Reddit mentions of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality

No, not really. First of all the Big Bang was not an explosion of light and heat that we could "see" (unlike, say, a supernova) but a rapid expansion of space. That's all space, including the bit we're riding along on. Space is expanding everywhere - so everywhere we look, galaxies are rushing away from us. It's really hard to wrap one's mind around; try to think of a bunch of magic marker dots on a balloon you're blowing up. What direction would an ant on one of those dots look to find the origin of the expansion?

As far as the time travel idea, a crude analogy might be to suggest that when you look at the sun - the light from which is eight minutes old - you aren't traveling backwards in time; it just took a few minutes for the sunlight to reach you. Likewise when we see the light from far away stars, it just took a really really fucking long time to get here, so we're seeing light as it was emitted aeons ago.

We can detect cosmic microwave background radiation, which is pretty interesting stuff. It's also relevant here because it's uniformly distributed everywhere we look. Where is its origin if it's uniformly distributed?

[edit] I highly recommend you read Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos for starters.

Let's say that there is a hypothetical observer 10 billion light-years away. If that observer travels toward us at a speed of 10 km/hour, the observer's 'present' exists about 200 years in our future. Conversely, if the observer travels away from us at the same velocity, its 'present' is the same distance in our past.

Note that this doesn't allow that distant observer to ever see our future before it happens, as the speed of light prevents any information from our future from being communicated to the observer until well after it has become our present.

Source.

>...is it acceptable to consider a four dimensional object as being composed of an infinite number of three dimensional 'slices'?

This is perfectly acceptable and absolutely correct. The analogy holds for all dimensions. A line is composed of an infinite number of points. A plane is an infinite number of lines.

>If it's only a dimension, then we are just objects existing in that dimension and have a predetermined 'volume' and our existence at any instant in time is one of an infinite number of values in a Riemann sum.

Yea, something like that. Some physicist view it that way.

Maybe this can help you. The previous 4 pages of the chapter aren't available, and most of the images are blocked, so I'm not sure, this may not help, but start reading here.

I believe you made more sense than you think.

I'd really recommend Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. The entire purpose of the book is to explain relativity and quantum physics to laymen. Has some really good explanations and great "scenarios" that can help describe the physics.

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375412883

A good read that puts it (enough) into layman's terms.

Yes. If you're reasonably intelligent you can.

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375412883

You're on the right track. I find that cosmology, astronomy, biology, and geology are a millions times more interesting then any book of stories written long before men had the capability to understand the world around them. Keep asking questions and keep learning. And they have the added benefit of being true.

>If you know as much about science as I hope, then explain how everything came out so perfect out of (insert atheist way of creation)!

I will refer you to 3 books for that one, but then I will explain why that is not a valid argument and then explain why god does not answer that question either.

First the books: the first two will explain the big bang and inflationary cosmology (this is actually what took over or heavily modified the big bang theory from its original form) they are both by Briane Greene and I highly recommend them if you are interested in physics at all (they are not about god) the fabric of the cosmos and The hidden reality. There are also NOVA specials you can watch from the Fabric of the cosmos and his earlier book the elegant universe though I do not remember if they cover the big bang or inflation. The third book is specifically about the argument you just put forward. It is The fallacy of fine tuning:why the universe is not designed for us by Victor Stenger.

The reason that the argument you made is fallacious involves logical fallacies. Now, I don't want to seem like I'm talking down to you at all (I'm not) but I'm not sure how familiar you are with the intricacies of logic. Basically every argument has a premise, logical steps, and a conclusion. The argument you made (that the universe is perfect) has three flaws.

1: False premise - The universe is not actually perfect, far from it in fact. The reason why we are accustomed to the universe as it is is due to evolution. We evolved to fit the universe, not the other way around. If you mean something specific like how could the constants have got to the exact values we have please read the hidden reality, it answers that question by explaining multiple instances of how the universe can be fractured into slightly variable universes. The god delusion also answers this question but from my experience most theists are not willing to read it.

2: False premise - The burden of proof is not on me to prove or explain anything. I don't know is a completely acceptable answer if I had no evidence to put forward (We do actually have evidence, see the three books). Saying that I don't know how the universe came about does not immediately cede the argument to god. God has to answer to the same standards of logic and evidence that I would require of my own pet hypothesis. Burden of proof was explain in analogy by [Russell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot "This is why our logo is riding in a teapot")

3: Logical fallacy - Argument from ignorance. I already explained this one a little but basically this is the part that says you cannot use what we both do not know as evidence. If we come to a cave, and you ask what is in the cave and I say that I don't know but I bet it's a dragon then I would be using our shared ignorance to try and put forward the idea of a dragon as the inhabitant of the cave (sorry this analogy is bad, I have a flu right now so I'm kind of worn down)

Now, the reason that god fails the logic test (before he fails the evidence test, which he also does) is that if you say that god created the universe then you have put a terminator on the infinite regression that is causality (there are some hypothetical reasons that causality could be violated before the universe but I am skeptical of many of them and it would take me too far off track to get into them). The problem here is why do you give god a break from needing a cause? If we both agreed that there must be a first cause, why the hell should we give it sentience, and intelligence, and supernatural powers? If we also put forward a first cause that did not have those things then we would have an explanation that used fewer assumptions (many fewer assumptions). One of the best logical tools is occam's razor, which says that when we have multiple competing hypothesis we remove the ones with the most assumptions. Now it is only a logical tool and does not guarantee we will be correct but it is still a good probability chooser (remember how I said science is about probabilities).

So anyways, if you read this far I really hope that your takeaway is at least to read the three books i recommended (they are complicated but very interesting). I would also ask that you read the FAQ and probably The God Delusion (as it covers more of the faux science arguments for god than God is Not Great).

It's also a great book :)

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene

Actually, Newton thought there's an absolute space. Theory of relativity says there's "absolute" spacetime. I'm not trying to be a pain or picky, but there is a noticeable difference between the two. Mainly, spacetime is intertwined. You can't do one thing in space and not affect time just as you can't do one thing in time and not affect space.

An example of this was in "The Fabric of the Cosmos". You're travelling at 500 million miles per hour, chasing after the light. Someone else is stationary and recording both the light's and your speed. Once the measurements are made, the realization sets in that no matter how fast you go, light will always move at 671 million miles relative to you. That's due to the fact that when you're moving at 500 million miles per hour in space, it will seriously affect your speed through time. Something like a balancing act between the two.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation. I figured I'd just spill it all out rather than wait for someone to ask for clarification.