What is the true nature of our expanding universe?

[Physics-Learner]

hi wil,

interesting post. my thought process was along the lines of the 2-dimensional spherical surface traveling thru the third dimension of volume, as the sphere expanded. said flatlander would seem to make many of the same conclusions about his universe, as we seem to be making about our universe.

so we would never have a 3-dimensional object traveling thru a 2 dimensional surface area.

but i would question one thing. from our perspective, your geometry is correct, in terms of planes, points, etc. but i am not sure we could make those same conclusions about a real physical object. while we understand width and length, we can at least have some sort of musings about FLATLAND.

but i am not sure that we can actually conclude that this is what flatlanders would observe. we really can't understand a world without depth. so from our perspective, it seems as if it would form a dot, and then a circle, if it was a sphere - but i would hesitate in saying that the flatlander would conclude this. all of our ideas and understanding involve all 3 dimensions. we really can not conceive of an object with truly 2 dimensions. it is a non-sequitor in our world.

i highly suspect that the whole super-universe (everything that is) is so far beyond us, that we arent even amoebas yet - and information about it is beyond our reach.

some of the more technical types here are talking about being able to find out what occurred before the big bang. they could have theories that sound pretty good at some point in time - but how do we test them for absolute certainty ? are we able to jump out of our universe to make actual tests ? and how do we jump back in time before the existence of our universe to see what was there ? i don't believe we can ever know about what is outside of this universe.

but in using logic and the physics of this universe, i believe it can be demonstrated that something outside of this universe was responsible for its creation. i just don't believe we will ever have access to it, while in this universe.

 

[wilgory]

Physics-learner,

First of all, you can't have a 2D observer on the surface of a sphere. Or a 1D observer. As soon as you consider the curve you introduce a 3rd dimension. Your observer is restricted to a point (zero dimensions).This analogy fails to represent anything except the expansion of the universe and it doesn't do a very good job of that. To avoid the center of the universe question, I suggest the loaf of raisinbread expanding as it cooks, where the raisins represent the galaxies. This too is inadequate in that it is a 3D analogy representing a 4D expansion.

I find it hard to believe you are willing to accept the 2D sphere analogy but reject the conclusions made using euclidean geometry.The flatlander is a 2D observer, and is observing the 2D aspects of a 3D object, that are available to it. As a 3D observer do you have problems observing 3D objects. As 3D observers we we can observe some aspects of the 4th dimension (gravity is a prime example). I believe time dilation is another. To observe the entire 4th dimension, I believe is impossible.

One more thing. I see no need for a super-universe since "universe" already represents "everything that is". As does cosmos, if you prefer. Some people equate "universe" with the local observable area of the universe, this I believe is wrong. To equate universe and our space-time continuim is more correct, as this is all we can hope to observe and understand. I however distinguish between the two in that I see no reason there would not be more beyond our space-time continuim.

There can't be anything outside of the universe because just by "being" it would be considered as part of the universe. If you can use logic and physics to demonstrate that something external to our space-time continuim was responsible for its creation, then please do.

Physics Learner,

I must apologize. After reconsidering the sphere, I will accept a line segment that curves with the sphere as a 2D object and therefore accept your analogy as valid and a closer representation of our difficulty in observing a higher dimension. I hope you see the validity of the one I took from flatland. I think we agree it is not possible to fully percieve time.

Sincerely trying to understand,

Wilgory

 

[wilgory]

Hi Kittani,

I'm not a cosmologist, this is just my understanding.

Singularities are predicted when a theory's math breaks down (goes to infinity). In addition to the one at the beginning of the universe, they are also predicted to exist in the center of black holes. Whether they exist or not, they can't be observed or validated. So to speculate about their exact construction is fruitless.

As far as I know, the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is everywhere, so to use it to find "the center of the universe" is impossible.

Space and time, as we know it, was created with the "big bang" and like the CBR there is no center. The expansion of the universe is not like that of an explosion. It is more like the way a loaf of raisinbread expands as it cooks. The raisins being the galaxies. We are on a raisin looking out. All other raisins are seen moving away from us. An observer on a distant raisin sees the same movement.

The speed of light limits us to observing our area of the universe (local observable area). There is likely to be very much more that we will never observe.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi wil,

when i first read your reply, i wasnt sure what to say, because i sensed a defensiveness that i was not sure why.

i will come back and reply to many of your points, as i think it makes for good discussion. but for the time being, i wanted to make one thing clear.

i did not reject what you said. nor have i rejected what marcus, hellfire, and chronos have said. to reject something means to say that it is provably wrong. for example, i reject the concept that 2+2 = 5.

what i am telling you is the same thing that i have told marcus, hellfire, and chronos. we are making assumptions about things with a much higher degree of correctness than we should be.

it took over a century before anyone questioned Newton. is his definition of gravity incorrect ? most scientists today would say so. another century from now, i suspect that scientists will be saying the same thing about relativity theories.

in our specific example, i did not reject your euclidean example in 2 dimensions. i even said that to us 3-dimensional beings, it seems like it would be true. however that does not mean THAT IT IS TRUE.

none of us can imagine a 2-dimensional object any more than we can imagine a 4-dimensional object. what you said seems entirely likely, given the way our brains can think. but i suspect that our brains are very limited, if we compare it to the totality of it all.

 

[marcus]

...

what i am telling you is the same thing that i have told marcus, hellfire, and chronos. we are making assumptions about things with a much higher degree of correctness than we should be.

...

I think you must SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, Phyz. You don't know what assumptions I make. You don't know enough about me to give me useful advice about what I "should be" doing or "should not be"

You don't give evidence of
1. having moral authority
2. understanding the skeptical attitude towards theory that is common among astronomers and I gather many other scientific communities.

So when you say "we" are making assumptions all you can really talk about is what you assume, or believe.

I follow the field of cosmology----that means I study various competing models and I am really interested in seeing those models TESTED. I would like to see some shot down and others pass. And when a model passes a test, I don't go and believe it (like a layperson might). It has passed this test and it might fail the next. At anyone time we do the best we can, doubting everything (to greater or lesser extent) and ultimately believing nothing.

General Relativity is pretty darn near perfect:!) but even GR has places where it breaks down! Provisionally you could say I believe it, but only up to a point So basically I believe nothing totally, not even GR, and I think that is not unusual for working cosmologists (which I'm not, I'm merely an onlooker who follows the field.)

Periodically we get religious-motivated people coming here exhibiting a kind of naive arrogance not unlike yours when you caution people not to believe science because "we" are incapable of understanding the universe.

I know my mental limitations, you know yours. Please don't try to define what "we" can or cannot understand. whether it is 3 or 4 dimensions or whatnot---you've been talking about a lot of things that "we" supposedly cannot understand. Please just speak for yourself.

And don't worry about my or anyone else here being too credulous. Just worry about your own credulity and let other people be in charge of theirs.

It is possible that you are pointing out a mote in someone else's eye whilst you have a beam in your own. i.e. that you are warning folks not to swallow mainstream science because it might contain baloney, and all the while you are consuming a truckload of baloney from other sources.

I say possible because I don't know how much you actually believe of what is on the webpages you give links to.

 

[marcus]

here is an article about the big bang, written in everyday english.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

This page links to this other:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

 

[Physics-Learner]

marcus,

first, let me start off by saying that i never said i knew a lot about you.

i said "we" - meaning scientists in general. but from your posts, you have demonstrated that you place more correctness in these theories than i do. so despite your arrogance towards me in your last post, i don't think i am wrong in that statement. i look at the empirical evidence, i.e. your statements, and conclude that you place more correctness in them than i do.

and when we look at the history of physics, and how theories at one time seemed rock-solid, only to later find out they weren't - i don't think i am too far off base.

and where in the ** did your statement about me not having moral authority come into play ? is that some theory that i haven't heard about yet ?

so when i say "we are making assumptions" - i stick by it. scientists today, and probably always, believe in these theories with much vigor. 100 years later, and now we have new scientists believing in new theories with ever bit the same vigor. and you criticize me for not believing them with any degree of certainty ?

so now i see that you think i may be some religiously-motivated person because i don't necessarily believe in these theories ? which theory of yours did you dream up that nonsense ?

i do suspect that god exists. but my only goal is that of searching for the truth. i do not believe we can ever prove/disprove the existence of god. likewise, i do not believe we can ever prove/disprove anything outside of our universe. so my goal here is simply to learn, and get my own ideas about some of these questions - and possibly what seems more likely than something else.

i will continue to speak about what we can or can not know, if i feel it warrants it. i don't claim to understand gr to any great extent. i might be able to, if i really studied it. however, you don't see me telling you that "we can't understand gr", do you ? that is because i think it is possible. i do not believe it is possible to discover what is outside this universe. so i will continue to say that "we can not discover what is outside this universe".

that statement does not have to do with my limitations, of which i have many. it has to do with the physical limitations of our universe. we can not jump out of our black box, to test any of these theories about before the singularity. it is beyond my limitation, your limitation, and everyone else's limitation. i am sorry if your limitation limits you from understanding that this is a limitation.

much of what is on the sites that i gave were at one time pretty mainstream.

as far as what i believe with regards to cosmology - i am not sure i believe much of anything - if we define "believe" as thinking something is true without definite proof. by that i mean, let's assume that there is a god, who knows all. in comparison, i think we know very little. and that most of these theories only make sense within our small realm. so i think the word "suspect" fits me better than "believe", because "believe" tends to place a higher degree of certainty about something, than i am willing to place on anything i "suspect" about our cosmology or universe.

but that is must my suspicion. at least i am willing to admit that i don't know any of this for certainty.

 

[Physics-Learner]

This page links to this other:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

i don't know what you are saying, here. from what i can tell, this page seems to have lots of links, some about science, others about philosophy.

i hope you arent concluding that my posting of this url had something to do with religious motives ? it never entered my mind. i didnt even look at all the other links.

are you aware that this physics site has had ads about god and his existence ? i have seen it several times, although i never clicked on it.

if you are fishing for me having religious motives for being here, you would be totally incorrect.

i do not feel the least bit compromised by science and spirituality. i embrace science as something that answers some of the puzzling questions that we have. it can never prove or disprove the existence of god. so whatever spiritual beliefs i have, they are not at all in conflict with any sort of science, or me not wanting something to be true, because it makes me feel uncomfortable with any spiritual beliefs i may have.

i am simply curious about how things work. i think einstein was quoted as having said that he was interested in the "mind of god", the rest are just details.

i am also just curious about what reality actually is, and not nearly as curious about what we perceive it to be.

relativity only talks about measurements. or how we "perceive" things to be. i am more interested in knowing how things actually are. i "suspect" that much of what i want to know is unknowable to us.

 

[Chronos]

Measurements are all we have to work with. Those things we cannot yet measure are the unknown - the realm of science. Those things which are inherently unmeasurable are the unknowable - the realm of philosophy. It is disengenuous to assail science because it is unable to explain the unknowable.

 

[marcus]

... It is disengenuous to assail science because it is unable to explain the unknowable.

well said, Chronos!
and disingenuous is putting it mildly if one is referring to crypto-ID'ers!

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi chronos,

i am not assailing science at all. in fact, i champion it for what it can give us, and has given us, and will continue to give us.

the science of medicine has given us tremendous abilities in terms of medical operations, and even going to the dentist, etc.

but when we tackle understanding the cosmos, and all that is - i am just simply saying that it is likely that there is much that we can never understand - that which you place in the philosophical realm, regarding the topics that we have been discussing in this forum.

the scientific method is to make a test, see the results, make a theory from those results, and then make another test, etc.

we can't do that with the singularity (yes, i understand that it probably is not a real thing). there is no way for us to jump out of this universe to see if anything else exists. there is no way for us to go back in time, before the big bang, or the creation of this universe.

i just happen to be more interested in some of these things, which i think are unknowable for us. i don't blame science for that, nor have i ever implied that.

i have said that i believe scientists are placing more correctness to theories regarding some of these unknowables than i think is warranted. that's all.

our measurements and tools that we can use are simply limited.

you guys, as well as wil, seem to believe in this space time continuum. it seems as if you guys are of the thought pattern that it exists outside of our universe. and you could certainly be correct. i have no certainty about that at all. my hunch though, is that this is wrong.

i suspect that there is a 4th dimension. i do not think it is time. that does not mean that time does not exist outside of our universe. there is no way for sure to say anything at all definitively about what is outside this universe.

while i can not prove it, i highly suspect that if information was instantaneous, that we would have a much different interpretation of our world, and a much more accurate one.

as it is, we see information in a backwards time picture. the further away something is, the further back in time we see it. the light we see from a distant star today, may have burned up a billion years ago. i believe this is why we have the relativity theories that we do today.

if somehow we could step into a 4th dimension and see our 3-dimensional world in its entirety at any exact second, we would have a more accurate picture - much like us looking at the 2-dimensional world of the surface dwellers. they have no chance of being able to see their world like we do. sort of like the forest from the trees proverb.

but my musing about this is what started this thread. i thought up an example that i found to be startling similar to what we are finding.

these 2-dimensional creatures have this humongously large spherical surface of which they can only see a tiny portion of it. it seems as if they measure straight lines. but someone tells them that their surface is curved. which they don't understand any more than we understand a curved volume. they see their world without edges. their singularity does not seem to be in their universe, etc.

my example shows a 2-dimensional surface traveling through a 3-dimensional volume. the 2-dimensional people do not know this, nor can they ever know this.

i simply posit - could we possibly be traveling through a 4th dimension, in much the same way ?

i agree with you that it is philosophical in nature, if it can not ever have a hope of being proven. however, i am using scientific data to make my speculations. a huge group of physicists also think that string theory can never be tested, and belongs in philosophy.

but my goal is to understand or come to a better likeliness of what is the actual truth about some of these questions. i believe that this is also your goal, regarding science. mine, too. i think where we may disagree is where to draw the line on what science can and can not do. i think that you are overly confident that science can find the answers to these questions. i hope i am wrong. i would love to know the answers.

i don't care which tool i use, be it science or philosophy - whichever one may be helpful in arriving at what seems like a better likelihood of correctness. as i previously said, my only goal is to get the most accurate answer to these questions, or best probability, if you prefer. i couldn't care less what tool i use.

hi marcus,

your post really teed me off yesterday. but i wish i had been more mature, and not gotten so irritated at you. for that i am sorry.

 

[wilgory]

Physics-Learner,

Yes, I accept General Relativity as a valid theory that has passed all test to date. Since the space-time continuim is a basic part of that theory I see no reason to doubt it. In a couple of weeks we will get the preliminary results of the Gravity Probe B experiment which will validate or falsify GR along with many current theorys. Given the track record, it is very unlikely that GR will be falsified.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=104694

As far as the space-time continuim existing outside the universe, that is impossible because it is "the known universe". I see no reason why that should be all there is, but if there is more, it is unknowable. The universe is, by definition, all there is, so to speak of anything outside of it, is nonsense. Just by being, something is part of the universe.

Special and General Relativity are the best explanation we have for the physical properties of the large scale universe. If you really want to understand, you should not disregard them. There are many sites on the web that explain them without getting technical. I prefer to use NASA sites whenever possible. Go to the homepage and search "origins".

As far as Einstein's interest in the "mind of god". His god was the same as Spinoza's god. Which is the physical universe itself. Einstein's religion was the wonder that the universe invoked. I read this in Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, seventh printing, 1963.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi wil,

lets talk about the term, "universe". it has been widely used to describe the closed system that we live in. so to talk about something outside of it, we have used the term "super-universe".

it is not nonsense to refer to the "super-universe". in fact, if we think of set theory, and call the "super-universe" the set, then our universe is a subset. i think it can be shown that the set has at least one other subset besides our universe. how big that other subset is, or how many other subsets exist - i don't think is knowable, because they are outside of our universe, or subset.

what is nonsense is to talk about something provably false. like my example of 2+2 = 5. we know this is false, and therefore nonsense.

i will continue to use the terms universe and super-universe, as stated. i hope that is not too confusing for you. i understand that you have used different definitions for yourself.

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi wil,

if i look at you with my eyes, i get a typical image of a human being. if a non-human animal looks at you, it sees something different. if i look at you with x-rays, i see something quite different. if i could peer deep enough, and small enough, i might see electrons, neutrons and protons buzzing about. look even further into the nucleus, and see quarks buzzing about.

so which is the correct picture of you ? the answer depends on what set of tools i use, and what perspective i have.

this is why i continue to go back to the surface dwellers. they can never hope to have the accuracy of their world that us volume dwellers have.

i suspect that we are just as limited in our ability to understand our universe. our perception is limited.

as i said before, we can't get information instantaneously. in fact, if we are discussing the cosmos, the speed at which we get info (c), is EXTREMELY SLOW. slow as a snail's pace. who, in everday life, would be willing to wait a billion years to get an answer to a question ?

the fact that information is dependent upon time, plays a humongously large role in our ability to perceive our environment. if info was not dependent upon time, i think things would be so different, that none of us could comprehend it all.

however, i don't disregard the theories of relativity. i simply think that all this only deals with our very small realm of perception.

now within this small realm of perception, i would say that we still have one major leap to go - although it is possible that it could take a millenium or longer. it is also possible that we can never get there. but gr and qm are almost polar antagonists, sort of like the duality of light (between waves and matter). so within our realm, i think that both qm and relativity will need to bow to something more accurate, just as Newton bowed to einstein.

in everyday living, i am more interested in how we perceive things in our small realm - because that is what is important.

however, if we are talking about the cosmos - i don't care about how we perceive things, because this is not a part of our everyday lives. i want to know what the actual reality is, now what we perceive it to be.

i highly suspect that this is impossible for us. so even though it is within our universe, if it is impossible for us to know - then i agree with chronos in that it is a matter of philosophy.

however, that does not make me any less curious about it.

in his show cosmos, carl sagan was quoted as having said something like the following : "everything is a universe, and is contained in a universe". there seems to be some level of truth to that.

we were able to break into the atom, to find electrons and a nucleus. then we broke into the nucleus to find protons and neutrons. and broke into protons and neutrons to find quarks. our technology will someday most likely limit how small we can detect. and probably how large we can detect.

 

[hurk4]

however, that does not make me any less curious about it.

in his show cosmos, carl sagan was quoted as having said something like the following : "everything is a universe, and is contained in a universe". there seems to be some level of truth to that.

we were able to break into the atom, to find electrons and a nucleus. then we broke into the nucleus to find protons and neutrons. and broke into protons and neutrons to find quarks. our technology will someday most likely limit how small we can detect. and probably how large we can detect.

neither me,

and yes, but IMO someday was already yesterday, is today and will be tomorrow.
kind reagards
hurk4

 

[Physics-Learner]

hi wil,

in regards to the space time continuum, i don't think it exists, in the way that you seem to think. i don't think it is a real thing. i think it makes sense within our realm of perception. but when information is dependent upon time, it seems impossible to know for certainty if time is a real thing, or merely something that seems to exist, because of our limited capacity to perceive the full reality.

but again, i don't discount that it couldn't exist. i just don't think that it does.

with regards to gravity - again, i don't think any of us know what it is. is it part of a 4th dimension ? i don't know.

 

[Physics-Learner]

some more musings

so among you more up-to-date physics students, it seems as if you think that the space-time continuum is a real thing, and that it also existed before our universe did. in other words, time existed within the space-time continuum, and at some point our universe was created.

so there are more than likely countless numbers of universes within the space-time continuum.

so time existed before the big bang that created our universe.

now i still say that there is no way we will ever be able to know for certainty that this is true. but conversely, there is no way that we can know that it is false.

so let's entertain this assumption as being true. it only pushes the envelope out one layer. it does not answer the question of what began everything.

when i was discussing this universe, i stated that nothing in this universe was absolutely in the super-universe (such as space, time, matter, etc.) but in this model, this is not true. all these universes would see time the same, by definition - they are all part of the same space-time continuum.

so this space-time continuum could not have always existed, for the same reason that our universe can not have always existed. the only way for this to be true is for everything in our universe to have also existed, and likewise for everything in the space-time continuum.

once again, something outside the space-time continuum would have been responsible for the creation of the space-time continuum, and we are again full circle.

this of course does not mean that the argument for the space-time continuum being here before our universe is incorrect. it simply means that it would need to have had a creator of some sort, be it a god or be it a random act of whatever. we can rule it out as the beginning source of all that is.

 

[marcus]

One thing I've always found incomprehensible is how one person can have the self-assurance to make statements about what OTHER people don't understand.

Like this for example

i don't think any of us know what it is. is it part of a 4th dimension?

 

[Physics-Learner]

simple - some things are beyond our comprehension, even if you are einstein the 2nd.

now, how about a serious reply, if you can garner one.

 

[marcus]

... some things are beyond our comprehension,...

why?

I assume you mean intrinsically beyond comprehension

 

[Physics-Learner]

yes, that is what i mean.

i think it is highly likely that there are things beyond our comprehension. especially if you are talking about what is outside of our black box. we have no way to definitively prove it.

i enjoy reading the latest theories which you have presented, and am willing to entertain their possibilities.

i SUSPECT that there are things even within our universe that are incomprehensible to us, although i can't say for certainty any specific thing. so i think it is great that we TRY to understand everything.

i think we will find that some things are beyond our comprehension. you asked me why ? because we are stuck within a certain frame of observation.

as i have said before, i think our conception of just our own universe would be far different and far more correct if things could be measured instantaneously.

we are in this universe, making our observations, stuck in our frame of reference. i SUSPECT that it would be way different and way more correct if there was such a thing as an observer who could see the universe from outside.

for example, we are on a surface of a ball, making our observations, seeing only parts of it. the guy on the outside looking down, sees the complete ball in its entirety.

there are many things that i don't understand - i am not using that as a springboard for what you do or don't understand. i am simply saying that i think it is likely that there are many things that we will never be able to understand. obviously, i can't say that for sure, since i don't have a crystal ball.

but when stuck in a black box, how do you jump out and look at what is beyond ? you cant, because by definition, you are stuck.

 

[Physics-Learner]

another thing that i have a problem with is reality versus measurement.

i think chronos a while back mentioned something about measurement being the only thing that we have.

and i don't disagree with that. but just because it is all that we have, does not mean that it is all that we need.

einstein's theories are all about measurements, not about actual realities. things seem to be such and such because of our measurements of them.

someone else may have much different perceptions based upon their measurements.

i think i made this comment before, which may have triggered the comment by chronos.

i am very interested in what is. i am not all that interested in what we measure. i see the story about the blind men and the elephant as a good example, here. each of the men are making conclusions about the elephant based upon their measurements, which of course give them their perceptions.

i want to be looking at the elephant, in its entirety, instantaneously, so i know exactly what the elephant is. and that seems to be what we can not do, with regards to our universe.

Newton was able to give us tremendously accurate ways of predicting the force of gravity, but is it caused by an actual attraction of matter acting at a distance ? or is it matter traveling with the least resistance in a warped space time ? or is it really something else, but we can't know because we don't have the tools or the frame of reference to use them ?

i throw out many questions, of which i have no answers. i just ask that you entertain the thought that perhaps physics doesn't have any answers either.

i mean all sorts of people know that god exists, even though they all have many different answers and gods. lol. many physicists think that they know about things with the same vigor. yet, when time passes, most of what we think we know now - we don't actually know now. i was once a brainwashed person who also thought he knew that god existed. i have matured enough to know that most of the things that i thought i knew, i never actually knew.

much of what we get taught, etc. - is not necessarily the truth. so i have taken a few steps backwards, and realize that most of us KNOW a lot less than what we think we know. and that is not a comforting thought. it takes some time to get used to. because most of us like to develop little models of whatever that we can fit everything into nice little models of understandings that give us a sense of stability and organization.

 

[marcus]

...need to have had a creator of some sort, be it a god or be it a random act of whatever. we can rule it out as the beginning source of all that is.

you seem interested in talking about a creator (of "all that is")
and in drumming in your message about the limitations of scientific knowledge.

i just ask that you entertain the thought that perhaps physics doesn't have any answers either.

i mean all sorts of people know that god exists, even though they all have many different answers and gods. lol. many physicists think that they know about things with the same vigor. yet, when time passes, most of what we think we know now - we don't actually know now. i was once a brainwashed person who also thought he knew that god existed...

I hope you can find some people with a taste for this kind of discussion, with whom you can air your views.

For my part, I find scientific knowledge reliable to large extent, and what appear as inept, or poorly informed attempts to undermine its credibility merely provide an unattractive contrast, raising my opinion of the empirical tradition.

 

[Physics-Learner]

sure, i want to know about "all that is". don't you ?

i have given some very good reasons why the space time continuum, if it does exist, is not the end all - which you have failed to contradict.

instead, once again, you seem to be stating that my purpose is to drum up that there is a god. i don't have to come to a physics forum, to drum that up - and would be a helluva lot more successful at other places.

you seem to be unwilling to admit to the limitations of science. i have simply been willing to admit that we have limitations. i don't think we can prove that god exists any more than i think we can prove anything about what exists outside of our black box. so i certainly am not trying to prove to anyone that god exists, since i don't think it is possible.

you can call that religious drumming. i think you say that about me, because you arent able to contradict what i am saying, so to make you feel good about science, you talk about me pushing god. that is quite ironic - when i talk to strict believers, and give them logical explanations based upon evidence, which i have given you - they tell me the same thing, but in reverse.

i guess the lesson to be learned here - if you attempt to show anyone good arguments about why their beliefs are not as solid as they may think they are, you get told you have some hidden motives. que sera sera.