Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
furio

Big Bang and Black Holes

Recommended Posts

you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

whats in black holes? there are all the mysteries that no one knows. are you a scientist? post what you think about the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

I'm a scientist and I don't believe in any god.

Anyway, a book can maybe interest you if you haven't read it yet: Angels and Demons from Dan Brown. It's speaking a little about the subject and about the black matter... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an agnostic I do not follow any religion. I do not believe in science, either. I accept logical outcome of scientific deduction and research. There are several theories concerning our universe beginning, starting with Big Bang, through cyclic universe to bubble universe theory. Just recently I've read an article that might be a prove of existance of other than ours universe.

I'm not going to even try explaining existing of universe or black holes. There are people that truely ARE authorities (e.g. Stephen Hawking). They have writting many books explaining their theories and I can't do it any better than them. I accept that universe exist. I do not know how it started, however, I know several theories. I'm not a supporter of any of them:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

the only thing i believe in is the general stupidity of the mankind. :>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

the only thing i believe in is the general stupidity of the mankind. :>

 

Nah, it's something you know about:P If you know about it, you can't believe in it;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, it's something you know about:P If you know about it, you can't believe in it;)

 

i would never even try to claim having knowledge of anything :>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this topic sounds like its trying to start a flame war.

 

if you want to know about black holes i suggest "Blach Holes and Baby Universes, and other Essays" by stephen hawking, i found it a good read, also "a Brief History of Time" is well known and the pictures and diagrams make it slightly easier to follow.

 

the big bang is almost cetainly how the universe started, but why it happened is an interesting question, the fact that it happened seems to suggest other universes do exist.

 

when the LHC is turned on later this year we could find out a lot more about the universe, there is a real possibilty that black holes will be created and so it may be possible to observe and study some of the strange effects they may create, also the discovery of the nature and mass of the higgs boson would mean things make a lot more sense, the standard model may need replacing but i think completing it is the first step to replacing it.

 

hopefully this centruy will be as good as the last for science, though i cant imagine science changing as it did in 1905 ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

whats in black holes? there are all the mysteries that no one knows. are you a scientist? post what you think about the universe

Maybe the Big Bang is part of how God made the world & the universe? Remenber that God's 'day' is nothing like our dau.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

whats in black holes? there are all the mysteries that no one knows. are you a scientist? post what you think about the universe

Maybe the Big Bang is part of how God made the world & the universe? Remenber that God's 'day' is nothing like our dau.

couldn't agree with you more on that point Learner. Plus if God said let there be light, and there was, wouldn't that cause a pretty big flash kind of like what the Big Bang supposedly looked like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

False. Science doesnt require believing. It's a collection of reproducible and controlled experiments from which you can infere general behaviours of systems, wrongly called laws. It answers the How, not the Why (which actually is not needed)...and to get an answer, always partial and temporary, requires lot of dedication and work. And this is the opposite of believing.

 

 

And for the universe, why you need a "cause" or a "start" for it? Those are attributes peculiar of living beings, you are able to recognize them because they are useful; this doesnt imply the whole univers must have them. Actually there are consistent (with observations) physical theories without the need of time or causes as absolute entities.

 

Enough babblings :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

Religion and science are two different things, religion relies upon faith and belief whereas science does not. Many scientists in the past were religious, think of the many attempts to prove the existence of God even though by the definition of the divine it's impossible to succeed in that task (and some of those scientists should have known that too, say Riemann). Many scientists of today are religious I dare say. It's not either science or religion. If you're religious you can find the beauty of God's creation in scientific discoveries (what's more beautiful than the simple and elegant concept of evolution by the way, makes you want to believe :rolleyes:) if you're not religious (including those that follow the religion of not following a religion) you'll be just as happy appreciating the ways nature works. :pickaxe:

 

PS: Fedora beat me to it, should I believe in coincidence? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not usualy one to let other people speak for me, but Tool definitely made a great example of what i would say...

"-Today young men on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one conciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.-"

Tool-Third Eye

Its all(everything) up to your interpretation, perspective, and imagination, and how you prioritize the need for it.

edit:sounds like some dr. phill bullshit dont it? oops :P;)

Edited by Dago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

Religion and science are two different things, religion relies upon faith and belief whereas science does not. Many scientists in the past were religious, think of the many attempts to prove the existence of God even though by the definition of the divine it's impossible to succeed in that task (and some of those scientists should have known that too, say Riemann). Many scientists of today are religious I dare say. It's not either science or religion. If you're religious you can find the beauty of God's creation in scientific discoveries (what's more beautiful than the simple and elegant concept of evolution by the way, makes you want to believe :() if you're not religious (including those that follow the religion of not following a religion) you'll be just as happy appreciating the ways nature works. :)

 

PS: Fedora beat me to it, should I believe in coincidence? :lurker:

 

i think in the past scientists were religious but there has been a definite change in the last 25 or so years, now a lot of scientists see themselves in a battle against religion, and being a physics student i can certainly understand why they feel this way, people are making the world a worse place because they believe in things that are, to put it politley, rubbish. the number of people in america who dont believe in things so proven as evolution and the big bang is frankly disgusting, people who think ID should be taught in science lessons are a disgrace to human kind.

 

if you want to believe in a god thats fine but please acknowledge this famous quote.

 

"I find it hard to believe that the same god who gave us logic and reason would intend us to forego their use"

 

edit: if you find this offensive there is nothing i can do about my views, perhaps we shud all steer clear of these topics

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't dare to call anybody's believes rubbish. Saying it is like spitting in faces of few milliard people.

The fact I do not believe in any god or gods doesn't mean others should follow my example. There's a freedom of faith and a vision of world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is freedom of faith, i am very liberal and think people can believe what they want, i hold issue with people making my life worse because they believe something for which there is no evidence.

 

here is an example thats been in the news recently, stem cell research is opposed by many, in britain at least, because of their moral beliefs, the archbishop of cantebury(against the research) urged mps to vote based on religious beliefs they have, he is the head of the anglican church, one of the world's largest. Now in 30 years i might have a disease that would have been curable had stem cell research gone on without hinderance, do i deserve to die because someone believes something i dont? is this any better than being blown up by a bomb planted by a religious fanatic? i think i would see the two things as very similar.

 

people who do medical research strive to make everyones life better, why should other people stop them doing something that may save my life in years to come?

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep wondering - why do most people think science and religion are mutually exclusive? I mean, I use both - science can be used to explain my faith, whereas "religion" can seem to fill the missing holes in science.

 

For instance the "Big Bang" Theory: As scientists claim to have "observed evidence of", the universe grew from what they assume was a ball of supermatter - which one day exploded and everything came to being. Question - (framing) we know in experiments that if something is neutral and unreacting, it needs a catalyst to react. If it reacts, it doesn't stay unreacted for much time... but everything that is, was in that supermatter. Where did it come from, and what caused it to react? Faith ("religion") can be used to simply say, "God spoke, and BANG!"

 

Personally, the more I learn in science, the more it reminds me there has to be a God.

 

Something else to consider - For all you people who want to claim that science is totally "proven", you may want to consider the meaning of "Theory". After all, people used to believe in such crazy things as maggots forming on meat spontaneously and that you'd fall off the edge of the earth, and these were all "theory". We now know that spontaneous generation is false, and the world is round - no edges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, meaning of theory. It reminds me a silly proverb.

"When everything works and nobody knows why - it's practice. When nothing works, but everybody knows why - it's theory. When nothing works and nobody knows why it's Silesian University of Technology"

Don't think it's the meaning of theory Atahn meant, though :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I keep wondering - why do most people think science and religion are mutually exclusive? I mean, I use both - science can be used to explain my faith, whereas "religion" can seem to fill the missing holes in science.

Who said they are mutually exclusive? Point is science doesnt require believing in it, you are free to believe something else tough. The "Holes" in science you speak about are all related to our condition of human beings, intelligent living systems trying to assign a cause and a finalism to every phenomenon they observe, expecially themselves. But those are not scientific questions, there are no experiments able to tell you why we are here and how are we supposed to behave.

 

Question - (framing) we know in experiments that if something is neutral and unreacting, it needs a catalyst to react. If it reacts, it doesn't stay unreacted for much time...

Not true. Everything reacts, even if extremely slow.

 

Where did it come from, and what caused it to react? Faith ("religion") can be used to simply say, "God spoke, and BANG!"

Agree...until you use that BANG in a scientific reasoning. An pls note that the BANG saves you from answering a difficult (or impossible) question, but adds nothing to your knowledge of the world, since you dont have an experiment to show to others, just your beliefs.

 

 

Personally, the more I learn in science, the more it reminds me there has to be a God.

I could agree, but that "there has to be" is again an expression of the urge to answer a hard question, and has no force as an argument. Keep on learning, you will find lots of fields where the hand of a very ironic (or cruel) God can be spotted (thinking of chaotic systems, evolution...).

 

Something else to consider - For all you people who want to claim that science is totally "proven", you may want to consider the meaning of "Theory". After all, people used to believe in such crazy things as maggots forming on meat spontaneously and that you'd fall off the edge of the earth, and these were all "theory". We now know that spontaneous generation is false, and the world is round - no edges.

Is a common mistake to think science has all proven...it is the contrary. As I said it is a collection of experiments from which you infere general laws...as you add a new experiment your global result is subject to change and rethinking, which i find one of the most beautiful and "honest" things about science. Last remark is, all the examples you cited were proved false in the very moment the church weakened, letting people be able discuss and negate Aristostele dogmas :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whats in black holes?

.....Getting back to the scientific part of the question, here's something that may help understand the physics of a black hole:

 

What is a Black Hole?

A Black Hole is an area of space that is so condensed and the gravity pull is so strong that literally nothing can escape it. They are formed by supergiant (star clusters of large total mass may be merged into single bodies by their members' gravitational attraction. This will usually produce a supergiant or hypergiant star which runs short of "fuel" in a few million years and then undergoes gravitational collapse, produces a supernova or hypernova and spends the rest of its existence as a black hole) stars collapsing on themselves.

 

 

How big is a Black Hole?

A Black Hole's gravitational pull is so strong that it's mass is literally endless. In terms of how much space it takes up, it is directly related to how much it's mass is. A typical 10 solar mass black hole would have a radius of 30 kilometers and a million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3 million kilometers.

 

 

Escape Velocity

Escape Velocity is the force (speed) needed to escape a gravitational pull of an object, such as a planet. The reason nothing can escape a black holes pull is because it is so small (relatively) and dense that not even light can escape, hence the name "Black Hole". Think about this for a second, not even light can escape it. Once you get to the point where light can't escape, you have reached the event horizon, and are doomed to a quick, but possibly painful death.

 

 

Time Space Continuum

The gravity of a Black Hole is so massive that it distorts time and space itself. Imagine this, when an object crosses the event horizon, its image is frozen there, possibly forever. While the object itself has long since been crushed by the gravity of the singularity (As an in falling object approaches the singularity, tidal forces acting on it approach infinity. All components of the object, including atoms and subatomic particles, are torn away from each other before striking the singularity. At the singularity itself, effects are unknown; it is believed that a theory of quantum gravity is needed to accurately describe events near it), the image is frozen because the light rays it omitted have hit a spot in the gravitational pull before the event horizon where the escape velocity is equal to the speed of light, making the light ray stand still. This is where a theory of time travel or time distortion comes in. If we found a way to travel faster than the speed of light, in theory we could hit the event horizon where time is distorted, then power our way out, to find that everything else has aged faster than we have.

 

 

What happens in a Black Hole?

It is said that once you hit the event horizon, it takes approximately 7 seconds for you to reach the center of the black hole. 3 million kilometer black hole in 7 seconds, think about that one. It also pulls you in so fast that since one part of your body is closer to the center (meaning more gravity) than another part, it would literally rip you in half. In short, you will die.

 

 

Unfortunately there are so many "theorys" about what a black hole really is, especially at the center (the singularity), that it is impossible to say for sure how they really behave. Modern science is able to determine what happens before entering the event horizon, but anywhere after that is mostly speculation and derivatives from mathematical equations. No equation presently is able to determine what exactly happens at the very center of a black hole because the nature of a singularity causes mathematical equations attempting to extrapolate them to break down and become senseless. Until the so-called unification theory is found (the theory linking gravitational physics and quantum physics, which individually are correct and proven, but when combined do not "add up" so to speak) there is no way to understand what really happens.

Edited by big_duo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True enough. Its like claiming you believe in chairs.

 

S.

I for one, do not believe in chairs. I mean, there's some sound theory's for the existence of chairs, but just not enough proof to make me a believer. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably like painting a target on my shirt, but I believe in ID. It seems to offer a reasonable explanation for how life is.

 

I personally view science is a tool, the same as logic. I use both. What it comes down to is that we have the facts. People take the facts, interpret them through their worldview/presuppositions/perspective, and come up with their beliefs. In theory, science should just be about finding the facts and should be completely impartial. In theory. I'm not trying to knock off scientists here, but from what I've seen they hate to have their theories refuted, and they will vigorously defend them.

to be honest, I would do the same thing in their place. If a person puts a lot of work into something, its against human nature for them not to defend it. (the recent documentary "Expelled" comes to mind).

 

I would argue that ID is the logical alternative to Evolution. Either we were caused by random chance, or we were not. Should it not at least be considered?

 

edit: I wanted to clarify: When I refered to Evolution in my post, I meant Macro Evolution (bang to mud to man). Micro-evolution (species getting more and more specific) seems to be very accurate with what we know about genetics.

Edited by Dunian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is probably like painting a target on my shirt, but I believe in ID. It seems to offer a reasonable explanation for how life is.

Either the one or the other...unless you think ID is a scientific theory; well it isnt, there are no experiments to even suggest it. On the other hand there are zillions of simulations showing the arising of complex "being" from simple parts. Dont be fooled, ID is a subtle way to put god back in science, but since you cant name it anymore, just call it "intelligent designer"...

 

 

I personally view science is a tool, the same as logic. I use both. What it comes down to is that we have the facts. People take the facts, interpret them through their worldview/presuppositions/perspective, and come up with their beliefs. In theory, science should just be about finding the facts and should be completely impartial. In theory. I'm not trying to knock off scientists here, but from what I've seen they hate to have their theories refuted, and they will vigorously defend them.

to be honest, I would do the same thing in their place. If a person puts a lot of work into something, its against human nature for them not to defend it. (the recent documentary "Expelled" comes to mind).

A scientist can be defeated by the refusal of his theory, but even if he can be really sad and depressed about, he will never defend his theory with other weapons than logic and facts. Oh, and the refusal must be done with the same weapons or else it is not a refusal, just nonsense.

 

I would argue that ID is the logical alternative to Evolution. Either we were caused by random chance, or we were not. Should it not at least be considered?

 

edit: I wanted to clarify: When I refered to Evolution in my post, I meant Macro Evolution (bang to mud to man). Micro-evolution (species getting more and more specific) seems to be very accurate with what we know about genetics.

 

First: origin of life and evolution are two different fields. If you accept micro evolution you have to accept macro evolution, they are aspects of the same process from a differently sized point of view.

 

Second: random chance or not? let's put aside for a moment the random chance (which is indeed not only the reason of why life exists, but also of why it is still existing) and consider the "not". Why you have to introduce an ID? It is needed (to non scientists) to explain how it is possible for organic molecules to form a system that can reproduce itself (and this need is not logical at all). Well, studying such molecules (instead of stop thinking about them thanks to the ID), you find that their structure is perfectly shaped for such performances and that they can be created step by step from inorganic molecules. To be clearer, DNA is as such not for the magic hand of an ID willing to spread life on earth, but *simply* because that structure is able to resist and exploit the random events (chance, noise, variation as you wish) that inevitably happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Escape Velocity

Escape Velocity is the force (speed) needed to escape a gravitational pull of an object, such as a planet. The reason nothing can escape a black holes pull is because it is so small (relatively) and dense that not even light can escape, hence the name "Black Hole". Think about this for a second, not even light can escape it. Once you get to the point where light can't escape, you have reached the event horizon, and are doomed to a quick, but possibly painful death.

 

Interesting. Considering that light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second, you better have the Enterprise at hand if you're trying to out run that baby!

 

Hehe, anyways...I personally believe that Black Holes are a type of "Worm Hole" that we cannot fully understand yet. I believe that the reason why light cannot even escape it is because when light travels into it, it's already on the other side of the worm hole.

 

Someone go test it out for me! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in ID, and I don't believe in the Bigbang.

You see, ID makes sense: An intelligent creator decided to make this Universe, not unlike how people make video games or computer simulations.

The Bigbang, on the other hand, lacks something fundamental in physics: Causality.

The Bigbang theory can be described very simply as: "In the beginning, there was nothing; then, it exploded".

Doesn't make much sense to me.

 

There is also no proof for the big bang theory.

Yes, we have the background radiation and the red shift, but to me, that's not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×