Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Written by: spiralxWritten by: Patriarch917
The theory of relativity, and subsequent discoveries, are making that neat little problem obsolete. We now know that time is not a constant, and can run at different speeds at different points in the universe depending on speed and gravity. If, during creation, the mass of the universe was concentrated in a small area and then blasted outward at incredible speed (as some evidence seems to suggest), the earth would have at some point passed through an "event horizon" where time (from the point of an observer on earth) would have slowed nearly to a pause. The claim that billions of years of stellar development could have taken place in a single day (as measured from earth) doesn't seem quite as ridiculous now as it would have a hundred years ago.
This isn't right... The mass in the Universe has always been almost entirely evenly distributed - we can see this in the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. There are small fluctatuations (in the order of 1 in 1000 or so I believe), which are thought to have given rise to local areas of higher gravity in which galaxies formed - but at no point was there any central lump of mass.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Birgit
I'm a scientish myself..
Written by: Patriarch917
I don't see why you say I am incorrect.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: jeff(fake)Written by: Patriarch917
I don't see why you say I am incorrect.
It's because you say the universe was 'concentrated in a central lump'. In 'big bang' theory there never was a 'central lump'. Matter (or whatever was around at the time) was mostly uniformly distributed over the entirity of existance much as it is now. Of course, existance at the time was very small.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
Written by: Patriarch917
I see our problem. We are thinking of different versions of the Big Bang theory. As you know, there are many different versions that have vastly different conclusions based on what set of assumptions you start with.
Written by: Patriarch917
Pretend, for a moment, that God has given you the opportunity to create your own universe. Some of your options are:
You can choose any combination of finite or infinite space or mass. You can also choose between a curved, flat, or open universe. You can set the speed of light (which will act as an upper speed limit for many objects) to be constant, infinite, increasing or decreasing in relation to time, or variable depending on mass. You can choose a universe that is rotating or sitting still. You can have space expanding through an addition of new space, or a stretching of existing space. You can have the mass be constant, increasing, or decreasing (perhaps flowing to or from another universe with a different set of physics).
All of these options have been suggested for our own universe, and we cannot with certainty pinpoint any of them as being reliable to assume.
Written by: Patriarch917
We really don't know what the heck is going on. A good phenomenon to consider is that the stars appear not only to be moving away from us, but to be speeding up faster and faster. What the heck is pushing them? There are some pretty cool theories, like "dark energy," but no one really has any idea what this "dark energy" is. At this point, we might as well attribute it to "magic."
Written by: Patriarch917
Edit:
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
Here's something to get you thinking about singularities and the big bang.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: Patriarch917
The theory that nothing can escape an event horizon is a good theory, but one that is completely unproven. We have never found an event horizon, much less run tests on it.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: spiralx
No, there is one Big Bang theory. There are parts of the theory which are more speculative in that we don't have a single obvious explaination, but everyone (who believes in it) agrees on the overall shape of the theory.
And that states that the Universe began from a single point, which then expanded. The mass within the Universe did not "explode" from a single point, the Universe itself expanded so that the distance between each piece of matter got larger and larger. The intuitive idea of an explosion is incorrect.
Written by: spiralx
The acceleration of the expansion of the Universe shows we live in an open one. The expansion of the Universe shows we live in a spacetime that has existed for a finite time. Your list of choices are valid ones if we're playing around with mathematical models (I did some of this when doing General Relativity as part of my degree), but we live in the real world and observations rule out much of what you suggest... And finding another theory other than the Big Bang that accounts as well for the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background (and fluctuations in it) and the relative abundances of the elements is something people have tried to do for as long as the theory has been around without success.
Written by: spiralxWritten by: Patriarch917
Edit:
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html
Here's something to get you thinking about singularities and the big bang.
Why is any of this so controversial? Science can't say if God started the Big Bang, the cause of that is metaphysics, not physics. Why limit yourself to the petty, meddling, human-centric God the Bible describes when you could instead believe in a God that could create a Universe with so much wonderous complexity goverened by such elegently simple rules and principles (like evolution!)? Strikes me as a more awe-inspiring God...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Written by: UraniumChipOxidationFacility
Been drinking again?
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Written by: Patriarch917
The intuitive idea of an explosion is a correct way to picture the Big Bang according to descriptions of it from reliable sources. I will quote a portion from an article on space.com which describes the Big Bang:
"The leading theory for the formation of our universe is the Big Bang, of course. According to this theory, all the matter and energy in our present observable universe was compressed into a very small area, before, in a nanosecond, it exploded outward and expanded continually until the present time -- and will perhaps do so forever." (emphasis added)
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/universe_overview_010605-1.html
Feel free to disagree with them.
Written by: Patriarch917
The Big Bang is admitted to be only speculation. Whether you want to think of it as an "explosion" or an "extremely rapid expansion" doesn't really matter, since the terms mean basically the same thing.
Written by: Patriarch917
It seems that the real objection is to my use of the name "Big Bang" to describe any theory that asserts that the universe expanded outward from a much smaller area. There are many theories that embrace this assumption, and the words "big bang" seem to be a good way to distinguish them from other general concepts… such as a uniform static universe. Would you be satisfied if I used small letters ("big bang") to speak of the broader concept?
Written by: Patriarch917
I think you may be too confident in a particular theory about what the observations may mean, and in particular explanations for the phenomenon. While it may be true that there is data (such as redshifting) that appears to suggest that stars are moving away from us, it does not follow that they are actually moving away from us. There are several explanations for redshifting that have been suggested:
1. The stars are moving away from us (Doppler effect)
2. The universe is rotating, causing the stars to be moving quickly without increasing their distance from us (also the Doppler affect)
3. Space is stretching
4. New space is being added
5. Red shift is caused by gravity
6. Red shift is caused by "drag" that takes place when light moves through "vaccum"
7. They are just red. Our theory that they are "too red" is wrong.
Written by: Patriarch917
Your assertion that we can be sure that the universe is "open" may be a prominent part of a particular "big bang" theory, but is certainly not agreed upon by everyone. There is data that suggests the universe is flat, or nearly so. There are also models of a closed universe, and models with multiple big bangs interacting with each other to create matter.
Written by: Patriarch917
No one should be confident that a particular version of the universe will turn out to be the right one. It is way to early at this point. You are right in saying that some interpretations of data seem to contradict some suggestions. In fact, there are interpretations of data that cast serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory that has been suggested so far, which is why they are all in constant flux with "wild" new variations being considered all the time.
Written by: Patriarch917
Remember, a lot of this stuff is just fancy math… and requires you to make fundamental assumptions (open universe, dark matter, variable speed of light, infinite even distribution, point singularities, monopoles) in order to have the math make sense. We really can't even talk about most of these things without speaking in mathematical equations.
Written by: Patriarch917
That's a real problem, because the temptation is to start thinking that because our math works best with a certain assumption, it is reasonable to assume that our assumption exists in the real world. Observation of past events is impossible, and observation of certain present events is extremely difficult to interpret. Most details of cosmology are not settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about.
Written by: Patriarch917
I do not limit myself to a petty, meddling, human-centric God. Instead, I believe in the God of the Bible who has created a wondrous universe that is at the same time elegantly simple and beyond our capacity to fully comprehend. The universe God has created is awe-inspiring, and a study of it leads to humility.
Certainly, I would never limit myself to a particular theory from fallible humans, no matter how certain they claim they are. If a current theory of men contradicts a clear statement by the God that created them along with the universe they are studying, it is obvious to me who I should choose to believe.
Written by:
Okay buddy -- please explain these to me:
Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."
Qustion -- How much should I ask for when I sell my daughter? What's the going rate?
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
My neighbour mows his lawn every Sunday -- can I put him to death or should I get someone else to do it?
Leviticus 11:7
... and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
This is going to really [censored] up the Superbowl right?
Oh -- could you also solve these questions:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A U.S. friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's Word is eternal and unchanging.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: FireTom
Maybe we all get to the kind habit of quoting theories that might be valid for us and on Earth, but may not be valid somewhere else and for others.
is annoying me....
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
Written by: spiralx
We can tell that it has to be an expansion of spacetime because the most distant galaxies appear to be receeding from us faster than the speed of light. This would be impossible if it was actual physical motion obviously, but not impossible if the galaxy is stationary but the space between us and it is expanding.
Written by: spiralxWritten by: Patriarch917
It seems that the real objection is to my use of the name "Big Bang" to describe any theory that asserts that the universe expanded outward from a much smaller area. There are many theories that embrace this assumption, and the words "big bang" seem to be a good way to distinguish them from other general concepts… such as a uniform static universe. Would you be satisfied if I used small letters ("big bang") to speak of the broader concept?
I'm not sure what other expanding universe theories there are... could you provide any links?
Written by: spiralx
Written by: Patriarch917
Your assertion that we can be sure that the universe is "open" may be a prominent part of a particular "big bang" theory, but is certainly not agreed upon by everyone. There is data that suggests the universe is flat, or nearly so. There are also models of a closed universe, and models with multiple big bangs interacting with each other to create matter.
There are models, yes. And originally it was thought that the Universe was flat... until the recent discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, which makes it an open Universe. Whether it is open, flat or closed depends on the mass-energy density of the Universe, and we can't see nearly enough to make it closed - heck, we needed 90% of the Universe to be dark matter just to make it flat!
Written by: spiralx
I'd like the hear these "serious, unanswerable doubts on every theory". Because while there are a lot things like alternative theories of gravity (I've heard of at least half a dozen alternatives to General Relativity) none of them alter fundamentally the idea of the Big Bang.
Written by: spiralxWritten by: Patriarch917
That's a real problem, because the temptation is to start thinking that because our math works best with a certain assumption, it is reasonable to assume that our assumption exists in the real world. Observation of past events is impossible, and observation of certain present events is extremely difficult to interpret. Most details of cosmology are not settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about.
Anyone believing that shouldn't be called a scientist.
Written by: spiralx
*shrug* I've still yet to find a Christian who follows everything in the Bible anyway. I'm sure you've seen the list of questions that's been around for ages. [list deleted]
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Written by: Sym
Patriarch917, would you agree with spiralx to the same point that you do on these things if the bible said otherwise?
What about the whole young earth thing? Can you tell us why you're not ignoring clear evidence because you think the bible is an accurate account of historical events?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Written by: jeff(fake)
How about the fossil record of plants? (which you animal bigots have ignored )
It's a fairly clear picture of modification with descent.
I've also not heard a reason why the 'flood sedementation' conjecture put forward by creationism would produce an Iridium-60 band at the KT juncture. Nor how, if the animals were laid down in order of size, a vole counts as being bigger than a t-rex. Nor an explaination as to why the order of the species in the sediment would be so similar world wide, after all it would just take a few drifts of the current to put a raptor into the tertiary. Or for why there are occasional deposits of volcanic ash in sediments deposited by the flood.
Creationism is simply vastly less parsimonious than evolution. The only reason to believe in creationism is faith that the bible is literally true, and there is no good reason to do that. It is and remains the 'fallable word of man', like all else, despite what is written inside it.
The notion that evolution comes from an equally invalid assumtion of 'billion year old Earth' is simply wrong as the age of the Earth is not an assumtion but a deduction corroberated independently by cosmology, geography, physics and chemistry. To contest those deductions simply because the bible suggests it's wrong is, again, just not parsimonious.
Written by: Patriarch917
Evolution suffers from a horrible lack of evidence to back up its fundamental claim: that life forms change gradually into different kinds of life through chance additions of new information. The problem with the fossil record is not "missing links," it is the "missing chains." Despite the billions upon billions of transitional forms that evolution predicts would have existed, all we have are a handful few highly disputed candidates that can just as easily be explained as separate species.
Written by:
Recall the bats we discussed earlier. They are not an exception, they are the rule. The fossil record indicates that life appears suddenly, fully formed and functional, without generation after generation of transitional forms linking them to other, completely different kinds of life. The lack of evidence is not proof that transitional forms never existed, but it certainly casts serious doubt on the theory.
Written by:
The belief that the earth is billions of years old is just one among many necessary assumptions that cannot be verified by observational science. There is no way to directly date the age of the earth. People have repeatedly brought up carbon dating, which I have already explained away (it has a half life of about 6,000 years, and is incapable of giving accurate ages of millions of years.) No one has yet brought up other radiometric dating methods, and for a good reason. They are wildly inaccurate. "Wild" as in "they date living animals as being millions of years old." Yes, if you assume that the earth is in fact billions of years old they have some limited utility at giving ages in the far distant past, but if the earth is only 6,000 years old they would still give dates of millions of years. No dating method exists that can conclusively "disprove" a young earth, much less "prove" an old one.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: Patriarch917Quite simply that's dagma-driven . The fossil record of horses for instance shows clearly the gradual lengthening of the bones and loss of the toes. There is also a very clear lineage of the movement of the fish jaw bones to the mammalian inner ear. Within the plant fossil record we see the gradual formation of photosythetic surfaces called leaves. In bats the fossil record is sketchy due to their fagility but I and the other posters have clearly shown that flight can easily evolve by modification from gliding.
The fossil record indicates that life appears suddenly, fully formed and functional, without generation after generation of transitional forms linking them to other, completely different kinds of life.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Written by: Patriarch917
I agree that you can find different versions of the theory, as the links that you and I posted prove. I do not deny that different variations on the Big Bang theory exist. However, we should be careful to make sure we understand the difference between saying “a particular theory holds that there was once a singularity,” and saying that “there was once a singularity.” While you and I and many other may both agree that the theory of a singularity makes sense, that does not mean it is true.
Written by: Patriarch917
That is not the only explanation for the apparent acceleration. Instead of an unknown force stretching “spacetime,” it could be an unknown force (perhaps “dark energy”) that is pushing them away from us in existing spacetime.
Written by: Patriarch917
Alternatively, the appearance of acceleration could be an illusion best explained by some other theory. Just because something looks obviously true (Jupiter revolves around the earth) doesn’t mean that we can immediately put all our faith in one explanation.
Written by: Patriarch917
No version of the origin of the universe has accounted for all that we observe. Attempts to answer questions such as “what caused the point singularity” lead to pure speculation with almost no foundation in observational science (like colliding “branes”). Even if these branes exists, we have no explanation for what created them.
Written by: Patriarch917
I disagree. Again, I suggest that a scientist (or anyone else for that matter) should not believe that:
1. "Because an assumption makes our explanation easier, the assumption must exist in the real world." - This is just bad logic.
2. "Observation of past events is possible" – we don’t (yet) have a time machine
3. "Observation of all present events are easy to interpret" – certain phenomenon defy our ability to easily explain
4. "Most details of cosmology are settled enough to warrant being dogmatic about" – Cosmology is a “robust” science, meaning that not much is certain and most of what we think we know will probably undergo radical changes as time goes by.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Written by: drewjitsu
fact is only what you believe
fact and fiction work as a team
"Moo," said the happy cow.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Written by: jeff(fake)
There aren't any fossils in the 'wrong' strata, and physical distortion is a natural result of geological action. The strata itself is the same, just moved.
Quite simply that's dagma-driven . The fossil record of horses for instance shows clearly the gradual lengthening of the bones and loss of the toes. There is also a very clear lineage of the movement of the fish jaw bones to the mammalian inner ear.
Written by: jeff(fake)
In bats the fossil record is sketchy due to their fagility but I and the other posters have clearly shown that flight can easily evolve by modification from gliding.
Written by: jeff(fake)
You have also not given satisfactory answers as to the dates given by stellar chemisty, the study of dueterium in the universe (known as deuteronomy ) or the problem of the visibility of distant objects. Or why the Quran isn't equally as valid as the Bible.
Written by: Stone
So Patriarch917, what qualifications do you have that enables you to interpret the laws and Biblical apologetics ?
Written by: spiralxWritten by: drewjitsu
fact is only what you believe
fact and fiction work as a team
Thanks for that...
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.