This should answer some of your questions on this issue.

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded

 That makes just as much sense as all these other creation myths, not based on science, but wishful thinking.

Exactly! Thank you for that post, well written.

Agreed.

maybe the turtles somehow bend space and time to end up in a loop just outside our visible range of the universe.

Thats where you are wrong...if there are thousands of galaxy's and we are only a spec in the Milky Way....there is only more of a change that there is Extra Terrestrial Life...

h

I apologize for being away for so long. Your personal beliefs are your own and thinking about the eternal and infinite as well as the sacred is one of the things that make us more than just rather intelligent animals. We may discuss these things, even intelligently, provided there are ground rules so we may communicate effectively. We are in a discussion where basic definitions are missing. God is not defined pretty well by definition. He is beyond the bounds of understanding within the limits logic ... see Riemann's paradox. Nevertheless, this does not exclude logical discussion; we just have to be extremely careful in discussing both science and religion. This is especially true if we start with the premise that these subjects are diametrically opposed. Evolution has become a much more complex subject than first presented by Darwin. New thought on the progress of life forms from what we would term as lower to higher has changed from one driven by the need to survive in a competitive environment to one driven by the ability to cooperate and form symbiotic relationships. However, we know that things change. Perhaps the teachings of scripture and the traditions of the ancients are to direct us to more open thought than that of dogmatism. It appears we are at a wonderful juncture of science where the adherence to a dogmatic and superstitious authority in the realm of cosmology is coming to an end. It may be that the next step in our view of the large scale structure of the universe completely contradicts what we have now. And it may also be that it has been inspired by religious thought which is rejected by those in the scientific community. But it doesn't mean that the religious thought presented is the one that shall win the day. It will most likely be something completely different from that presented by both camps. The religious theory you present may make us as scientists consider alternatives and eventually punch a lot of holes in the Big Bang theory, but it does not mean that we must adhere to the religious theory you have postulated. Let us say that there may be a few holes in it too. Science involves rational thought and is a revolutionary process overthrowing the status quo. It always has been. But then again, so is religion. Science is a rational approach to finding knowledge. An irrational approach, (in this case, a model driven approach which has always proved disastrous), is superstition. Applying the same criteria to religion: religion is the rational approach to the sacred. An irrational approach to the sacred, is superstition. The criteria you use to judge science, must also be used to judge religious thought. Both disciplines are extremely powerful influences to direct our way of thinking. They both can be used to either elevate humanity or to destroy it.

I very much liked the green theorem of the universe. Personally I had thought the universe was yellow but now I believe you are quite correct in postulating a green universe. Turtles are green, therefore the universe must be green. I see you are schooled in the ways of science. There was no big bang and the universe is not expanding. The universe is infinite, eternal in the past and eternal in the future. It's turtles all the way down.

And the sun is not yellow; it's chicken.

Great news, 21 months and no one has posted.  Can we get back to the Big Bang theory and astronomy ?

The Big Bang theory arrived when Hubble see that the further away a galaxy is , then the more red shifted the light was. I've seen the analogy of the dots on the balloon getting further apart when the balloon gets blown up. But , I still can't get my head round it.

Do the galaxies eventually accelerate to the speed of light ?? Can't be done right !

Are our measurements wrong ? Is dark energy somehow making these galaxies appear like they are travelling faster , I mean , the more dark energy between us and the galaxy makes it appear more red shifted.

Also , are astronomers planning to look at these distant galaxies in the future and re calculate the distance they have move. Maybe some of the galaxies will get so far away that we can no longer see them.

Back to the balloon model. Suppose you inflated a balloon at a large fraction v/c of the speed of light (impractical, but not breaking the laws of physics). Now imagine two points on the balloon, say diametrically opposite ones. They are moving apart at a speed of pi*v/c, based on distances on the surface of the balloon. No laws of physics broken, it's just the expansion adding up over a large distance.

Why is it called Big Bang Theory?

Everything started in a little point (called singularity)
This point was so enourmous little, there was no room for any accoustic.
And outside of this little point there was even less than nothing.

The Little Peak Theory would be definitly a better name.

Well, Hoyle invented the term "big bang" as a mocking description of a theory he didn't believe in. The "big" is because it was everything (big energy or mass), the "bang" because it sort of exploded. The name caught on, and Hoyle's disbelief was proved incorrect.

It's worth pointing out that we have no evidence that the Universe as a whole was tiny at the moment of the big bang. Many people believe it was very large or infinite. The observable Universe arose from what wasa tiny region just after the big bang, which is a rather different thing.

Unfortunately, anything outside of the currently observable universe may never be susceptible to direct observation, but may only be detected by subtle effects on the observable universe.

Thanks for answering Elroch. But I go back to ...

Do the galaxies eventually accelerate to the speed of light ?? Can't be done right ! Not right! They can.

I thought it was impossible for an object with mass to travel the speed of light.

Lets say our galaxy was moving at light speed . Would this mean that time would stop to compensate?

It's different in general relativity. It's the expansion of the space that increases the speed. Now we know dark energy accelerates galaxies apart, and apparently they will all end up accelerating to over the speed of light, except those that are gravitationally bound to ours. Galaxies simply become completely out of communication when they are moving apart at more than the speed of light as the space expands between them.

I gave a simple model which demonstrates how it happens. If you have a balloon (in our Universe) and its radius increases at just under the speed of light (impractical, but ignore that), and you measure distances between points on the surface, diametrically opposite points move apart at over 3 times the speed of light. The reason no laws are broken is because it is the surface that is expanding. Each galaxy on the surface of the balloon would only be able to communicate with a circular patch of the surface,  expanding with the speed of light. The real Universe is similar with another dimension.

So the balloon theory states that if space increases it moves the mass with it ?  But mass moves thru space unrestricted.  So how do we know which law of physics to apply ?   Oh , that's right, we only apply the balloon theory when everything else fails !   And then only for a very short time !

More Great news,  another 14 months.  It apears no one really likes to talk about the Big Bang, only talk about the talk about the Big Bang.  I'm sure that will happen NEXT.  But while the redshift does occure. it is NOT because the galaxies are moving away from us as the theory of expansion of the universe suggest; but because the photons age.  They age at a constant rate and that FITS the data as well as any expansion theory does.  Fits better because you do not need inflation, nor an explosion, nor massive galaxies moveing.   Well back to the expansion theory.

http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/how-gravity-changes-under-certain-conditions?page=1

Post 20 references a pundit who also considers BB theory unsatisfactory.

Thanks, you pointed that out and I did read it. However, every one likes to go off the deep end with more math. I like "Nature is Simple".  I do not think there are three words more powerful in the whole universe !!!  You didn't comment on if the photon will age,  lose energy over time.   Most will say that brakes the law of conservation of energy.  Which is a little funny because that law does not explain where the energy for the photon came from in the very first place.  This does, the lose of energy on each tick goes back to the place (Zu) where the original energy came from in the first place,  and now we do have conservation. String theory lets strings vibrate without using energy, A Tidom (part of a photon) vibrates, but each vibration uses some of the tidom up (that part is time).  The concept is , time is used up as time passes.  You can never get it back.  Which is saying, time is NOT conserved !!