Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
furio

Big Bang and Black Holes

Recommended Posts

i dont think i can reply without being rude here, you are very mistaken and i hope someone can set you straight, some of your comments in post #69 offended and angered me and i tried explaining myself to you but you're clearly having none of it, you are either trolling or don't speak englsh very well and misunderstood those articles or something... idk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm... I had initially ignored this thread, but after reading it, I found the vast majority of contributions to be very interesting.

There were a few counterfactual statements here and there, but these are too old now to go back to them, and anyway Fedora et al. have made a good job at clearing the field.

 

However, I would like to add a few considerations which have not come up so far.

 

First of all, let me state my personal position: I'm a scientist (hard science type), was born Roman Catholic, have been agnostic since I started reasoning on my own, and then become attached to religion again when I discovered that, after all, you could believe and still maintain your self-esteem as a rational being.

 

 

On science and religion being incompatible

 

Quite on the contrary. One of the most wonderful achievements in logic in the 20th century (and people has been doing logic for some 24 centuries by now) was Goedel's theorem. I will skip over the proof (which is absolutely beautiful in itself), but in brief it states that a formal system cannot be both complete and consistent. A formal system is something like traditional logic (deduction, induction, abduction), but actually can be almost any way of reasoning in a formal way, i.e. any system which can provide proofs. Well, if such a system is at least powerful enough to prove arithmetic (i.e., prove that 1+1=2, to vulgarize), then either it is inconsistent (you can prove false things through it - which makes it useless) or incomplete (there are certain things which are true and cannot be proven - which makes it usable, but not universal).

In other terms: no matter by which rules you reason, either you prove falsities, or there are truths that cannot be proven. The proof of Goedel's theorem even shows one of this true statements which cannot be proven. And notice, it is not just our inability to prove them which make such statement "specials": we have a proof stating that no proof can exist for them.

 

So, logic itself states that there are unprovable truths, regardless of how hard you reason. You are free to believe or not in such truths: their truthness (or not) is inaccessible through reasoning. Of course, not all statements are "unprovable truths". There will be many "unprovable falsenesses", and a lot of provable statements. Of course, if you believe in a statement which is provably true, there is no need for believing - reasoning suffices. In the middle ages (and the latest German Pope of ours), generations of logics believed that the existance of God could be proved, but all their proofs were rather ridden with logical fallacies. And then, there are those that believe in statements which are provably false. Mostly, these people fall in the "fool" category, but not always. At times, the issue is more subtle, and depends on the particular logic used. In fact, whether a statement is provable or not, and whether it is true or not, are different properties, and change based on the formal system (=reasoning procedure) we are talking about.

 

Now, there is no formal proof that "There exists one (or more) God(s)" is an unprovable statement. But I doubt it will ever be found to be provable. So, I'm free to believe that God exists, since Logic tells me that there exists for sure unprovable truths.

 

Now, with Logic on my side, and Maths following, let's turn to other "reliable" sciences.

Physics for one. Physics (and Chemistry, which is essentially the same thing) is about observable phenomena, and the ability to predict the outcome given the initial condition. There is a long-term trend in the history of religions, where God (or the Gods) become more and more remote from the tangible world, as our knowledge of the world increases. In ancient Greece, people would believe that lightnings were thrown, each one individually, by Zeus from Mt. Olympus with a specific act of will. Since we got a reasonably good scientific explanation of how lightnings are generated, we no longer believe that. In the present day, God has become very remote: either working inside our souls, or having planned everything in the beginning of time, having designed (intelligently?) a system of forces, laws, rules and having started the ball so to say, and now enjoying the outcomes. As a Roman Catholic, I should also believe that from time to time He intervenes to suspend the Laws of Nature he created in order to obtain some special fx ("miracles"), to educate some disbeliever, and such. When no good explanation for a supposed miracle comes up, it can be ignored, or attributed to a mysterious plan we cannot see.

But the key point here is that believing in Zeus has never enabled people to throw lightnings themselves, or to protect them from lightnings. Science has: Benjamin Franklin has worked true, consistently true miracles, and today lightnings are a toy in our hands.

This practical usefulness has been at times used by science zaelots to assert the superiority of science to religion. But religion has worked true miracles as well: the building of cathedrals, centuries of sacred music and paintings, healing of sufferings, and even wars of religion, have certainly been huge real accomplishments of word and spirit.

My point here is instead that every time Science proves that a divine intervention is not needed to explain some phenomenon, God can just be imagined a little more remote, a little more detached, and a little more inaccessible to direct investigation, and still be present.

I do not believe Physics & co. can prove the non-existence of a God either.

I am free to be a scientist and a believer (or not) and still be consistent with myself.

 

 

On progress

 

1. Science starts from observations (facts), hypothesizes rules, then applies deduction: if the expected outcomes are indeed observed in a large enough number of cases, then the hypothesized rules are considered practically useful, in the sense that they allow you to predict how the world will behave, and make some nice progress. One day, a fact is observed which is not consistent with the rules you used so far. At that point, people starts to hypothesize alternative (at times more complex, often even simpler) rules. Goto 1.

 

That's a simple enough procedure and, of course, it never terminates. In early XIX century there was a confident belief in scientific circles that soon mankind would have discovered everything under the Sun. Hilbert presented in the 1920s 23 remaining problems in Mathematics with somewhat an implied understanding that those were the last ones of some importance to be solved (some are still unsolved today). Happy times.

Then, quantum mechanics, incompleteness theorem, relativity, evolution, psychoanalysis... all proved, in the short span of 50 years, that almost all that was considered an absolute certainty till then was false. It was a disaster. A few scientists committed suicide, or threw their life away on stupid causes. Science, on the other hand, which is more than the sum of all scientists, progressed nicely. We would not have cures for many diseases, x-rays, EEG, magnetic resonance, rockets, satellites, TV, cell phones, and a good half of the world as we know it if not for what Science discovered after that disaster.

Believe me, every scientist worth this name is perfectly aware that it is very provable that whatever he writes today in a paper will be considered false some day (still, if the science is good it will be considered a reasonable approximation for many applications: Newton's laws, which are certainly false, are absolutely ok for building houses and bridges).

 

Now, what is the typical progress of religions? In most cases, there is a Divine Revelation at the beginning. All truths are there, there is nothing to add (except maybe some commentary and explanation), and since information was perfect at the beginning, while humans are imperfect being, information can only degrade along the centuries. So, either you have to assume that (revealed) religions degress instead of progressing, or you have to believe in continuous divine intervention (miracles, God talking to people from time to time to set things straight). I would prefer not to believe in either, but being forced, I'd go with the second choice. Unfortunately, churches have a strong bias against saying that something they told was a Truth of Faith (a dogma) was actually false. The current Pope, for example, said in 1984 that maybe, after all, there is no need for a Limbo, it is not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures, and in truth it was to invented in the Middle Ages. After becoming Pope, he quickly toned down that assertion: revealed religion must be conservative.

 

After all, what can one prefer? Continuous progress (science) or continuous regress or stability (religion)?

 

 

On evolution vs. ID

 

As far as I can discern from all the smoke surrounding ID (different people claim different things under the label of ID), the basic concept is: come on, all this is just too unlikely to have happened by chance, someone must have done this on purpose.

I find this totally unconvincing. One of the reasons is the anthropic principle: which is, only a rational being can ask such questions, so the question can be asked only where a rational being exists. Thus, the world we observe must be extremely complicated, or we would not be here to ask the question.

I have this impression that believers in ID do not "feel" the real scale of the Universe. We are talking billions of galaxies, with billions stars each, countless planets (not to mention other structures), with sextillions of molecule each. All this, going on for billions of years, and the time needed for a chemical reaction is much, much smaller of a second.

No matter how slim the chance is for a self-replicating molecule to be assembled randomly, it will happen. Most probably, it will happen many, many millions or billions of times, in different places, in different times. And once you have the self-replication ability, the beautiful mechanism of natural selection (with copies and mutations) will drive the evolution of "things" which are better and better suited to duplicate themselves.

We can see evolution at work every day, even on our species. A significant percentage of the world population is born every day with mutations - experiments, we could say. Albinos, children with 6 fingers, or two heads, or with better-than-average sight, or immune to tooth decay, or ... or... - these are not diseases, these are experiments in evolution. Why do people in northern Europe have pale skin? Is it because they evolved (in a matter of a handful of centuries, not even thousands of years) in an environment where the Sun is weaker, or because they were designed like that since the beginning (and can you figure a population of Vikings in central Africa trying to figure out why they have been designed like that, there)?

 

So, micro-evolution is under our eyes. Now, we are left with macro-evolution. Some proponents of ID say that the inter-species gap is just too large to assume that they have evolved in some way from a common ancestor, or from each other. Yet, now we have algorithms for DNA matching that can build objective phylogenesis trees (as opposed to those built by zoologists, which where subjective). And those trees explicitly trace the relationships between different species, we even know which single genes have changed from one species to the other, and in maybe a decade, with biotechnology, we will be able to run experiments as well. This is not to say that I'm not troubled by the ethical implications of playing with something we do not fully understand yet. But a revolution is waiting to happen there, and Biology is on its way to become a hard science.

 

 

On the origin of the Universe

 

Big Bang? Why not? All the facts we can observe now, coupled with the application to the past of the laws that we observe being valid for the future, tell us that at a certain point there was a singularity. Now, "singularity" is just a catch-word well-educated scientists use to say "we do not have the faintest idea how things were at that point". For sure, we know that the laws of physics as we (approximately) know now, did not apply at that point.

 

Who started the Big Bang? There are two problems and three possible answers there.

 

The first problem has to do with time. Did time exist at all, then and there? It is not clear; the equations we have admit of solutions where time simply did not exist in those conditions. Now, that's somewhat surprising and counter-intuitive, but so is the notion that the faster you go, the slower the time goes for you. Yet, this has been proven in a famous experiment: take two atomic clocks, synchronize them, then stow one in your kitchen, and take the other with you in a round the world supersonic flight. When you return home, the clock which you got with you (moving at a certain speed) will measure a shorter span of time since you left than the one that remained at home (moving at an inferior speed). Odd, but true, and consistent with Einstein's work - which is actually an indication that the work is solid, since it predicted effects that no-one had observed before.

 

The second problem has to do with cause. In our intuition, the cause must come before the effect, so this issue is intertwined with that of time (if there is no time, how can the cause precede the effect?). But, the concept of cause is somewhat old-fashioned. We have observed (again) quantum phenomena where the effect happens before the cause. We have seen particles being in two places at the same time, or moving through a block of impenetrable material without actually passing through it (this has to do with the fact that particles are also waves, so the tail of the probability distribution of a particle can be somewhat distant than the peak: and the particle is everywhere in that probability distribution, until observed).

Given that our concept of cause has been shaped by the representation that our imperfect senses give us of the world around us, and that this world is dominated by statistics, not by mechanics, I have no problem with dispensing with causes at all, at a certain level. And for sure, the singularity was an odd enough place to not be troubled that the laws of nature there were anti-intuitive.

As an added benefit, this allows for miracles: although slightly improbable, there is nothing really forcing all my atoms not jumping, all together, one thousand miles from here where my presence is needed. Of course, I'd better make sure not one of them decides to move earlier, or later, or to a different spot. Trekkies will remember many episodes where the teleport buffer had problems... :)

 

As for the three typical solutions:

 

1) God (or Intelligent Designer, whatever that is) created the Universe. At any stage of its history. Many scientists in the XVII century believed that God had created the Universe only a few thousands years before, complete with all proofs of more ancient history "to test the Faith of men".

Fine, there is no proof, but the same goes for the other options. Occam principle would apply (God might be somewhat redundant), but who cares: that's (pretty) good advice, not a law of nature.

 

2) The Universe started itself. That's not so obvious. There are models where a fluctuation of nothingness can create a couple of particles, matter and anti-matter (if I remember correctly, this 0-sum spontaneous creation has been observed in labs as well). Normally the matter and anti-matter annihilate immediately, going back to nothingness. If the (random) fluctuation is big enough, the Universe and anti-Universe become separate, and each starts to live its own live for the subsequent 50 billions years or so.

 

3) The Universe never started. The theory is that if the Universe has enough mass, in the long run gravity will win over the force which caused the initial explosion; the momentum will be lost at a certain point, and the Universe will start again collapsing towards its "center". In the end, all the matter and the energy of the entire Universe will be contained in a single singularity (again!), a kind of huge black hole on a scale greater that that of whole galaxies. But wait... that's more or less what is needed to cause another Big Bang! Then, according to the "pulsating universe" theory, we live in one of this endless sequence of inflating and deflating universes. And since there is quite some undeterminedness in how the fundamental constants of Nature are derived (i.e., G, h, c, mass and charge of certain particles, etc.), the Universe could even be different, and work under different laws, at each cycle. Go figure!

 

Which one is right? Truth is, we have no idea right now.

Contrary to what others have written, I do not think Science has ever renounced to provide some answer. We do not know now, but there is no reason to assume we will never know.

 

 

On black holes

 

Oh well... sci-fi has so popularized the image of wormholes, that it is almost a pity to have to discard that. They would be practical, no?

What other have written about the even horizon, mass, light, information, is correct, and I will not repeat it here. There is some doubt about information: in some model, while light cannot get out of a black hole, information still can (these are the guys studying how in a pair of opposed particles generated from the same event, observing the spin of one will determine the spin of the other, regardless of how far they are from each other; the idea is to have, one day, a communication channel which is not carried through electromagnetic waves, and so instantaneous communication from arbitrarily far stations).

But whatever the details of the physics inside those beasts, to all practical purposes the tidal forces there would be so strong that everything larger than a few molecules would be destroyed completely before entering the horizon. We would need huge progresses in both sub-nanotechnology and theoretical physics before being able to observe anything there, and till then, every wild fantasy can go. Contrary to what I said above on biotech, I do not expect that to happen during my life - and I am confident I'll last for another century as a minimum... God willing! :)

 

 

 

Ok, now if anyone has read so far... you know why I don't post much! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, long post, I will reply in an arbitrary order:

But whatever the details of the physics inside those beasts, to all practical purposes the tidal forces there would be so strong that everything larger than a few molecules would be destroyed completely before entering the horizon.

Not really, depending on the size and density of a black hole, surviving near and even in the event horizon is possible (although not pleasant). Generally, the bigger (in volume) the black hole, the better.

 

The Universe never started. The theory is that if the Universe has enough mass, in the long run gravity will win over the force which caused the initial explosion; the momentum will be lost at a certain point, and the Universe will start again collapsing towards its "center". In the end, all the matter and the energy of the entire Universe will be contained in a single singularity (again!), a kind of huge black hole on a scale greater that that of whole galaxies.

Escape velocity, anyone?

Since the Universe is expanding faster and faster, I guess it is safe to assume that it will never come back together (the dark energy and shit).

 

But wait... that's more or less what is needed to cause another Big Bang! Then, according to the "pulsating universe" theory, we live in one of this endless sequence of inflating and deflating universes. And since there is quite some undeterminedness in how the fundamental constants of Nature are derived (i.e., G, h, c, mass and charge of certain particles, etc.), the Universe could even be different, and work under different laws, at each cycle. Go figure!

Decreasing the entropy in the system like that? Hmm.. I am not sure it would work.

Besides, isn't this a perpetuum mobile? All the energy that was lost would just come back again? Kind of convenient.

 

Btw, I have a HUGE problem with Mr. Big Bang.

Say, if all the matter and energy in the Universe was in such a small point, isn't that kind of a super massive black hole, like we've never seen before? So if nothing can get out of black holes (except maybe Hawking's Radiation), then how did the Big Bang happen? The event horizon and shit only happens when the scientists like it to happen?

 

I have this impression that believers in ID do not "feel" the real scale of the Universe. We are talking billions of galaxies, with billions stars each, countless planets (not to mention other structures), with sextillions of molecule each. All this, going on for billions of years, and the time needed for a chemical reaction is much, much smaller of a second.

 

I am a firm believer in ID, and I am aware of the scale of the universe.

But so far, there is no experimental evidence that molecules can combine themselves in ways to create life (except if done by another living cell, or a virus, or some intelligence).

It takes a LOT of factors to converge in order for life to be created. And then, even if life is created, it takes a lot of luck for that first cell to have time to reproduce before it is destroyed by the free oxygen in the air, or by the UV light, or before it dies of starvation, and so on.

 

Since you are a scientists, how many atoms must combine to create the most primitive life form capable of reproduction and metabolism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no energy is lost in the universe, the conservation of energy is probably one the most accepted priciples science has produced, all the energy present in the big bang is here today and there is no process that removes energy from the universe, just changes its type.

 

as for the smallest living thing, we are talking 100s or 1000s of atoms and molecules. a small virus is about 2x10^-9m across an atom is 10^-10m across, so the scales are not very diffrent.

 

edit: obviously i realise a virus, by the very definition, could not have bee nthe first life on earth, it does have DNA and so probably resembles the smallest repoducing thing that can be created.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no energy is lost in the universe, the conservation of energy is probably one the most accepted priciples science has produced, all the energy present in the big bang is here today and there is no process that removes energy from the universe, just changes its type.

The conservation of energy is meaningless in an open system.

If you use one Kw of energy to heat your house, most of it will go out of your window and never come back.

All (well, 99.99999999%) of the photons from all the suns are leaving the universe at the speed of light. No matter how much the universe contracts, those photons will be forever lost.

 

as for the smallest living thing, we are talking 100s or 1000s of atoms and molecules. a small virus is about 2x10^-9m across an atom is 10^-10m across, so the scales are not very diffrent.

 

Not sure how you came up with that number, but according to the math done by this guy there are billions of atoms in the human DNA alone (so much more in a whole human cell of any type).

Obviously, the human DNA is quite big, and simple life forms can do with much less, but I would venture to guess that it takes at least a few milion atoms to form the very most basic life form capable of reproduction and metabolism.

 

P.S. The smallest virus is 20 nms, so at least 200 times bigger than an atom. If the virus is 3d, then we'd have 200x200x200 = 8000000 (8M) atoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. The smallest virus is 20 nms, so at least 200 times bigger than an atom. If the virus is 3d, then we'd have 200x200x200 = 8000000 (8M) atoms.

ph34r the ebul cube virus

 

xpvirusedition.jpg

 

As far as I can determine, with my highly limited biology knowledge, a cell is merely a vessel used to house DNA and provide it with the spare parts needed (the nucleotides needed to recreate the dna strand after the enzyme unzips)

 

The actual process of dna replication is a purely chemical process (albiet a fancy complicated one) and the decrease in local entropy is merely temporary.

 

Entropy arguments (I mean the concept, not the person) made as the basis for support of ID simply point to someone who doesn't quite get entropy. ;)

Been a great read though.

 

S.

Edited by Spleenfeeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok 2nm was a misread, my bad, i had only just got up, millions is the right answer to your question as you have now pointed out.

 

if the universe does contract back to a point, i dont think it will btw, then this implies it is a closed system and in fact all those photons will be pulled back by gravitational forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok 2nm was a misread, my bad, i had only just got up, millions is the right answer to your question as you have now pointed out.

So what is the chance that a few million atoms just arange themselves, by pure chance, in such a way so that they can be considered life (have metabolism and reproduce)?

 

if the universe does contract back to a point, i dont think it will btw, then this implies it is a closed system and in fact all those photons will be pulled back by gravitational forces.

Yes, but the light escapes at the speed of light, and the universe contraction can't be faster than the speed of light, so whatever happens, a lot of energy will be forever lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure about the chances of those atoms combining randomly, i will think about it later and do some calculations

 

your 'energy loss' proposal completely ignores hawking's 'no boundary principle' a principle which to me makes a lot of sense, it is widely(but not universally) accepted. it basically means you can make an analogy between a sphere and the universe, if you ran for a million and years and then the earth collapsed you will still be caught in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the concept that the space itself expanded in the Big Bang.

There is however very little proof on that (the red shift of distant stars is not enough proof), and it requires dark energy and some other exotic shit like that to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the concept that the space itself expanded in the Big Bang.

There is however very little proof on that (the red shift of distant stars is not enough proof), and it requires dark energy and some other exotic shit like that to explain it.

 

 

Well, that there is no proof right now doesnt mean that a theory is wrong.

 

Thats just an argumentation back to Gallileo's or Kopernikus' time.

 

Maybe there might be a proof in the future or not, even if you/we/all cant imagine it right now.

 

Patience is your friend ;)

 

Piper

Edited by The_Piper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the concept that the space itself expanded in the Big Bang.

There is however very little proof on that (the red shift of distant stars is not enough proof), and it requires dark energy and some other exotic shit like that to explain it.

 

 

what about the discovery of Edwin Hubble that the speed at which a galaxy is moving away from us is directly proportional to the distance to that galaxy, it explains this perfectly, it also explains why the expansion of the universe is accelerating since as the galaxies get further away they must accelerate.

 

these two pieces of evidence make a stong case that space itself is expanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, an alternate theory (sorry for the late reply i though no one would be interested in my topic and forgot about it) maybe the universe was always there? there was no beginning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

i have a really big problem with this no matter how much respect you try to gain from pretending to know it all. I can tell you that Americans... not just them …most people in the world that have and ever/will exist will put heritage and tradition over theory based anything. Theory based science is nothing more than faith in a religion imo. So im so sorry that I/we Americans don’t believe in the same things you do. TBH the disgusting part is how some people can criticize and ridicule generations of culture and heritage because someone doesn’t agree with the same THEORIES(faith) that you believe in.

 

1. sure the chances of it happening randomly are pretty low, but a lot of cutting edge science these days points towards there being billions of universes not just ours, the chances of galaxies and life forming in at least one are pretty high yes?

 

Cutting edge what? Names plz and and not some fucks who make shit up in hopes to get their name in print. WHY so redundant? If its one or a gagillion just explain where the very first one came from plz. I can promise you that the answer to this universe is more universes theory isn’t cutting the mustard.

 

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.

 

 

This is the problem I have, its redundant

It don’t make jack shit how many exist just explain the first plz.like it’s the ONLY one

 

 

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy. In thermodynamics, the first law of thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy for thermodynamic systems, and is the more encompassing version of the conservation of energy. In short, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.

 

Where can we scrap this and explain how the very first particles and energy come from for your big bang/bangs. If the mass and energy for big band always existed then that would make them omnipotent and godlike. If it came from mass, where did that mass come from? If it came from energy how was it created if energy cant be created? If you don’t know and have to make some redundant shit up then im not listening. (This is where tradition and heritage come to play). According to this the fact that ANY big bang happened would constitute a miracle. Why would you expect the world to reject their culture and heritage to believe something that You feel strongly about. wouldn’t that make you a Zealot? Im sorry that you think people that don’t agree with your theories are disgusting and a disgrace to mankind.

Edited by Quim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quim, have you spent some time to read Marc's post? I will answer myself, because the answer is obvious. No you haven't.

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling the law of conservation of energy here.

I don't feel like discussing with a person that can't be arsed to follow whole thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quim, have you spent some time to read Marc's post? I will answer myself, because the answer is obvious. No you haven't.

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling the law of conservation of energy here.

I don't feel like discussing with a person that can't be arsed to follow whole thread.

i read the entire thread at least 6 times and i mightve jumped into a conversation way past but i started exactly where i felt needed, actually i wanted to forget this entire thread exitsted for several days after i was mocked the first time.but i just couldnt. And i wont. i dont care if im ridiculed ive never spoke about anything on el forums as strongly as this subject i guess. and its probably only because i was mocked from the start.

Edited by Quim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to explain how increasing redshift the further away you look DOESN'T provide strong evidence for an expanding universe?

 

Just interested to know why people asserting that this isn't strong evidence have yet to be challenged on this.

 

Eagerly awaiting the rebuttal.

 

Oh, and I am not after arguments like "sure it's evidence but it isn't PROOF" because science isn't about proof. Neither is Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is all about cowering in the closet and assigning a higher power to that which we don't currently fully understand.

 

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is very strong evidene that the universe is expanding and i think most all can agree with that. what it expanded from and its destiny seems to be the debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quim

 

i have not professed to know everything, almost all of what is in this thread is theory and conjecture, i just believe the theories i support have solid evidence. one thing i know for certain is that the colour of light is dependant on the frequency of the photons that make it up, which is dependant on their energy by the equation e=hf, i also know that i can see more than three colours and from the link YOU posted i know that the absorbtion level of these diffrent colours, by the retina, varies. this can not be debated and im sure you'll find no one who will.

 

back on topic,

 

i don't like the way you have grouped religion and science together now after so many posts have set them apart in this thread, the fact is they are different, science is not based on faith as you seem to suggest but on evidence, you don't have faith that a ball will drop to the fall if you release it from a height, you know it will, because everytime you have done it in the past thats what happened. you cannot have faith where evidence exists.

 

as for believing science over years of tradition, i think europe has proved that is possible, 200 or 300 years ago, britain was very religious, yet today most second and third generation(and above) britains do not believe in religion and are either agnostic or atheist.

 

im not sure how you will cope but perhaps you could invest some time in reading up on superstring and M-theory, these theories, at the present, are entirely un-falsifiable, so perhaps they are not really science, but they are built on things we do know. since you asked for names, here are some of the prominent names in that field; Ashoke Sen, Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Michael Duff and John Schwarz all worked on the diffrent superstring theories, while it was Edward Witten who was the man behind pulling them together into M-theory.

 

if you felt mocked earlier, i was a little angry that you were saying im a know it all after you said something clearly incorrect and i corrected you, you then dismissed my (correct)explanation, you even provided links which agreed with me but claimed they agreed with you, and i found some of your comments borderline insulting.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
,have not professed to know everything, almost all of what is in this thread is theory and conjecture, i just believe the theories i support have solid evidence. one thing i know for certain is that the colour of light is dependant on the frequency of the photons that make it up, which is dependant on their energy by the equation e=hf, i also know that i can see more than three colours and from the link YOU posted i know that the absorbtion level of these diffrent colours, by the retina, varies. this can not be debated and im sure you'll find no one who will.

 

every Television.monitor manufacturer

or every sonet displayer will tell you that they use either (3color jets) or (3 projection lenses) depending on the type of tele they selling. but i promise you that all three lenses or jets are all red ,blue and green. no matter what science you try to combat. every tv manufasctuer uses the 3 color lenses or jets, other species find the tele produced image is not accurate from rl images and may just see techinicolr from a tv and gargarled sound

Edited by Quim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

faith based religion or science is the same to me. meaning theory based science is a religion because scientists reject every one but their own opinion.

Edited by Quim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i, i just believe the theories i support have solid evidence.

so does every other Believer, so theres no reason to make then disgusting and ashamed to mankind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man... the edit button is your friend

 

ok, it seems maybe you only watch tv and never look at things in the real world, how a television creates an image is entirely diffrent from how light falling on an object creates an image, why would you think they are at all similar? i don't want to fight about this, i just wanted to correct you the mistake you made, yet you seem to blindly believe you are correct, then again seeing as you are religious... maybe i should have expected that.

 

scientists don't reject every opinion but their own, if you take a few minutes to actually READ the posts in this thread, i mean take in the words and understand them, then you will have seen the various comments on falsifiabilty and the examples ive given of science always trying to disprove what it knows. if you look at the world of science there are scientist trying to disprove quantum theory and special relativity, if you look at religious figures not one of them is trying to disprove the existance of god. with this key diffrence so evident im not sure how you can say science and religion work on the same basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone care to explain how increasing redshift the further away you look DOESN'T provide strong evidence for an expanding universe?

Hmm, let's see.

1. How do you know the light is shifted to red, and it wasn't red in the first place?

2. The universe is not empty, it's full of gas and dust and other things. Some stuff absorbs different wave lengths.

3. Maybe the speed of light wasn't the same in the early days? There are some theories about the fact that the speed of light is slightly different than it was in the past.

4. Another theory says that maybe the time wasn't the same in the earlier days.

5. Maybe the light gets distoreted by the gravity of all those galaxies and starts and whatever else is between us and the light of those very distant galaxies.

 

 

Oh, and I am not after arguments like "sure it's evidence but it isn't PROOF" because science isn't about proof. Neither is Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is all about cowering in the closet and assigning a higher power to that which we don't currently fully understand.

S.

You are so full of shit. The science is about proof, it's about experiments and confirming those experiments. I find the evolution theory is cowering in the closet and assigning blind chance to that which we don't currently fully understand.

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

×