Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GrimCO on June 03, 2003, 03:58:57 PM
-
Who here believes in the Big Bang Theory for the creation of the Universe?
-
When you stop and think about how many things have been created by a bang... it makes sense.
MiniD
-
I'm in the big bang camp.
tho I think that its not a single event, but rather, it happens over and over again.. granted on a looooong time-scale.
-
Having actually read that book by the guy in the wheelchair. (Sorry I'm getting senile and can't remember his name or the book.) eh Hawking?
Yes I do until something more plausible comes up. I do like the idea of there being alternative universes out there. That does appeal.
This is the sort or thread started that draws in the creationist crowd. You know the type. They are the ones who prove we are descended from apes while denying any such thing:D
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Having actually read that book by the guy in the wheelchair. (Sorry I'm getting senile and can't remember his name or the book.) eh Hawking?
Yes I do until something more plausible comes up. I do like the idea of there being alternative universes out there. That does appeal.
This is the sort or thread started that draws in the creationist crowd. You know the type. They are the ones who prove we are descended from apes while denying any such thing:D
Steve Hawking aside, the big bang theory is certainly more logically defensible than the "Christian" biblical concept that the earth is only 10,000 years old.
But, that's just me.
:D
-
I'm not certain, I'm open to anything that makes sense scientifically.
I went to this site, started off by clicking universes, then found myself reading about dark matter and anti-matter, then time travel, and finally ending with superstring theory.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
Very interesting, almost makes me want to become an astrophysicist or cosmologist.. but I suck with advanced math and pretty much anything that requires advanced math.
-SW
-
Don't do physics. You'll carry the scars for years.
-
Heh, my gf is into cosmology (gravitational waves), so you can imagine this one is a recurring topic of conversation.
Big bang from quantum foam, she made me believe it :)
Daniel
-
I don't believe in the big bang theory for a simple reason:
In order for you to beleive in the big bang, you must believe there was a root cause that put that bang in motion.
If you follow logically, the bang had to start with something moving or putting into motion the chain reaction. If you assume that something suddenly moved or expanded, you must then ask yourself what event caused that movement. Then you would have to go back again and ask what caused the event that caused the movment, and so on and so on.
You would then have a chain of events stretching back into infinity. That would mean the big bang was "always" happening.
You can't say that "something" suddenly exploded without looking into the infinate chain of events that lead to the explosion.
I beleive what Einstien believed......that when you look at it all, there has to be God.
Believing in God is no less logical than believing the Big Bang just "happened"
-
There doesn't HAVE to be a god, there CAN be a god.
But why does there have to be a beginning?
Beginning, end, time, creation - all things humans created to explain their surroundings.
Why is it so unplausible to say that it always was and always will be, a circle that has no beginning and no end- was never created and always will be.
If you say "well it had to be created", then you lose your argument of a god- what created god?
And then the infinite circle begins again.
-SW
-
<--Subscriber.
-
Even if the Big Bang was the source for the universe...something created the Bang. If that was God's(Budda,Allah, insert belief here) method..so be it. People were so primitive they could not understand the quantum physics involved, so they made it a story people could understand. If you do not belive there is some higher power behind it all in some way, that's just silly.
-
<-- Scoobydoo
-
<---ScrappyDoo
-
Why is it so unplausible to say that it always was and always will be, a circle that has no beginning and no end- was never created and always will be.
If you say "well it had to be created", then you lose your argument of a god- what created god?
I could use your own argument that it is plausible to say something always was and always will be and apply that to God.
If one has made the jump to realising the universe could have always been, then it's a small step to beleive that a God has always been.
The God argument makes as much sense as the Universe ( and all it's matter) having just "always" existed.
-
<----- or something like it. (Evolution is a fact too. :) )
-
First there was nothing...
Then it exploded.
(Big Bang theory)
Yeah, I dont see why anyone would have a problem with that one...
-
From Mr. Hawking:
Together with Roger Penrose, I developed a new set of mathematical techniques, for dealing with this and similar problems. We showed that if General Relativity was correct, any reasonable model of the universe must start with a singularity. This would mean that science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
First there was nothing...
Then it exploded.
(Big Bang theory)
Yeah, I dont see why anyone would have a problem with that one...
lol Hortlund!
I wish you were a US judge......case closed!
-
MT: Shack!
-
I am god.
-
Nuke- I'm not the one who said there has to be a god, you did.
I challenged you in that there doesn't have to be a god, but can be. You really did nothing to prove that there has to be a god, as it is- the universe and matter could have always existed in one form or the other... in a singularity or in a laid out universe with galaxies and planets in it. You say there has to be a beginning, and MT's quote shows that even Hawking believes there was a beginning to the universe, atleast in the current rendition, but my point is- it could of always existed.. just not in the form we are familiar with.
The universe could constantly be recreating itself every (insert one helluva huge number here) years, so while we can tell the age of our universe... in the very distant future it could pull itself back into a singularity and then "Big Bang" again back into another universe, and repeat.
A god at any time in our not-so-distant past has been used to explain the, at the time, unexplainable- plagues, lightning, good crop seasons, rain, floods, etc.
In time, we have found the reasons for the above.
All I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be a god... its typically used as a means to explain the currently unexplainable, due to a lack of experience/intelligence on our behalf.
Hortlund- that statement is incorrect. Visit the above website I posted in this thread and read up on the Big Bang universe by clicking on the "Universe" link on that page.
MT- while Hawking is a very intelligent (if not the most?) man, what makes you think he can tell you for certain there is a god?
He certainly can't prove it mathematically. :)
-SW
-
Ok, let's say there is a god... and let's say if aliens do exist than how can that be explained because most religions say man was made in Gods image?
-
I could answer that, but I think I'll need to smoke a large joint first.
-
you bogarting again, sandy?
-
"Ok, let's say there is a god... and let's say if aliens do exist than how can that be explained because most religions say man was made in Gods image?"
Umm, the bible's got it wrong. Disproving the bible, which is easy (according to the science we know), does not disprove the existence of some almighty, omnipotent being. How could a mere mortal accurately describe to other mere mortals the concept of God (Or Allah or whatever) and what that being wants and how it does things? The "made in God's image" thing was just man's ego showing through.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I do like the idea of there being alternative universes out there. That does appeal.
Yeah, the Multiverse theories are interesting. Maybe black holes and quasars are where they connect?
-
If you really want all this explained, go buy the books:
The Science of Discworld &
The Science of Discworld 2: The Globe.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
I didn't start this thread to determine if there was a God or not.
Personally, I believe in God for what it's worth, but it has nothing to do with the original question of this thread... In all actuality, I didn't believe in a God or a superior being until I started studying astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
I do however believe in the big bang theory myself, and I also believe firmly in string theory. I think they're on to something here...
-
Yeah, the Multiverse theories are interesting.
totally.. Scientific American had a great article last month on Multiverses and the 'other worlds' theory.. according to the idea.. there is a universe where every possible outcome of everything has and is happening..
there is a universe out there where Michael Jackson is President.. scary, no?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Believing in God is no less logical than believing the Big Bang just "happened"
Hm. If you believe in God, then surely you must accept that God had to start with something. Who created God? Was God infinite? Why couldn't the Universe have been infinite then?
What caused God? What caused the event that caused God?
Now you have chain of events stretching back into infinity. That would mean that God was "always" happening. And that's just logically indefensible.
You can't say that "something" suddenly created God or that God is infinite without looking into the infinite chain of events that lead to the creation of God or His infiniteness.
Oops! Do I sound familiar?
Ceteris parebis, I'll go with the scientific approach over the faith-based approach. But that's just me.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
If I told you what my theories on what God is, I'd probably be laughed out of here... LOL
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Hm. If you believe in God, then surely you must accept that God had to start with something. Who created God? Was God infinite? Why couldn't the Universe have been infinite then?
What caused God? What caused the event that caused God?
Now you have chain of events stretching back into infinity. That would mean that God was "always" happening. And that's just logically indefensible.
Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.
Same thoughts here AKIron...
This thread sort of deviated from it's original intent, but it's nice to hear people's different ideas also...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not necessarily. You're assuming that God must exist only within the framework of space and time. I believe that he created space and time but doesn't exist in the same linear fashion that we are accustomed to.
So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality? Now we're back to a question of faith. And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality? Now we're back to a question of faith. And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.
-- Todd/Leviathn
You missed my point entirely. My point was to argue that the big bang theory was not logical and that it assumes an event "just happened". The thread's question was do you believe the BB created the universe.
I never said believing in God was logical, only that if you believe in the BB theory, it's just as easy to assume there is a God, because in both you are required to come to a conclusion that something has always been......only the BB theory dosn't even mention infinity nor does it question what caused the matter to be created in the first place.
The BB theory doesn't even answer how the matter exsisted in the first place, or what caused the explosion......it just makes a huge assumption and expects you to believe that the beginging of time was the BB.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Hortlund- that statement is incorrect. Visit the above website I posted in this thread and read up on the Big Bang universe by clicking on the "Universe" link on that page.
Well that sure as he** was a waste of time.
If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.
Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.
LOL no **** they have a hard time developing a working theory. They are just guessing for crying out loud.
Scientist #1
"What if we imagine the universe as a movie and then run the history of the universe movie backwards, then everything will collaps back into one tiny point."
Scientist #2
"BRILLIANT! And by using my little calculator here, I have been able to determine the history back to 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second after the Big Bang. I cant really explain how though, because all I have to go on is the fact that the universe expands, observations show that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe is helium, and there is a presence of cosmic background radiation. But I have a pretty vivid imagination."
You really have no idea how retarded that idea is do you?
Why dont you run a movie of an airplane crash backwards and come up with some brilliant theory on how an explosion creates life and an aircraft capable of flight.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you a religious man Hortlund?
Yeah.
-
Are their any real random events then in the universe? If everything started from one point and boom the universe was born, then there are really no true random events? Else the universe that has infinitely existed is based on ceasless complete and random events?
-
Hortlund, they are far from "guessing" what happened. As a simplistic approach, I give it a 4 out of 10.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The BB theory doesn't even answer how the matter exsisted in the first place, or what caused the explosion......it just makes a huge assumption and expects you to believe that the beginging of time was the BB.
No, I got your point. Your problem -- and it's a common one -- is applying different standards of logic for the Big Bang versus, say, some higher power.
How did matter exist in the first place? How did God exist in the first place? What created God? Nothing? Then why is it so hard for you to imagine that nothing created matter... that it has existed for an infinite amount of time condensed in a singularity that, in a massive explosion, created the universe. I mean, surely God couldn't have just existed forever. He had to begin SOMEWHERE. It just takes a huge assumption to expect that He wasn't created from someone, somewhere, at some time. And so it goes as the argument circles round and round and round and round again.
In the very least, the Big Bang represents a falsifiable theory with certain empirical expectations. So even if the foundational aspects of the theory present some logical difficulties, we may actually measure the truthfulness of its assumptions through scientific research. The same can't be said for the existence of God.
Really, this whole debate has always struck me as rather silly. You can't scientifically disprove God, and even if God exists, it doesn't disprove the Big Bang theory. He does supposedly work in mysterious ways, after all.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The big bang theory was also born from Einstein's Theory of Relativity and famous equation E=mc2 (energy = mass x the speed of light squared). This is also the same formula that allowed the development of atomic energy and the bomb. If mass can create huge amounts of energy, the reverse is also true... Energy can create huge amounts of mass (in the form of the most simple element, hydrogen)...
So God is not bound by the laws of physical reality? Now we're back to a question of faith. And that's fine, IMO, but it's not the answer to NUKE's riddle.
Well, God or no God, you're not considering the possiblity that something exists outside of our Universe. Because you can't see it from here, it does not mean it isn't there. We are unable to see black holes, yet it doesn't take faith for me to believe they exist. Though unable to be seen, their effects on surrounding objects make them apparent. Additionally, inside of a black hole, our laws of physics do not apply and go right out the window. They suspect this is do to the intense gravity actually tearing apart the fabric of our Universe inside of the black hole.
I'm not saying there is a God and he lives inside a black hole. But there are places inside of our own Universe where the laws of physics break down and do not apply. That leads me to believe there may be places outside of our universe where it is possible that the laws of physics we are constrained by don't even exist.
It's also easy to forget that time is not a fixed thing... Clocks run slower the faster you go. Once you hit the speed of light, time completely stops. If an object is travelling at the speed of light, it doesn't experience time, therefore it has always been there and always will according to logic.
-
No, I got your point. Your problem -- and it's a common one -- is applying different standards of logic for the Big Bang versus, say, some higher power.
You're not getting me.
In a nutshel my points
1. BB doesn't account for the logical fact that there is an infinite chain of events preseading each action, so it doesn't explain much and makes huge assumptions.
2. If you believe in the BB, it's no less logical to believe in a God based on "something" causing each to exist in the first place.
3. If you try to take the BB to it's logical conclusion ( rewinding if you will) then it goes into infinity and has always existed and was always happening. The same logic can apply to a God always existing.
I wasn't trying to prove god existed...how can you? I was pointing out that it's just as valid to believe in a God always existing as it is to believe in the universe or BB always existing/happening.
Those are my points.
-
The Christian equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You're not getting me.
In a nutshel my points
1. BB doesn't account for the logical fact that there is an infinite chain of events preseading each action, so it doesn't explain much and makes huge assumptions.
[/b]
Whoa there. infinite chain of events? you seem to be living in a different, linear and deterministic universe to the one I am in.
The cosmological argument is a pretty safe bet, because it supposes things have a beginning, and that cause and effect do not break down when viewed very closely (quantum level).
2. If you believe in the BB, it's no less logical to believe in a God based on "something" causing each to exist in the first place.
[/b]
gotta call you on that too. It is less logical because the BB theory, however a nebulous and inexact it is as a theory , has been built from observable and repeatable experiments using accurate measuring instruments and exposed to constant and rigourous peer review.
The theory of God, well, I can't think of single repeatable experiment that I can perform that will give me any useful evidence to support the supposition that God exists.
Currently the theory of God seems to be that "God exists, now get down on your knees and beg for forgiveness." Nothing in there about the nature of God, or where God came from in the first place, or whether God didn't just die at the moment of creation.
3. If you try to take the BB to it's logical conclusion ( rewinding if you will) then it goes into infinity and has always existed and was always happening. The same logic can apply to a God always existing.
[/b]
nope. You gotta couple of options for this universe:
Heat Death - if the universe isn't heavy enough
Steady State - if it is heavy enough.
The big bang isn't the beginning of the universe. By definition, the universe has no boundary or beginning, only the known universe has these things. It is the theorhetical point beyond which we cannot see.
I wasn't trying to prove god existed...how can you? I was pointing out that it's just as valid to believe in a God always existing as it is to believe in the universe or BB always existing/happening.
Those are my points. [/B]
Well I guess it's a valid point insofar as they are not mutually exclusive.
The corollary of which could well be that the big bang doesn't require a prime mover, and nor does god. Basically God and the Big Bang have little to do with one another.
god is a matter of belief that cannot be proven/disproven by virtue of its frame of reference, i.e. theological. Few, if any, researchers are actually looking into what constitutes God and how or whether God may have come into existence because it would be a bit like researching invisible friends; i.e one is likely to conclude that it is merely an internal property of the conciousness of a subject, rather than an external, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator God.
the big bang on the other hand is a theory that can be broken down and verified by anyone with the mental capacity and time to do so.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You're not getting me.
[/B]
LOL I am getting you. Reread what I wrote.
1. BB doesn't account for the logical fact that there is an infinite chain of events preseading each action, so it doesn't explain much and makes huge assumptions.
[/B]
The Big Bang explains a great deal, but your real problem with it seems to be that it assumes nothing about what came before, not that it makes huge assumptions about what preceded it. Beyond that, we may test any assumptions that it makes because the theory, like any good theory, provides sets of empirical expectations that allows us to validate its truthfulness.
2. If you believe in the BB, it's no less logical to believe in a God based on "something" causing each to exist in the first place.
[/B]
We may not falsify the existence of God whereas we can do so with scientific theory. Do you not see the logical, empirical differences? We do not require "faith" to believe in the veracity of the Big Bang; we require and obtain evidence and retool the theory accordingly. An inability to explain predecessors to the Big Bang represents a failure of the theory but not of reality.
3. If you try to take the BB to it's logical conclusion ( rewinding if you will) then it goes into infinity and has always existed and was always happening. The same logic can apply to a God always existing.
[/B]
Yes, as I've noted.
I wasn't trying to prove god existed...how can you? I was pointing out that it's just as valid to believe in a God always existing as it is to believe in the universe or BB always existing/happening.
[/B]
Perhaps, but again we're in this never-ending circular argument. If we concede that the Big Bang must have come from something, and if it's possible that this thing was God, then we must concede that God came from something, and this something came from something, ad infinitum. It's a nice logic exercise, I suppose.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Perhaps, but again we're in this never-ending circular argument. If we concede that the Big Bang must have come from something, and if it's possible that this thing was God, then we must concede that God came from something, and this something came from something, ad infinitum. It's a nice logic exercise, I suppose.
-- Todd/Leviathn
The first is not dependent upon the second. We are talking space/time here. If God created space/time then he doesn't have to have "come from something". Isn't it conceivable that there is something beyond space and time that we are uncapable of understanding? Or at least something that defies our methods of logic?
The nature of the universe as we understand it requires a beginning, if not an end. That there had to be something "before" implies itself that there was a creator.
-
back to one of the basic laws of physics (i think thats it)
"Matter can not be created or destroyed"
no if that being the case a BB cant create matter nor destroy it.
back to the question at hand .........it has always been and will allways be. We humans created time and feel everything must start and end!
My question is if they can tell the universe is expanding....can they see the end of it? how can they tell its expanding?
:eek:
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
back to one of the basic laws of physics (i think thats it)
"Matter can not be created or destroyed"
no if that being the case a BB cant create matter nor destroy it.
back to the question at hand .........it has always been and will allways be. We humans created time and feel everything must start and end!
My question is if they can tell the universe is expanding....can they see the end of it? how can they tell its expanding?
:eek:
Are you saying then that time is an illusion or a false peception? If so, then the universe is neither expanding nor contracting.
-
my point exactly time is only relivent to life forms. :D
-
and there is no spoon ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The first is not dependent upon the second. We are talking space/time here. If God created space/time then he doesn't have to have "come from something". Isn't it conceivable that there is something beyond space and time that we are uncapable of understanding? Or at least something that defies our methods of logic?
[/B]
What you describe needn't be "God." Why do you find it so difficult to concede that the Universe may have existed infinitely or been the product of some infinite loop of creation and destruction absent a Creator? It's entirely possible that the science and math describing universal creation go so beyond human conceptualization that we can't conceive of it with our primative minds.
That does not mean that God did it. It doesn't mean that God didn't do it either, of course.
The nature of the universe as we understand it requires a beginning, if not an end. That there had to be something "before" implies itself that there was a creator.
Who created the creator? There must have been something "before" God. No? Well, it's entirely possible that whatever was "before" the Big Bang was always there as well. I don't find one possibility any more improbable than the other.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by AKIron
and there is no spoon ;)
Yes there is its next to the Fork and Knife.:D
-
By creator I didn't necessarily mean God. Just that there was a beginning to our physical realm, made by something...different.
I recognize that my choice to believe that all of the physical universe was created (from something different) by God is based upon faith. I have no physical evidence, other than the physical universe. ;)
Why not God?
-
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"... well, according to the latest quantum foam theories, matter can appear from nowhere, apparently.
Matter is in a state of potentially existing or not existing, and can switch from one to another.
My girlfriend could explain it much better than me...
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"... well, according to the latest quantum foam theories, matter can appear from nowhere, apparently.
Matter is in a state of potentially existing or not existing, and can switch from one to another.
My girlfriend could explain it much better than me...
Daniel
Maybe matter just oscillates through infinite universes? Maybe oscillate can't be used with infinite?
Maybe I suffer from a youth spent with too much science fiction and not enough science? :D
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
"Matter cannot be created or destroyed"... well, according to the latest quantum foam theories, matter can appear from nowhere, apparently.
Matter is in a state of potentially existing or not existing, and can switch from one to another.
My girlfriend could explain it much better than me...
Daniel
now that ild like to see/hear sounds interesting.
But where does the matter go ? the 3rd dimension?
and what the hell is "quantum foam theories"?:D
-
Plato may have been on to something with his "Forms". Maybe energy radiates from a center reality creating infinite realities. Seems I read a series by Roger Zelazny long time ago based on this premise.
-
Good reading about quantum foam and matter from string vibrations:
http://www.ldolphin.org/qfoam.html
Daniel
-
I knew you'd come up with something like that Hortlund.
The problem is its only retarded because you don't understand.
For whatever reason, you seem to think the universe obeys the same actions we see in our everyday lives on earth.... when the two are not mutual.
We get a tiny little glimpse of all the happenings of the universe, we understand very little and know even less.
Those scientists aren't guessing, but to make up a supernatural deity that created all life on earth and only on earth because humans are neat creatures to watch kill themselves while the universe is full of other far more interesting actions- now thats one helluva nice fairy tell you got going on there.
-SW
-
>How did matter exist in the first place? How did God exist in
>the first place? What created God? Nothing?
Ok, Im gona try to take a shot at dmf here though it aint a good idea to try this in the main arena. God and matter are two entirely different things or concepts. We dont use math to determine gods existance however we do use math to resolve many of the questions we ask about matter. We are comprised of matter where God is not. God is a supernatural, he is beyond this universe. The belief in god is based on a fundamental princapal called faith. Your ralationship with God is based on your faith as that is the primary handle towards recieving him in your life. Not trying to lecture anybody, just providing some thoughts.
As for my wacky random event thing. Reason why I brought that up is to try to incite into juxtaposition the notion of arbitrary random events in nature and to try to draw a comparison from that to the idea of a big bang or non big bang universe. A short cut in logic if you will. Take a wormhole or a blackhole in space. These phenomena supposedly transends our universe and into another demension or demensions or universe. Meaning its theoretical that something passing through a blackhole might emerge in another universe by passing through one or more demensions during its path if it survived. Well then another way to look at it is, why did the blackhole even occur, and why when. Was it random in this universe or within the other side? or was it all part of a large and grand chain of events starting at some primary point. Are folds in space random or just part of the predetermined life of the universe?
Interesting article Cyrano.
-
From what I know (living with a Theoretical Physics Ph.D. means being lectured every now and then in these things), folds in space are part of the initial topology of the universe, so no new wormholes can be created or destroyed. They are part of the map of the universe (space-time-wise, of course).
Daniel
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
my point exactly time is only relivent to life forms. :D
Then why does a "twinkie" have a shelf life and Bud has a "Born on date" huh? Huh????:confused:
:D
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Then why does a "twinkie" have a shelf life and Bud has a "Born on date" huh? Huh????:confused:
:D
Becuase stupid humans need to know when it might taste bad.:D
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
now that ild like to see/hear sounds interesting.
But where does the matter go ? the 3rd dimension?
and what the hell is "quantum foam theories"?:D
Hey there Boxboy,
Matter can indeed appear and reappear without cause... In fact, electrons revolving around atomic nuclei frequently totally disappear, and materialize again.
String theory partially explains this, where quantum mechanics can not.
An interesting experiment (I'll have to look for the article) was performed where they were firing electrons at a block of solid lead. Due to the density of the lead block, most of the electrons would not penetrate through to the other side as was expected. A few would make it through, but would arrive at the opposite end at a much slower velocity than they were originally fired. This was also an anticipated result.
What freaked them out was that there were a few electrons which arrived at the other end, and didn't slow down at all. Some in fact, appeared to have exceeded the speed of light which is impossible given the physics of our universe. The only explanation was that these electrons disappeared and rematerialized on the other side of the lead block instantly.
This prediction was made by quantum mechanics but was never physically observed until this experiment was performed. Apparently, it is now quite commonplace to observe this phenomenon in particle accellerators.
Weird stuff, but verified scientifically as being true.
String theory explains this phenomenon as being as ordinary as combing your hair. The electrons pass through dimensions that we are unable to see or observe, and occasionally reappear back in our dimension elsewhere.
They have built a gravitational wave detector called LIGO which just came online last year. They are expecting to detect gravitational waves within two years, which will lend a lot of credence to theories that state extra dimensions exist.
-
Ya grimm i read the link to that articale very interesting read.
now electrons being a charged "particale" meaning it has Mass and therefore is matter correct?
and they're disappearing and speeding up? lol well im no physacist (nor spelling Bee champ) thats crazy! But it would be cool to see.
my guess is there hitting the lead and transfering the charge to the other side of the lead and knocking an electron off there. lol
like i said im no physacist :D
By the way Grimm you always have good post topics :cool:
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The problem is its only retarded because you don't understand.
[/b]
If you reread that page you'll realize that they dont understand it themselves...hence the "physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions"-part. ...get it?
Those scientists aren't guessing,
[/b]
Uh..yes they are.
-
Either you are casting out some really smelly bait Steve, or you didn't understand that the scientific explanation breaks down at a certain point (10 to the power of -43 seconds.)
But then lets just look at your point about the airplane crash.
Lets say you have a film of a crash covering the last 1 second. Could you extrapolate the complete plane from that? What about 10 seconds? What if you had film of all but the very beginning of the crash? How much would you know about the plane?
We have 'film' of the universe going back 10's of billions of years.
-
I read that page, they are using evidence of what is going on in the universe to support their theories.
Theories aren't fact, but they are far closer to anything else we have before us.
Many theories in the past have been made into fact, theory of relativity has been proven.
Those theories are a whole helluva lot more realistic in terms of whats going on in the universe than the jibba jabba in the bible.
They have evidence the universe is expanding, it'll be hundreds/thousands/millions of years before it contracts- if it does.
The theories use scientific evidence to atleast support parts of 'em, while religion requires a whole lot of belief without any supporting evidence.
-SW
-
DMF Wrote:
Perhaps, but again we're in this never-ending circular argument. If we concede that the Big Bang must have come from something, and if it's possible that this thing was God, then we must concede that God came from something, and this something came from something, ad infinitum. It's a nice logic exercise, I suppose.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Weeeelllll...I dunno. God is not something we can understand or measure. But we can measure the effects, so to speak. Conclusions are up to the viewer.
Did God come from "soemthing" or "somewhere"? I don't know. Did the original ball of mass and energy of the universe come from somewhere? I think so, but I can't explain where, and neither can the scientists.
I am a believer. I am not an understander. I also think the Big Bang theory makes sense, based on the thought and measurements of some very bright people. Many of those same bright people believe in God, too, in one of his many forms. I think the best evidence of God is the wonder of the world around me. I have a hard time believing that it just "happened". But I can't prove it. And neither can you. And, I don't think logic can be applied to something we can't even describe.
So let's just discuss our individual beliefs with respect for each other. I am enjoying this discussion because of the varied and intelligent discussion.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Either you are casting out some really smelly bait Steve, or you didn't understand that the scientific explanation breaks down at a certain point (10 to the power of -43 seconds.)
[/b]
LOL are you accusing me of using smelly bait? Mr "evolution is a proven fact"?
-
My personal wish is a working design for a warp drive, preferably in time to go to another star before I die. That'll be the vacation of a lifetime.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I read that page, they are using evidence of what is going on in the universe to support their theories.
[/b]
Yes, and did you also notice that they posted their strongest "evidence" there?
That the universe expands,
That observations show that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe is helium,
and that there is a presence of cosmic background radiation.
Those are the facts...the rest are theories.
And lets just stay off the theories vs facts -debate that we went through in the darwin threads.
-
I didn't say they were fully supported by the facts they have, but its better than nothing and makes sense when looking at those facts.
You also missed the whole gravitational pull of mass, the hot and cold black matter, and well- its evident you only read that one page.
If those theories are retarded, hooo boy, how can you subscribe to any religion? Now THAT! stuff is.....
-SW
-
Whoa there. infinite chain of events? you seem to be living in a different, linear and deterministic universe to the one I am in.
I was refering to the matter pre BB being somehow put into motion, causing the BB.
Can you not see that an event had to ocurr which put the matter in motion ? Seems pretty basic to me.
It doesn't matter if that event was a random quirk , linear or not, once that event happened, by definition there was a cause for that event and a cause for that cause, going back forever. So really, there can never be a begining, it was always happening and forever in motion.
You can't say there was a begining, because logically there can't be a begining, only eternity. Can you use logic and explain how something can begin without a cause? There is always a cause and therefore never one true begining point.
-
"Matter can not be created or destroyed"
Einstein came up with something that alters the persistence of matter from classical Newtonian physics... E=MC2 destroys matter to create energy.
According to quantum theory, all around us particle and antiparticle pairs are constantly appearing and annihilating each other. At the event horizon of a black hole, sometimes one particle gets sucked in, while the other, just outside the horizon, can escape causing the black hole to appear to not be black.
The first few moments of the universe is governed by quantum theory rather than general relativity, and the great quest of physics is to meld the two theories into a larger, all encompassing theory. Quantum theory, which describes the world to extreme precision, says that things can just happen, even the start of a universe, if the bet covers the odds.
When quantum theory governs, all sorts of bizarre stuff happens and as Nobel laureate quantum physicist Richard Feynman noted, “Nobody understands quantum theory.”
A real life explanation of how one can create something from nothing is a loan. If I have no money, but exchange debt for cash, I still have no money, but now I can spend it.
-
Those of you who are posing the question "If there is a God, where did he come from, and how could he always have existed are being duped by your perspective of time. Being scientifically minded I prefer not to rule out the possibility of there being a "God". I just think of it in terms of the energy source that fueled the Big Bang.
In our normal everyday lives, we observe time ticking by at the same rate constantly. However, there are instances that occur in our Universe every day in which time completely stops or better said doesn't exist. The Theory of Relativity states that as an object or particle approaches the speed of light, it's time "dilates" or slows down. As a particle achieves the speed of light, it's time stops. This is no longer just theory but a proven fact observed time and time again in experiments.
Massless particles such as photons (light particles) travel at the speed of light. Therefore they do not experience the passage of time, and do not age or deteriorate. This is why they are able to travel 14 billion light years and reach the lenses of our telescopes from the distant edges of the Universe. Every time you look up at the stars, you are looking into the past. The light from those stars left them hundreds of light years ago, and is just now reaching your eyes. For all we know, many of the objects in distant space could have blown up hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of years ago, and we wouldn't know it yet because the light from that period of time is still enroute to our telescopes.
At any rate, it's not so hard for me to believe that something could have always existed given the fact that time does not exist for certain things here in our own Universe. Outside of our Universe, who knows what laws of physics apply and if time exists at all.
-
At any rate, it's not so hard for me to believe that something could have always existed given the fact that time does not exist for certain things here in our own Universe.- Grimm
if time does not exsist then why for certian things then they would have ALLWAYS EXSISTED !
Time is not a measure of existance! it is a human concept to describe a life span created by humans.
Photons - time does not exsist for - but they have always been there correct?
-
Hey there again boxboy...
I love this kind of stuff! LOL
Thinking of these kinds of things is good for you. They even say excercising the brain by reading or contemplating things generates new neural pathways and increases the capacity of the brain. We're both getting smarter man! LOL
But seriously, things like photons DO have a beginning, because they were born in stars at a definite point in "time". However, they have no end, and therefore exist infinitely.
My point was that if I can accept the fact that something has no end, I can also accept the possiblity that something had no beginning.
Time is not just something humans use to measure lifespans. Time is a definite physical occurance. But I understand the point you are trying make, and it's a very valid one.
We humans measure a day (24 hours) as the time it takes it the earth to complete one rotation. A planet such as Mercury that rotates much faster has a much shorter day, and therefore a much shorter year. On Mercury, we'd live to be hundreds of years old in "Mercury Time". But in reality, we'd be the same age, we'd just measure it different.
This is not what time actually is. All time actually means is that something had a definite beginning. The units we use to measure how long ago is where people's misconception of time occurs. It's not the measurement of time that gives it it's definition. I can make a clock, mechanical or digital, and make that clock run at any speed I chose. If I get in a rocket ship capable of going the speed of light, that clock will slow down as I approach the speed of light, and stop when I reach it. I will not age, I will go on living forever. This is of course impossible because my body has mass and could never reach the speed of light. It's just an example that something IS passing, and we call it time. It is a physical thing we experience, no matter what rate we choose to say it passes at.
That being said, I have no trouble believing that outside of our Universe, it is possible that time doesn't exist and never has. It's just a law of physics we're stuck with here because of the way our Universe unfolded during it's birth.
Oh, I almost forgot. They can tell the Universe is expanding because when they measure the spectrum of light of distant galaxies, the spectrum is shifted to the lower or red end. If an object is approaching, it's spectrum shifts toward the high or blue end. If it's stationary, it's light spectrum doesn't shift at all.
Sorry my responses are so long, but it takes a lot of words to try to explain thoughts on things like this...
-
lol i like em Grim it give me stuff to ponder on too so yes we are getting smarter.
But for the light spectrum thing..... isnt it possisble that the light/photons are skewed/bent/warped as it travel thru space.....say near a black hole or a large gravitational feild?
-
Watched a show recently about the quest to determine the mass of the stuff in the universe. This is critical if you want to determine whether its gonna keep expanding, or if it goes through a never ending series of expansions and contractions.
If enough stuff is found... then our future is pretty bleak. Eventually the sky will grow brighter than day with millions of stars. Life will be snuffed out by the heat not long before the Earth itself becomes a cinder.
If not enough stuff is found.... our future is pretty bleak. The sky will grow progressively darker until no stars are visible at all. We will be more alone than you can imagine before our sun burns out and all is blackness.
Have a nice day.
:cool:
-
Now THAT sir is a very good question. Even photons have to follow the curvature of space caused by massive objects such as black holes...
In fact there are objects known as "Einstein Crosses" that exhibit what's called gravitational lensing. They appear to us as multiple galaxies surrounding another galaxy. In reality, it's just a single galaxy behind another galaxy that has a supermassive black hole at it's center. The photons of the galaxy behind the one with the supermassive black hole follow the curvature of space around the black hole in all directions and project their photons in multiple areas giving the illusion of multiple galaxies surrounding another...
However, they are able to determine that the multiple images are in fact the same galaxy due to their identical light spectrum. These objects are very rare, but several are documented. I'll post you an image of one below.
At any rate, every galaxy we observe shows a "redshift" which indicates it is moving away from us. Since all galaxies in all directions show a redshift, it is proof that the universe is expanding in all directions as each galaxy is moving away from each other galaxy.
Anyway, here's a picture of one "Einstein Cross".
(http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/qso2237.gif)
-
Hey MT,
Either way we're doomed in about 5 billion years... The sun is halfway through it's lifetime of about 10 billion years. In another 5 billion years, the sun will burn up the last of it's Hydrogen, will expand past the orbit of Mars, and Earth will be inside of it burned to a crisp...
The expanding or contracting Universe won't matter to us anyway, as the Earth will be destroyed long before the Universe expands into coldness or contracts into the inferno of hell.
Perhaps in 5 billion years we'll have enough technology to vacate the Earth and populate another suitable planet... Then each of these theories will have an impact.
Either way, I guess I won't be here to worry about it.
Sorry GSholz, you posted the same time I did, and said about the same thing... sorry...LOL
-
...or we will get sucked into the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Anyway you look at it - we're skarewd.
-SW
-
so if every galaxy is moving away from us or a supposed center or start point what is forcing them to move?
Have they measured galaxies near each other to see if they are separating?
is there a rate at which these separtions are occuring?
so if every galaxy they look at is showing toward the red part of the spectrum (they are moving away) is the Earth the center of the universe? (lol i had to)
I tend to think there might be something else at play here (using my ill rational mind)
why is there not a galaxy behind us passibley closing in on us from the start point or why are we got getting closer to a galaxy that is in front of us?
lol i feel like a 2yr old asking daddy WHy's all day long
-
Boxboy,
Imagine a big rubber sheet with galaxies painted on it... Stretch the sheet from all four corners, and you'll see every galaxy painted on it moving away from the next. There is no center, they're just all moving away from eachother.
That is what's happening...
-
couple of party poopers is what you guys are.
;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well Boxboy, Andromeda and the Milkey Way is on a collision course AFAIK. They say opposites attreact eachother, I wonder which is female...
Milky Way... Earth is gonna be f*cked.
-SW
-
eyup..
big-ass black hole in the center of our galaxies just wanting to swallow up our little sun (and it's tiny planets)...
or will it be the galaxy collision with all the gravity wells associated with...
or maybe our own stupid selves that destroy our planet before we even begin to worry about crap like that
or possibly the FDB's having eaten up all remaing food stores coming after 'us' next...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well Boxboy, Andromeda and the Milkey Way is on a collision course AFAIK. They say opposites attreact eachother, I wonder which is female...
Yeah, let me clarify a little bit... Galaxies are in clusters just like stars within a galaxy... Each cluster is moving away from the next... Some galaxies within the cluster interact and pass through eachother, but the clusters of galaxies are moving away from other clusters just like the rubber sheet example I illustrated earlier...
Even if we impacted the Andromeda Galaxy, there is little chance we'd be dead or burned up. There are many Galaxies within a local cluster that have collided. But the stars are so far apart, they rarely interact. They just sort of float through eachother and distort the shape of the two galaxies as a whole. The vast majority of individual stars in each galaxy are unaffected by the stars of the other galaxy. The distances are just too great...
Strange, but true... Here's a great link for colliding galaxies...
Colliding Galaxies (http://www.prime-radiant.com/Colliding_Galaxies.html)
-
Evolution is a proven fact Hortlund. And we acn observe it every day in fact. Why do you think bacteria become immune to antibiotics over time? The ones who are not killed by the anti-biotic routine pass on their resistance to future generations, thats EXACTLY how evolution works and its visible every day.
-
back to one of the basic laws of physics (i think thats it) "Matter can not be created or destroyed"
no if that being the case a BB cant create matter nor destroy it.
and now Hawking's version:
Because matter and antimatter annihilate one another in a burst of electromagnetic radiation (energy in the form of particles called photons, visible light is a kind of electromagnetic radiation) the universe we see today is dominated by the extra matter that couldn’t find antimatter with which to
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Watched a show recently about the quest to determine the mass of the stuff in the universe. This is critical if you want to determine whether its gonna keep expanding, or if it goes through a never ending series of expansions and contractions.
If enough stuff is found... then our future is pretty bleak. Eventually the sky will grow brighter than day with millions of stars. Life will be snuffed out by the heat not long before the Earth itself becomes a cinder.
If not enough stuff is found.... our future is pretty bleak. The sky will grow progressively darker until no stars are visible at all. We will be more alone than you can imagine before our sun burns out and all is blackness.
Have a nice day.
:cool:
Well, someone as old as you doesn't need to worry too much about the future anway. So Yes,have a nice day!
:D :D :D
-
so then..
kling-offs?
-
Thanks for all your responses guys...
I thought I was the only geek that thought about such things... :)
But seriously, I appreciated all the responses and viewpoints!
-
"Originally posted by boxboy28
back to one of the basic laws of physics (i think thats it)
"Matter can not be created or destroyed"
no if that being the case a BB cant create matter nor destroy it.
back to the question at hand .........it has always been and will allways be. We humans created time and feel everything must start and end!
My question is if they can tell the universe is expanding....can they see the end of it? how can they tell its expanding"
Doppler effect - like when a car drives towards you and then away - the sound you hear changes because the sound weaves are getting compressed as the car comes towards you and are expanding when it is moving away from you. The same thing works with airplanes, thats why flybys by prop planes sound so cool and change pitch as the planes moves towards and awar from us.
The principle also applies to light. Hubble discovered in the 1920s/30s that distant objects were getting farther away from the earth because the light they emmited was shifing to red color which meant they were moving away as opposed to blue which would happend if they were getting closer.
-
I'm trying to understand this whole concept regarding the expansion of the universe. If a doppler shift measurement is being used to determine whether or not the universe is expanding then it must be possible to determine the center from which the universe is expanding.
Only one semester of college physics here so bear with me (did get an A tho). Assuming we can determine our distance to the stars we are measuring then those stars moving away from us must be farther from the origininating point of the universe and moving faster than us as indicated by the doppler shift. We should then find that in an opposite direction that we are moving faster than those stars still closer to the center than us but moving in the same direction.
The greatest shift should be observed in those most distant stars observable in the same relative direction as those slower stars closer to us and on the same side of the center. Those most distant stars would be on the other side of the center and moving away from us.
If I have the gist of it then why is there so much doubt as to whether the universe is expanding or contracting?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If I have the gist of it then why is there so much doubt as to whether the universe is expanding or contracting?
Not according to the last Cosmology class I took... It's expanding without question.
-
There's really no doubt the Universe is expanding. The question is will it keep expanding or eventually stop and contract.
As far as there being a "center" to the Universe, it really doesn't have a defined center...
Imagine a rubber sheet. Place dots on the rubber sheet representing each cluster of galaxies in space. Now stretch the rubber sheet from all directions (all sides and corners). Each dot will move farther away from the next as you continue to stretch the sheet, but not from a defined center point.
This is of course a simple 2 dimensional example. In three dimensions the galaxies would move away from eachother on all three axis of space.
Individual stars in individual galaxies are not moving away from eachother because they are gravitationally bound together by the galaxy in which they are contained. Also, galaxies in the same local cluster are not moving away from eachother either because they are bound by eachother's gravity. It's entire clusters of glaxies that are expanding away from other clusters where the huge distances between them make their gravitational influence on eachother negligable.
-
By center I mean the point (if indeed there was a bb) from which it began expanding. And if we can see far enough to see beyond this point, we should be able to determine where it is/was. Assuming that matter expanded from it in the general shape of a sphere.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
By center I mean the point (if indeed there was a bb) from which it began expanding. And if we can see far enough to see beyond this point, we should be able to determine where it is/was. Assuming that matter expanded from it in the general shape of a sphere.
Shape of the Universe (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_shape.html)
-
Each object you see in this image taken by the Hubble telescope is an individual galaxy, not a star. Even the little dots are galaxies. This picture comprises about a one quarter of an inch field of view of the sky.
There's a lot of galaxies out there boys... with about 300 billion stars in each of them.
I don't know about you, but to me it's just absolutely mind boggling...
(http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/1996/01/images/a/formats/web.jpg)
-
Definitely a mind boggler.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
By center I mean the point (if indeed there was a bb) from which it began expanding. And if we can see far enough to see beyond this point, we should be able to determine where it is/was. Assuming that matter expanded from it in the general shape of a sphere.
Everywhere is the center. Just as everywhere on the surface of the earth is the center of that two dimensional surface, curved in a third dimension, everywhere in the universe is the center of that three dimensional volume, curved in a fourth.
At the moment of the big bang, all the universe was inside that small point, even the empty space. So in a sense, the clerics who imprisoned Galileo were right, the earth is the center of the universe. Of course, so is everywhere else.
-
Maybe center wasn't the right word to use. Using cartesian coordinates we should be able to determine the point, relative to our current position, from which we have traveled since the big bang.
-
Hey there Iron,
I finally found a decent website that paints a fairly good picture of why there is no center to the Universe.
It explains it a lot better than I can! LOL
Here ya go...
Center of the Universe (http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html)
-
and i love it when people say there is no other possible life forms out there , or that theres no way they could have visited us!
So Grimmy you believe in Aliens?:D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe center wasn't the right word to use. Using cartesian coordinates we should be able to determine the point, relative to our current position, from which we have traveled since the big bang.
We haven't moved, relative to us. We have moved relative to AlphaCenturi, which hasn't moved relative to it, but has moved relative to us.
Your train of thought is similar to the determinsts who ruled physics prior to General Relativity.
They postulated that ether was the medium through which light waves traveled, and ether was unmoving in the master coordinate system of the universe. General relativity replaced these theories with the mind benders of today.
-
That's pretty cool Grim. Hadn't considered it like that before. Thanks for the link.
-
You're right Holden, but I think it's beginning to sink in.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
What freaked them out was that there were a few electrons which arrived at the other end, and didn't slow down at all. Some in fact, appeared to have exceeded the speed of light which is impossible given the physics of our universe. The only explanation was that these electrons disappeared and rematerialized on the other side of the lead block instantly.
Grim...fascinating stuff. I'm not a physicist (thank god ;) ), but here are a couple of questions: Are they sure that the same electrons that were fired were the ones that came out? Similar to the way that sound travels through a cascading set of collisions started by the initially excited molecules, is it possible that the electrons that were fired caused a similar chain so that the electron exiting the block was not the originally fired electron? And the next question is going to sound really dumb, but is based on the last...similar to the way the speed of sound increases as the density of the medium increases, is it possible that it appears that the electron exceeded the speed of light by the same principle?
As far as the question of where the universe comes from...well, I wasn't there...didn't see it...I don't think anyone on this forum was there either. I've read a couple of books on the subject. One forces me to believe in a supernatural character...I stopped believing in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, and goblins when I grew up. The others pre-suppose that there is or has been a human being smart enough to figure out all the complexities of the universe. I think I'll just stick to the concept that the universe just IS and I'm kinda glad that it IS and will more than likely continue to BE for the duration of my life.
-
Check out Drakes Equation for the likelyhood that we are not alone.
Here is a calulator that is
Pretty cool! (http://www.seds.org/~rme/drakeeqn.htm)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
There doesn't HAVE to be a god, there CAN be a god.
But why does there have to be a beginning?
Beginning, end, time, creation - all things humans created to explain their surroundings.
Why is it so unplausible to say that it always was and always will be, a circle that has no beginning and no end- was never created and always will be.
If you say "well it had to be created", then you lose your argument of a god- what created god?
And then the infinite circle begins again.
-SW
Ok I skipped alot of this thread, but I found this post and the posts leading up to it very interesting and I just wanted to comment.
This is exactly true, there was no begginning weather you believe in god or not.
Now something I have noticed by observing is, theorys that are usuelly true, hrm how do I explain this, apply to everything I guess... thats really not a good explination at all. But anyway...
We are "programmed" to think beggining, end , beggining end, I've always said this. Thats because we observe our surroundings, which are the only things we can refer to.
Now by observing our surroundings, we see, hey things tend to evolve right!? So there comes the theory of evolution, and based on what we see its actuelly a very intelligent and good theory.
However, its not right, no more than it is to say there was a beggining. We observed our surroundings and said, well look at this we evolve, like we observed our surroundings and said hey look at this everyone is born and then dies, everything is born and then dies so there must always be a beginning and an end!
You can't understand the world today, without first understanding the world of yesterday. Now, how do you expect to find out the world of yesterday by observing the world today?
As always, people don't study history so they make the same mistakes over and over.
That is why, the study of the creation of the world no matter what it is cannot be called a science , it is a history and only a history.
I don't think I did a good job explaining myself, I just can't really figure out how to word what I'm thinking... Anyway perhaps someone out there really understands what I'm trying to say lol.
-
well put Crow and I agree
I'm not too much into spending all my energies on trying to figure something out that is probably un-knowable by my and certainly is un-witnessable (is that a word?) by me..
it isn't like I can do anything about any of that stuff if it were to adversely affect me.. cripes.
what's on TV ?
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
and i love it when people say there is no other possible life forms out there , or that theres no way they could have visited us!
So Grimmy you believe in Aliens?:D
Well I certainly believe there is a possibility that there is life elsewhere in the Universe. Intelligent life? Slightly possible. Have we been visited by Aliens? I don't think so.
I know proponents of Aliens use the argument that there are billions of stars, and many of those stars have planets revolving around them. Initially, this would appear to be a valid argument for the Universe teeming with life. What they forget is that it takes much more than a planet the correct distance from it's Sun to sustain life.
Let's say there's a billion planets out there the correct distance from their Sun to not be too hot or too cold to sustain life. Now we have to find one that rotates off axis the correct amount of degrees to allow a change of seasons. Otherwise the planet would become too hot or too cold because it would not regulate it's own temperature. The Earth's axis is tilted due to a collision with another planet during the early formation of the solar system. This collision is also what created the Moon.
So let's say one tenth of the original billion planets have this perfect off axis rotation. Now we're down to 100 million planets.
Next, this planet would have to have a Moon nearly identical in size and distance to ours. The moon causes tidal forces on the earth not only with the oceans, but with the molten magma beneath the surface. This regulates volcanic activity. Too few volcanoes, and we'd have no atmosphere. Too many, and we'd have an amosphere like Venus full of toxic fumes and greenhouse gasses. Again making the planet too hot to sustain life.
Let's say one tenth of the planets have a Moon the correct size and distance to regulate volcanic activity. Now we're down to 10 million planets.
Next, these remaining 10 million planets would have to have a massive planet like Jupiter in their orbit. Jupiter acts like a big vacuum cleaner and sweeps up the majority of debris that was left behind during the initial creation of the solar system. Billions of years ago, Earth was continually bombarded by collisions with huge asteriods. Just look at the craters on the moon. Earth's surface looked pretty much the same until it formed an atmosphere and Jupiter's gravity swept up the majority of debris. Again, this massive planet would have to be the correct distance from the Earthlike planet to accomplish this.
Let's say a tenth of these planets have a Jupiterlike planet the correct distance away. Now we're down to 1 million planets.
All these factors combined with other factors I'm probably not even aware of dramitically decreases the odds on there being another Earthlike planet. The fact that we're here is completely against all odds.
Is there another planet that somehow beat the odds? Possibly so. However, even if there were intelligent life elsewhere, it's probably so far away that it could never reach us. With over 300 billion galaxies in the Universe with 300 billion stars in each of them, where would they even know to look for us?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Grim...fascinating stuff. I'm not a physicist (thank god ;) ), but here are a couple of questions: Are they sure that the same electrons that were fired were the ones that came out? Similar to the way that sound travels through a cascading set of collisions started by the initially excited molecules, is it possible that the electrons that were fired caused a similar chain so that the electron exiting the block was not the originally fired electron? And the next question is going to sound really dumb, but is based on the last...similar to the way the speed of sound increases as the density of the medium increases, is it possible that it appears that the electron exceeded the speed of light by the same principle?
They're positive it's not an electron being knocked off the lead block. The lead is much to dense to allow a single electron fired at it to continually knock off electrons through the entire block. Each collision loses energy rapidly and is almost immediately absorbed.
Well, electrons have mass. Any object with mass can't achieve the speed of light let alone exceed it. As an object accellerates closer to the speed of the light, it's mass and density increase. Upon reaching light speed it's mass would become infinite and there wouldn't be enough energy in the entire universe to propel a single electron to light speed due to it's infinte mass. This is precisely why they were so stunned...
-
Where are they? (http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009CDEA-33FC-1C74-9B81809EC588EF21) - Scientific American
-
They're not here....LOL
-
"First there was nothing...
Then it exploded. "
Actually that was Gods Chevy.He was trying some new Alpha Ray Ray wave plasma gas and well...you all know how Ray Ray gets.
I believe theres something out there,buit not anything we have the slightest chance of comprehending.Mazz does have a kick bellybutton Icon there.Maby hes god
-
Nice Avatar DrDea,
I've had Collies my entire life. GREAT dogs.
-
Where are they? I have no idea...
But isnt it cool to think that somewhere on some planet at this very instant there is another group of sentient and technologically advanced life thats asking the same question about us. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Where are they? I have no idea...
But isnt it cool to think that somewhere on some planet at this very instant there is another group of sentient and technologically advanced life thats asking the same question about us. :D
Yeah, it's pretty damned cool. I hope there is other life out there.
I'm just not convinced of it though.
-
So you guys don't think the aliens are here? Visiting us already?
Naw niether do I..
(gees my bellybutton hurts this morning)
-
Yea Collies are good dabby doo's The girl I got her from has 4 others.One of them is a male tricoulor.Hes a beast as far as dogs go.Just freakin huge.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Is there another planet that somehow beat the odds? Possibly so. However, even if there were intelligent life elsewhere, it's probably so far away that it could never reach us. With over 300 billion galaxies in the Universe with 300 billion stars in each of them, where would they even know to look for us?
Its not just the planet that has to beat the odds, its the lifeforms. Taking Grim's example further, life seems to adapt to many environments (look at the bottom of the ocean, the artic wastes etc). However a lifeform needs to involve and inhabit a suitable environment to advance.
For example an Octopus might advance to a highly intelligent level, but living in water could it ever technologically advance with the ability to first create fire, then create associated tools. The evolution and development of man relies on so many factors,such as an environment which has allowed us to produce and controll chemical reactions (some as simple as having wood to burn), or developing the hand.
A waterbound planet might evolve some highly intelligent lifeforms, but they might never get past the 'fire' stage. Perhaps they might evolve along some other technological tree, but from what we know its unlikely.
-
Woof! Did you know that Lassie was a boy dog. Male dogs are better looking more photogenic. Not many people know that.
But back to the subject, Grimco's process of elimination can only lead to one conclusion. The final number of civilizations is one: US! We are the one and only sentient life in the Galaxy.
This does allow the religious among us to bring God into the calculation however absurd and fictional that notion is. But each to his own.
The problem with this whole topic is that no matter how much evidence and scientific observation there is, some people prefer either to not think about it all or invent some spurious story that fits in with their beliefs.
But when you think about it the whole subject topples the brain's gyros. Think about it. The universe must have existed forever in some form because if it didn't there would be nothing, not even nothing. Even in it's compressed pre big bang form it existed. If you believe in God, he had to have existed forever too and only lately (relatively) invented the whole universe notion.
Aaaaaah it's too complicated.
But of course there is no such thing as time, we humans invented it to mark the day and navigate across the oceans. No other creature is aware of it or indeed is aware of their mortality. Life and everthing else is simply a cycle of growth and decay followed by another cycle of growth and decay. We humans see ourselves as individuals and having importance in ourselves, thus deserving continued existence. So we invent a God and an afterlife and grant immortality to ourselves. In reality the only slight immortality we might have is to pass on our genes to the next generation and hope they have a better life. Even the most religious can agree that is the fate of all other living organisms. But we cannot accept that truth for ourselves because it means we have no future beyond what we see and feel right now.
If there is a God, it is the universe itself, infinite beautiful and pitiless. It created us and will destroy us in time, which of course it has no concept of.
Whew too heavy, on a lighter note. Did you know that a spinning gyro attempts to maintain it's position in space. So as the Earth moves through space it topples towards the point in space where it started spinning. Not many people know that either.
-
to complicated...our minds are to small to comprehend it...best not to strain yourself
-
I just get soooooooo aggravated that I won't be around when they make huge technological advances that may enable us to travel to other stars. Right now we're still in the stone age of science, and probably barking up the wrong tree with many of our theories. The smarter we get, the dumber we figure out we really are.
We Humans are funny creatures. There's Billions of us together on the Earth here, yet in a sense, we still feel alone. I for one would like to believe the Universe is teeming with life. But I seriously doubt that's the case.
As far as God goes, I believe there is something out there that lit the fuse and set this whole mess into motion. Whatever "he" or it is, I think it has a sense of humor. Otherwise we wouldn't fart...LOL