Scientists think universe shaped like soccer ball

[Guest guest]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/10/09/universe.soccer.ball.reut/index.html

[Guest guest]

typical jive, all based on foolishness,

CNN is a mouthpiece for the interests

of propagandists, their cosmology

is always presenting the views of

the "establishment" sycophants who kiss up

to their grant giving benefactors, the bible thumpers,

who are trying to keep "scientific theories"

in accord with their foolish version of what

the universe is and it's origins, the big bang

being the centerpiece of their delusory ideas.

 

all part of the network of "scholars" who try and

keep "science" in a box, they regurgitate the views and ideas of their investors, and in turn they recieve

the funding that the otherwise impoverished academics

would do without.

[Govindaram]

haribol

[Guest guest]

shiva, so it isn't shaped like a soccer ball?

[Subala]

problem is scientists "thinks"

 

how can you think? Did you see it in a dream?

 

Actually if one scientist will say "I saw in a dream what universe is shaped like a ball", I will tend to believe it more than statements "scientists thinks".

 

Vedic version is universe is an shape of an egg.

 

Correct me if my memory not right, (reg. egg shape).

 

 

[Kulapavana]

egg shape? you mean like a football? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

Actually the material universes are supposed to look like bubbles of foam clustered together on the shore of the Causal Ocean. That may be quite close to a soccer ball shape with flattened sides. But I have not read that article above...

[Guest guest]

hey ,where did i leave my birth date ?

thanks though!

 

the definition of "universe" is what is required

to understand what it is.

 

the big bang guys see the universe as being a closed

system, or a combination of closed and infinite,

they see space as a substance with properties

that you can measure, that is different from

the non big bang guys,or steady state theory,

there the universe is infinite, space goes on

to infinity,logically this is correct, if you

say the universe is finite, you must define it's

boundaries, what is the thing that is at the end

of the universe ? nothing ? that is impossible,

it's like saying the universe is like a bubble

in a pool of water, which is in fact what it is like,

but that vedic definition of universe is different

then the big bang version, in the vedic version

the material universe exists in an infinite

field of conscious energy or Brahman,and there

are numerous bubbles,compared to bubbles

emanating from the pores of the skin of Visnu,

which is the Brahman field, the bubbles are not the same

as the big bang version , they percieve reality to be finite

or limited to the bubble, with nothing existing

outside of it, which is a conundrum and impossible,

whenever you define something as having a specific

limitation of size,even if it is expanding,you must

account for it's boundaries and what is limiting

it ,what exists beyond it's boundaries to define

the reality that it is expanding into, so logically

even if the universe is expanding,it must have something

to expand into,nothingness is not a viable answer,

you cannot expand into nothing,theremust be some type

of space to expand into,the problem with this conception

is that they don't understand the nature of space,they tend to define it as a substance, when in fact space

is not a substance,God is a substance and fills space

to infinity, within God all things exist, all matter

is God's energy,Brahman tranformed into various

forms and substances, Visnu(brahman+paramatma+Bhagavan)

fills space in all directions infinitly, the universe

is a bubble within that energy,but it is not different

then Visnu, just transformed to appear different,

like a virtual reality game,what appears to be

different things,different material objects,

is in fact an illusion,all things appearing as real

in a virtual reality game in fact are just varieties

of single substance, the virtual matrix.

 

[Guest guest]

Woah, lets just back off a little. I am not sure what material position you are in, but you are in no position to say that a deep study that took much work and calculations to come up with a conclusion is just "stupidity" or "propaganda". Thats not right! and before trying to say that a scientist who has probably studied so much in his/her life and devoted so much time to learn and understand so many things is just a fool and his calculations are worth nothing.

 

[Guest guest]

Thats not right! and before trying to say that a scientist who has probably studied so much in his/her life and devoted so much time to learn and understand so many things is just a fool and his calculations are worth nothing...

 

You should atleast read and try to understand their side of it with atleast a mundane understanding of the subject.

 

[Guest guest]

Get with the program

 

learn

 

During more than a millennium the Roman Church has been accustomed to being owner of the truth. The Bible and the pope were declared infallible and those who dared to disagree were considered heretics and condemned to terrible tortures before being sent to the stake. This happened, among thousands, to Giordano Bruno, in the year 1600.

 

The Church didn't like when, after the Renaissance and after the religious liberty provided by the Protestant revolution, science exploded, explaining all the phenomena of nature without the help of the Bible, not to say of a god. Much to the contrary! Among dozens of discoveries that defied the authority of the Bible, Copernicus and Galileo dethroned the Earth from the center of the universe and Darwin showed that there are not fixed species and that man, instead of being a replica of God, is just a sophisticated ape.

 

It has not been comfortable for the Catholic Church to lose her authority as a source of truth. The Church never accepted being relegated to a second position. The Roman Church, under the guidance of Pope Pius XI, decided that she could no longer remain away from the debate of the origin of the universe. After all, she had the age-old cosmology of the Genesis to defend.

 

In the 20's a conference on Cosmology was held in the Vatican, in the Pontificia Academia de Scienza di Roma. The intention was that the Vatican should have a word in the academic establishment on scientific matters. The pope Pius XI decided that the Church had also to make science within the Vatican. Georges Lemaître, a monk with a great knowledge on theology and mathematics, was designated to study Einstein's and other scientist's ideas, with the explicit intention of selling the Roman Church's cosmology.

 

In 1927 Lemaître, inspired by the Bible's cosmology, developed a theory that the universe began from an explosion of a "primordial atom" (whatever it is). George Gamow follow suit developing the idea that all the constituents of the universe have been created in the first few minutes after the big bang, and Alan Guth, from Cornell University, authored the inflation theory of the Universe, according to which "the entire universe is supposed to have grown from an almost infinitesimal bubble of space, only one trillionth the size of a proton" (apud Herbert Friedman, "The Astronomer's Universe", 1998). Certainly both scientists swallowed Lemaître's bait and gave scientific credibility to the Bible version by elaborating on the beginning of the universe through a primordial explosion.

 

Hawking also helped to advance the Bible's Cosmology with his "singularity" theory. In 1975 he was rewarded by the pope with a medal.

 

Another scientist that swallowed Lemaître's bait was Bernard Lovell who, innocently, concluded that the creation of matter, in the big bang, could only be effective by the power of an external factor, god himself! He failed to explain how god was created.

 

Einstein was decidedly against the idea of the Big Bang. His equations have concluded that the universe had to be either in expansion or in contraction, but he didn't believe his own equations, because he was a supporter of a stable vision of the cosmos. He created a "cosmological constant" (a counter-gravity force) not to abandon his equations. Later he abandoned this theory.

[Guest guest]

so, we see the history of "establishment" cosmology

has been started by the vatican to give credence

to it's conception of the bible creation story,but also

they and other bible centric orgs have been the major

force in funding for the propagation and enshrinement

of an otherwise silly theory,that has not only been proven wrong a thousand different ways, but also

been strongly resistant to dethronement as

being "the official theory of the origins of the universe"

that is routinely trotted out on T.V.,magazines,schools,

etc, all because of the money and influence of bible

pushing agendas.

[I_love_krishna_]

That was me, sorry, I did not sign in. Thanks for the source but I do not think that the Church has anything to do with this. This is about scientific theory. They don't even think it is true, they don't even say its a fact.

 

Also, Nowadays... no scientist cares about religion.

 

And Happy birthday prabhu /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

wrong, the church not only came up with

the big bang theory at it's inception,

but they and other religiously motivated

parties fund academia to keep the big bang

as the "establishment" line.

 

and many scientists are religious

 

"Many if not most scientists today, however, still have strong religious beliefs. A survey of American scientists conducted in 1997 found that 40% believed in a personal God who reveals Himself and answers prayer, the same number as was found in similar surveys conducted in 1914 and 1933 (Scientists and Religion in America; Scientific American, September 1999). It is probably not necessary to remind the readers that most of the scientists who laid the basis for the scientific age, including Boyle, Copernicus, Faraday, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, and Newton, believed in a personal God who revealed Himself in the Scriptures and answered prayer. For many people, therefore, there must be other plausible ways of relating science and religion."

 

priest/scientist

 

jive talkin