yet another 'perfect form' of gods creation, and if in this lesser physical realm it took a billion years or a millisecond or whatever is a trivial objection to genesis because that's just more examples of the imperfections and deviations of physical matter from the higher spiritual realm that matters.

The most ironic thing though is that the Big Bang theory is actually the most God-supporting theory in all of science. And it's enthusiastically supported by apologists and theologians as such, I wouldn't say it implies theism but it does imply that something fundamentally unknowable happened 13,7 billion years ago. It's a bummer for the 'you don't need a prime mover' argument of atheism that science actually implies a 'prime mover' moment in time.

Big bang is a bit of a misnomer since it's leaving out the actual 'bang' and starts with what's going on a fraction of a second later. Atleast in our current scientific framework science will have to inch closer and closer in time towards this fundamental questionmark while never actually reaching ground zero.

brefots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The most ironic thing though is that the Big Bang
> theory is actually the most God-supporting theory
> in all of science. And it's enthusiastically
> supported by apologists and theologians as such, I
> wouldn't say it implies theism but it does imply
> that something fundamentally unknowable happened
> 13,7 billion years ago. It's a bummer for the 'you
> don't need a prime mover' argument of atheism that
> science actually implies a 'prime mover' moment in
> time.

Oh, you were on such a roll until that :)
That the universe appears to have had a "beginning" doesn't imply or require a "prime mover." It just implies an event. We don't know what that event was, and we may never know. However, a simple quantum fluctuation suffices to "explain" it (though that's not, of course, verified by evidence), meaning no "prime mover" is implied or required.

It's also not "fundamentally unknowable" that that event was. That we don't yet know (and may never know) doesn't mean "fundamentally unknowable." It just means WE don't know.

Mormon "cosmology" suffers an infinite regression problem. If "god" is now as man once was, and he had his own "god," who had his own "god," etc. -- then it's "men becoming gods" back into infinity, and it explains nothing of origins. Then again, the same problem exists with "prime mover" arguments; claiming the "prime mover" simply always existed is just begging the question, and explains nothing of origins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 03:02PM by ificouldhietokolob.

I got a chuckle out of this:

"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest."

I never knew that. A priest? You're kidding right? (Evidently not!)

torturednevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never knew that. A priest? You're kidding right?
> (Evidently not!)

Nope.
Even priests can do good scientific work, if they use the scientific method and not religion :)

Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian friar and if I'm not mistaken, Darwin had studied to be an anglican preacher and that is why he waited so long to publish his Origin of Man. He knew the implications.

Another thing I learned recently, is that things like neutron stars, dark matter, black holes, and a few other such things are completely imagined assertions, asserted to make the math work for the current cosmological view. Hmmm, you’re math doesn’t work, so you make up some imaginary stuff, and now, suddenly, the math works. Ok, now that sounds like religion to me.

I probably wasn’t paying that close attention, but it sure seemed to me things like neutron stars and black holes were put across more like certainties, as if there was empirical evidence for them. Now I realize I was just lulled to sleep by another authority telling me how things were. Damn scientists! But like I say, I was young, not paying attention, and I just assumed they 'knew'. My fault entirely.

torturednevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing I learned recently, is that things
> like neutron stars, dark matter, black holes, and
> a few other such things are completely imagined
> assertions, asserted to make the math work for the
> current cosmological view.

Nope.

Neutron stars have been directly observed.
The event horizons and gravitational pull and radiation emissions of black holes have been directly observed, though of course since they don't emit light, they can't be observed themselves.
Dark matter, not emitting light, also can't be directly observed -- but it's gravitational influence has. In fact, the distribution of dark matter in our galaxy has been mapped quite well, and the distribution is "clumpy."

You need to keep up :)

>> You need to keep up <<

I’m still not convinced some of these things aren’t postulations. Observing their gravitational pulls, and saying ‘their must be something there to explain these holes in our gravitational computations’, are not the same thing to me.

As far as ‘keeping up’. Meh. I admit, the more esoteric aspects of cosmology bring little value into my day to day life, so I don’t pay all that much attention to them, even though they are interesting. I prefer other hobbies that add more direct value to my day to day living. Things I can personally verify for myself, like experiments with consciousness. But I admire your keen interest in cosmology. As a kid, I was fascinated by it as well, I even had some cool telescopes. As I've grown though, I just don't find value in keeping up with these things anymore. I guess I'll just stay out of the space man discussions. I think I've actually lost respect for science over the time I've lived, probably because of seeing some of the things that are done with this 'knowledge'.

Thanks for your insights.

torturednevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m still not convinced some of these things
> aren’t postulations. Observing their
> gravitational pulls, and saying ‘their must be
> something there to explain these holes in our
> gravitational computations’, are not the same
> thing to me.

It's actually a lot more direct that that, but OK :)


> As far as ‘keeping up’. Meh. I admit, the more
> esoteric aspects of cosmology bring little value
> into my day to day life, so I don’t pay all that
> much attention to them, even though they are
> interesting. I prefer other hobbies that add more
> direct value to my day to day living. Things I can
> personally verify for myself, like experiments
> with consciousness. But I admire your keen
> interest in cosmology. As a kid, I was fascinated
> by it as well, I even had some cool telescopes. As
> I've grown though, I just don't find value in
> keeping up with these things anymore. I guess I'll
> just stay out of the space man discussions. I
> think I've actually lost respect for science over
> the time I've lived, probably because of seeing
> some of the things that are done with this
> 'knowledge'.
>
> Thanks for your insights.

I do "professional" astrophotography. My images (from my home observatory and telescopes) are used in TV shows, magazine articles, etc. So it's in my best interest to keep up :)

I wasn't suggesting you get out of the discussion, though -- far from it! I was hoping you'd find time to go "keep up!" :)

Thanks. And actually RfM has done a lot to help nudge me along in these areas. I love it for that, all the great science links and all, so I keep limping along, :)

Having my own two teenage 'black holes of need' right here in the house with me keeps me busy enough sometimes.

That's cool about your astronomy interests. During the recent eclipse, I set up the solor observing mechanism on my refractor, and wow, there was a huge series of sun spots visible. My kids thought it was pretty neat. I always wished I had a nice electronically controlled newtonian telescope though. Maybe someday, maybe when my black holes of need have flown the coup! LOL!

Cheers ificouldhietokolob.

torturednevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having my own two teenage 'black holes of need'
> right here in the house with me keeps me busy
> enough sometimes.

Yeah, I have two of those as well. There's plenty of evidence THOSE black holes are real :)

> Cheers ificouldhietokolob.

And to you!

torturednevermo Wrote:
> I always wished I had a nice
> electronically controlled newtonian telescope
> though.

You mean like this:

http://imgur.com/0PGJL2M

That's my "big red" in the observatory. 10" f/4.4 Newt on an AP900GTO mount, coma corrector, and 6MP StarlightXpress imager...with a Takahashi Sky90 guide scope. Fun stuff. If you're ever in SoCal, let me know and come on by for a night of observing!

To keep this on TSCC topic...I had taken a really deep image of the Andromeda Galaxy with this, and it got used on the TV show "Stargate Atlantis." I made big print of it (30x40). My TBM mom came to visit, I showed her the observatory and the Andromeda image, and remarked that Andromeda was about 2.5 million light years away, so the light that hit my imager had been traveling to me for 2.5 million years.

"Oh, how can that be?" she asked. "The universe is only about 6,000 years old, isn't it?"

Sigh.

Very cool telescope. A friend lent me a decent telescope a few years ago and the kids and I were looking at Saturn. I remember getting a really neat feeling of awe as I viewed it, very hard to describe. It was very different from just looking at an (even much better) picture of it. It was like, “Wow, I’m actually looking at this, right now in real life!” (Well, minus the slight light travel delay). I think that’s what always drew me to astronomy, the ‘wow’ factor.

Regarding the delay of light travel, yes, I always remind my kids of this when we are looking up at stars or finding the Pleiades, I say ‘realize those stars we’re looking at could have just blown up, and we wouldn’t even know it, because we’re seeing the star in the past, and it takes time for the light to travel here!’ They say, ‘I know dad, you told us that last time.’ I also like to think about how Hubble’s deep space image of all those galaxies is not so much looking farther away, but rather more peering further back in time.’ It twists my head up like a pretzel. I remind the kids of that too, and they say, ‘I know dad, you told us that already too.’ LOL I guess I like to repeat myself. :/

I will certainly look you up if I ever travel your way, that would be very fun.

I also like my little Starry Nights computer program for navigating the night sky, it’s very informative. It’s a great tool for identifying things the family is curious about when looking up there at night. Even the free version works just fine.

I think I now see a duel meaning in your moniker; you would probably love to fly around visiting distant planets, wouldn’t you. Very fitting, considering your interest in astronomy! I like the hidden meaning, that’s great.)

Have a good day ificouldhietokolob.

torturednevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I now see a duel meaning in your moniker;
> you would probably love to fly around visiting
> distant planets, wouldn’t you. Very fitting,
> considering your interest in astronomy! I like the
> hidden meaning, that’s great.)

I would! Somehow I doubt I'd find "Kolob," though :)
Have a good one!

thats an impressive telescope for the home professional hobbits. Better than having drive and share time on the more massive ones. I dint know how the sign up sheets work for that.

The picture that was used on the Atlantis show. What did it look like or does the tv show have ip rights to it?

With fundamentally unknowable I mean from the current framework of established physics. The present theories that predict a big bang aren't adequate to explain the bang itself, and indeed they are not even trying. Just as evolution theory is not bothering itself with the origin of life and isn't equipped to do so either. This is one of the main reasons quantum gravity, the quest for a "theory of everything", multiverse ideas and various string theories e.t.c. are being developed in physics.

It's already shown that some of these models can indeed grapple with the bang itself, the problem is getting them verified and supported into becoming part of established physics. It's impressive that a 17-dimensional universe of vibrating strings behaving in some specific way might completely account for, in mathematical detail, why the big bang happened, but if this model of the universe isn't supported by experiments and observations it's not going to do as a scientific explanation. There is by no means a shortage of possible natural explanations for the bang. The shortage is in a new theoretical framework that holds up to scientific rigor.

The video I linked in the thread discuss how the present moment for an alien 10 billion light years away riding his bike away from us would be 200 years ago and if he rode toward us it would be 200 years in the future. This got me thinking about the great attractor. As I understand it the great attractor is about 250 million light years away from us and we are moving at 14,000,000 million miles per hr towards it. Using back of the envelope math I calculate that to an alien at the great attractor the time now is 1,400,000 years in our earth's future. There should be a place in the universe where the earth has yet to form. All time is out there in the universe. I just can’t get my mind around a reality this complex. Humility is called for.

That's another thing I've been wondering about with regards to mormon cosmology. About the great attractor and that galaxies tends to merge into bigger galaxies and bigger clusters of galaxies over time. This doesn't really blend well with mormonism unless you suppose different families of gods are competing against each other. When the Andromeda and Milky way starts to merge into one giant galaxy somewhere in a distant future, what does that imply about Kolob?

Will Elohim have to duke it out with whatever God is in charge of Andromeda? Are they his inlaws and he's moving in with them? Is it gay marriage finally reaching the celestial realm and Elohim turned into one of Andromedas wives? Is Elohim planning on a sex change to become Andromedas bitch? Will they rule different sides of the galaxy that forms from the merger? Is the suicide-savior buisness model going to get out of style? So many questions...