LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksMost claims about the big bang, or early universe depend on the present laws being in effect. For example, gravity. Or the weak or strong nuclear forces.
Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?
December 2nd, 2007, 04:44 AM
Most claims about the big bang, or early universe depend on the present laws being in effect. For example, gravity. Or the weak or strong nuclear forces.
Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?
Well at the very beggining there were all 4 forces as one as the grand unifed force. As the energy began to disperse they eventually split up across the universe up to the point of today. However the first forces soon split up into the different ones we see today very quickly. I'm not sure how we can assume it to be true but like all theories such an idea is currently extremeley difficult to test hence it shall remain a theory until some verifiable evidence can be shown this is the case. There have been electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unifed as the electroweak force and this provides some evidence of the theory, but just suggests that in certain circumstances the unity can occur, and the big bang was certain enough so it seems logical to deduce that conclusion.
That's nice. How do you know that?Originally Posted by svwillmer
OK. I think I hear you saying you really have no idea. Until you can verify that, I guess that being a theory is the same as being a myth!As the energy began to disperse they eventually split up across the universe up to the point of today. However the first forces soon split up into the different ones we see today very quickly. I'm not sure how we can assume it to be true but like all theories such an idea is currently extremeley difficult to test hence it shall remain a theory until some verifiable evidence can be shown this is the case.
Can you slow that down a bit? Where was any weak or strong or mediocre force at the early stages of the (imagined) big bang, and how do you think you know???There have been electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force unifed as the electroweak force and this provides some evidence of the theory, but just suggests that in certain circumstances the unity can occur, and the big bang was certain enough so it seems logical to deduce that conclusion.
I know from others theories, but because they are theories I can't actually prove that those theories are correct. I'm just going with the apparent best COA (Course Of Action).
Wording is important: 'beginning' and 'early' are not the same. We don't know about the 'beginning' if it is a singularity of time, energy, etc. Physics can, however, consider models of 'early'. Anything that happened post singularity (or whatever existed) is consistent with the physics of the universe today.
You had me at 'hello'. What's your superior theory?
How do you think you know your superior theory is correct?
December 2nd, 2007, 02:10 PM
Inflation, which I believe is currently the favored theory for the very early universe, assumes the opposite - that the laws of physics were different.
So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)Yet can we really do anything but assume that was the case?
Thermal energy at the time of the BB was so high, even the strong nuclear force was unable to hold protons and neutrons together.
In other words, believe what you want, and call it science? Sounds like fun, guess we all can do that.
Is it really, now? How would you know that? Precisely?
What? What are you talking about? The theories have some mathematical basis and logical evidence or they would not be accepted. Science is believing something and then trying to explain it and prove it. Einstein had the idea that gravity was because of curved spacetime-that was a belief and he went out to prove that belief.In other words, believe what you want, and call it science? Sounds like fun, guess we all can do that.
December 3rd, 2007, 06:38 AM
OK. So looks like another vote here for no present laws after all. Fine.
No, actually, I do not think so. I think it is a silly and ugly little theory. I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd.So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)
The basis also is that the present laws are the basis. Work on that. If you claim that, prove it. Or at least do more than assume and believe it, will you?? Why would we claim that this universe state was here at all? It is now, and has been since, say at least till recorded history observed things.
My area of expertise is relativity. I believe other theories on different areas of physics, I don't have to prove them because I accept others theories. I be as dumb as a rake if I had to prove everything I believed in.The basis also is that the present laws are the basis. Work on that. If you claim that, prove it. Or at least do more than assume and believe it, will you?? Why would we claim that this universe state was here at all? It is now, and has been since, say at least till recorded history observed things.
December 3rd, 2007, 10:16 AM
Really. Can your prove it is absurd? Do you think personal preferences constitute real science? Interesting thoughts.
December 4th, 2007, 12:26 AM
You seem a little confused. Science isn't about voting and I'm not voting for anything here. I merely tried to point out that you are wrong in your initial assumption. There's no need to take umbrage.OK. So looks like another vote here for no present laws after all. Fine.
I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.No, actually, I do not think so. I think it is a silly and ugly little theory.So, yes we can do something different, or at least the physicists who work on this can. It is said inflation is so beautiful as a theory that it must be right. (That's what they said about epicycles too.)
What Ophiolite said.I find the thought of the sun moon and stars and galaxies all in a little soup speck revoltingly absurd
you obviously have no idea how science really works : the assumption that the current laws of physics were in place is just an assumption, that's true, but that is a par for the course in science
science often makes initial assumptions, which in turn lead to predictions which can then be tested - if the predictions test ok, then the assumptions are upheld for the time being, if not, then it's back to the drawing boards + start examining where your assumptions could have gone wrong
at the present state of knowledge, it would appear that the universe makes sense when you assume that the 4 forces were in place as they are now within a fraction of a second of the big bang (remember that the inflationary period, if it ever existed, only lasted for about 10^(-32) seconds) - hence there is no need to assume differently until evidence arises that this might not be so
do you have any such evidence ?
Believe in relativity, that is fine. So do I. Long as you keep it relative to this present universe state we are in, and Einstein was in. Like a box, it has limits. Relativity is an in box little concept, all very well and goo in the box.
December 4th, 2007, 05:17 AM
I think real science does not go there. Only your thoughts go there, riding the present universe state, and assuming this is the key to the past. Not unless and until you solidly evidence that will it be science. This is news??Really. Can your prove it is absurd? Do you think personal preferences constitute real science? Interesting thoughts.
December 4th, 2007, 05:22 AM
No, you need to show how you think I was wrong. Not just say it as if it had some meaning.
So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.I have my doubts too, but since I'm not expert in that field I won't presume to pass judgment on it.
Not at all is everything so flimsy. Some things are testable and observed, like jumping up, and falling down. Some assumptions are valid, and solidly evidenced.
Right. So??science often makes initial assumptions, which in turn lead to predictions which can then be tested - if the predictions test ok, then the assumptions are upheld for the time being, if not, then it's back to the drawing boards + start examining where your assumptions could have gone wrong
That really does not make sense at all. You first of all assume that we can extrapolate the present universe laws back toward creation. Then, you crunch the numbers based on that. The result of the crunching is only as valed as the assumption, which is pure pure pure religion.at the present state of knowledge, it would appear that the universe makes sense when you assume that the 4 forces were in place as they are now within a fraction of a second of the big bang (remember that the inflationary period, if it ever existed, only lasted for about 10^(-32) seconds) - hence there is no need to assume differently until evidence arises that this might not be so
now how did religion enter the picture here ?
oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
How do you know hes religious based on that marnix? He just seems to be attacking religion by saying that what ou said is what religion is based on-as in valid (he put valed) as the assumption, he is saying that religion is irrational and that your statement is like religion in its purest form, in its purest irrationality. In other words he's not bringing religion into it, he is insulting your idea. Relgion I don't think he meant it as you meant it, just that he thinks someome can be offended if they use religion to offend particularly if you are insulted by being reffered to as religion irrational. But he is being very abrupt isn't he? I've noticed that.now how did religion enter the picture here ?
oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
December 4th, 2007, 08:51 AM
Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
December 4th, 2007, 09:29 AM
'E's a troll with an agenda, mate. Give it up.Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
December 4th, 2007, 09:47 AM
Right you are, guv.
'E's a troll with an agenda, mate. Give it up.
No, actually, nothing like that. I was pointing out that in the absence of evidence and proofs, the claims falsely called science are indeed religion.now how did religion enter the picture here ?
oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
Hey, thanks, it all sounds quite clever. I look at religion as belief without real solid basis in science, or evidence. If we are people of faith, that matter not at all anyhow. But, if we present a case as if it is science, and it is not well backed at all, then what else can we call it but faith, and religion? I think religion is fine, if we admit that is what it is. When we offer religion cross dressed as science, why, that is another matter.How do you know hes religious based on that marnix? He just seems to be attacking religion by saying that what ou said is what religion is based on-as in valid (he put valed) as the assumption, he is saying that religion is irrational and that your statement is like religion in its purest form, in its purest irrationality. In other words he's not bringing religion into it, he is insulting your idea. Relgion I don't think he meant it as you meant it, just that he thinks someome can be offended if they use religion to offend particularly if you are insulted by being reffered to as religion irrational. But he is being very abrupt isn't he? I've noticed that.now how did religion enter the picture here ?
oh, i forgot, your username is a dead giveaway isn't it ?
you're trying to say that science doesn't have all the answers, so by default religion must have them
December 5th, 2007, 04:42 AM
DO BE CLEAR, ARE YOU DOUBTING THE 'EXPERTS' ON BIG BANG, OR BELIEVEING THEM, AS i THOUGHT!??/Not only are you confused, you have a problem with reading comprehension. An expression of doubt is the opposite of faith.So you swallow it by faith. OK. That is up to you. I look for a little more than that.
Try and slow down and think about what other people are saying.
December 5th, 2007, 01:44 PM
From whatr I know about these forces TODAY is that there is a 'force of gravity', a strong force (I am told), a weak force, and the EM Force that I believe to be real because of all the research done on this force to prove its existence.
I am certain that neutrons exist and are created in the stars when the deuterons are fused. This involves the creation of the strong force to fuse the deuterons.
So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
So by this reasoning, the SF could not have been created before the stars were created.
Mike C
December 5th, 2007, 06:06 PM
Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity.
What force holds quarks together in a proton I wonder..... :wink:So in my opinion, the stars had to be created first before the SF could have been created.
December 6th, 2007, 01:32 PM
Isn't gravity supposed to 'bend' space?Gravity is not a force according to General Relativity.
This them makes it a force.
Cosmo
Since quarks do not exist in a free state, then I just ignore them as a real particle that has no real role in our universe.
There are no other real particles beside the electron and the proton as the basic components of our universe.
Cismo
But different combinations of different types of quarks make up many particles. Even though they do not last too long on their own, it is not a very good reason to totally dismiss them. They do exist and make up protons where they are held in place by the strong force. Do you think what is thought of as quarks are in fact only broken pieces of a proton, or what?Since quarks do not exist in a free state, then I just ignore them as a real particle that has no real role in our universe.
There are no other real particles beside the electron and the proton as the basic components of our universe.
Cosmo
Your initial question and my initial response were not about the Big Bang specifically and my initial response still stands. I think it's very clear.DO BE CLEAR, ARE YOU DOUBTING THE 'EXPERTS' ON BIG BANG, OR BELIEVEING THEM, AS i THOUGHT!??/
My position re. the Big Bang is that it seems to be the theory that best fits the currently available evidence, especially the WMAP evidence. So, PROVISIONALLY I tend to believe the BB is true. If evidence comes along to disprove it then I’ll change my PROVISIONAL belief about it. No big deal. I don’t think I’ll go to Hell if I’m wrong.
Why are you shouting?
December 8th, 2007, 08:40 AM
According to 'real' experimental physics, gravity is a force.
Are you familiar with the Cavendish and the Boys experiments?
How would GR explain that?
Cosmo
Quarks are not real particles. So I would not trouble myself with that.
Cosmo
December 8th, 2007, 11:40 AM
No, it's not. Although gravity was incorrectly asserted by Newton to be a force, it was found NOT to be a force using General Relativity. Newton asserted 'action at a distance' in which 'attractive forces' were at play. GR asserted that the paths through space were 'warped' near large objects, therefore anything moving near those objects would have their paths through space 'warped' towards the object.
Isn't that the experiment where he wanted to find the Earth's density using a torsion balance and other scientists used the results to determine the value of G?Are you familiar with the Cavendish and the Boys experiments?
How would GR explain that?
In this case, Newtons theories were accurate enough to determine the value of G, however Einsteins derivatives could also be used, and would be more accurate. However, Einsteins derivatives are usually only used where extreme accuracy is required dealing with massive objects.
December 9th, 2007, 05:09 AM
Great, you have arrived at what I consider the obvious, by the back route. Fine. My opinion is that this universe we see is a temporary state universe. I see no science to suggest anything else. Therefore, how can we look at present laws as if they existed in the far past?? That literally amounts to an assumption of a same state universe in the past. What if it was not the created state we now see?
Creation; Had not seen this post, before responding to some others.
A universe, that has always existed, IN ONE STATE OR ANOTHER, will exist forever, although possible not in a way we currently see, is not really a new thought. The reasoning is under our current understandings, many things over eons would be the total. Hydrogen would eventually become none existent, everything else helium or metallic and so on...
I have argued, that hydrogen could regenerate naturally from helium and probably does during star formations, from heat and pressures. That elements could break down from most anything or back to the basics.
This said, its probable to me, that what we see is what has always existed and/or will always exist. Add to this, our own solar system, which when formed should have been near total Hydrogen, yet probably formed from some previously burned out star or even space debris. Our star and Jupiter made/make up 99.9% of the systems mass and should have been nearly all Hydrogen at formation...
Possibly why you think this state could not maintain itself would be of interest...
I believe that it always will exist, as will our sun. My opinion is that we are now in a temporary universe state. Therefore, we cannot use it to set the clock on eternity.
I guess I can't avoid bring the bible into it here. The bible says this universe will pass away. This heavens and earth. Therefore it is temporary. Science cannot say either way. All it can do is predict that IF this present state went on, THEN, the sun would burn out in billions of years. Etc.I have argued, that hydrogen could regenerate naturally from helium and probably does during star formations, from heat and pressures. That elements could break down from most anything or back to the basics.
This said, its probable to me, that what we see is what has always existed and/or will always exist. Add to this, our own solar system, which when formed should have been near total Hydrogen, yet probably formed from some previously burned out star or even space debris. Our star and Jupiter made/make up 99.9% of the systems mass and should have been nearly all Hydrogen at formation...
Possibly why you think this state could not maintain itself would be of interest...
[/quote]
December 10th, 2007, 10:16 AM
Newtons Gravitational Law uses two bodies approaching each other in a straight line. In this case, there is no curvature to speak of. So GR does not apply.
The Cavendish experiment used two lead balls to measure their attraction to each other.Isn't that the experiment where he wanted to find the Earth's density using a torsion balance and other scientists used the results to determine the value of G?
In this case, Newtons theories were accurate enough to determine the value of G, however Einsteins derivatives could also be used, and would be more accurate. However, Einsteins derivatives are usually only used where extreme accuracy is required dealing with massive objects.
The Boys experiment used two gold balls to do the same thing. Boys experiment was considewred to be more accurate.
Lead is composed of 7 isotopes with 4 that are stable.
Gold is composed of 4 isotopes that are very short lived. So Gold is considered to be 100% stable.
Again, as I have said , GR plays no role in these experiments. These elements used are about the heaviest available.
So gravity is a 'real' force.
Cosmo
December 10th, 2007, 10:46 AM
In my idea of a SSU, only the space is fixed to be stable. In other words, a flat non expanding or contracting space.
The components within this fixed space are undergoing the recycling process like the stars and the galaxies.
The total matter remains costant and fuses the hydrogen atoms in the star creations that eventually decays back into hydrogen and helium when the elemental ratio of neutrons to protons exceeds the 3 to 2 ratio approximately.
So the only evolution here is the recycling process IMHO, of course, that is based on current elemental physics.
Cosmo
Creation; Guess I should have realized where you were going, from your handle. Bible "will pass away", must be from Revelations, meaning the New Testament and some form of Christianity. I will continue to discuss science, as I understand an issue, but make this one observation now; In no way would I mean to or intend to alter your faith by anything written.
I am what is said to be agnostic, could believe in a higher power, but any similarity to what I could accept or has been written about, is not acceptable...
I have heard one analogy to what, I think your saying. In short; Life is a book being lived out on earth, by the people and life on it. When the book is complete, the life goes back to someplace until another book is picked up.
IMO; The sun will burn out, the Universe shows its history and its best the search for knowledge continues.
December 10th, 2007, 06:32 PM
[quote="CosmoSo gravity is a 'real' force.[/quote]
That is incorrect. There is no action-at-a-distance with gravity. Newton also made the same error, hence his equations were not accurate.
December 11th, 2007, 10:32 AM
[quote=(Q)]Newtons Law of gravity says so. I give more credibility to Newtons math than Einsteins. He even questioned his own math until the BB idea was accepted to save his theory than did not then need the added cosmological constant.
So besides questioning his own math, his mass/energy formuls is erroneous IMO because the 'forces' create all the energies.
Another lack of credibility is his refusal to accept the Planckian Quantum Physics that were proven to be a reality.
Cosmo.
December 11th, 2007, 02:57 PM
You're free to ignore evidence to the contrary. Einsteins formulas have been shown to be more accurate than Newtons, although one can still place a capsule on the moon using Newtons laws.
But, gravity isn't a force. Gravity simply changes the paths in space of which objects move along.So besides questioning his own math, his mass/energy formuls is erroneous IMO because the 'forces' create all the energies.
If Newton was right, then the astronauts in the space station would be up against the wall all the time.
Right, I am not worried about my beliefs anyhow, they have been here since the creation of the earth, and seem to hold up pretty well, thank you very much. What we were looking at here was your beliefs, of a same state past universe based myth. That has not really been around that long, and I can see how you might be a little worried about having it held up to dry.
Well, not really, I think we will live right here, although we likely will travel the ends of the universe at leisure as well. What I question is the ability of science to address the future, or far past, in any meaningful way, since they simply base everything on this current state universe norm we live in now. No anology, you really cannot use science to prove, or solidly evidence that this universe was in this state in the far past. Really. So I have not the slightest reason to believe anything based on that myth, now do I??I have heard one analogy to what, I think your saying. In short; Life is a book being lived out on earth, by the people and life on it. When the book is complete, the life goes back to someplace until another book is picked up.
That is a pure statement of faith, as my faith says it will never ever ever burn out. Your claim is based on how processes NOW work, and what woulda coulda shoulda happen IF it continued like this for imaginary billions and billions of years. That is a hunch, a belief, and assumption, with no science at all behind it. Face it.IMO; The sun will burn out, the Universe shows its history and its best the search for knowledge continues.
December 11th, 2007, 08:11 PM
But also on the assumption present laws applied long long ago. Right? Too bad there is no science to support that foundational assumption the theory is solely based on. Is there? Do you think you can prove this universe as it is was the universe state in the far past?? If not, you too have a myth. Nothing wrong with a nice myth.
Creation;
On faith/myth; I find it interesting you accuse science of unprovable expectation, then base existence on considerably less provable ideology.
I sit in a chair, with faith it will hold me and based on quite a few established facts. "Travel at leisure to the ends of the Universe" in my mind is unsubstantiated faith, based on myth at best. That is the faith is in the person...
Billy Graham, has said as much "travel" but used the spirit...
On the Sun; No, there are reason, these expectation can be justified. In driving your car, you fuel it knowing the fuel will go so far. Strike a match and when the fuel is gone the match goes out and so on. The sun has just so much fuel, can not burn forever and will go out.
You are welcome to feel what you like, but to ignore science, which I'll add technology, we would be back to waring over which God was correct, cooking food over wood fires, living in those proverbial caves dieing horrible deaths from countless causes at 30-35, while waiting around for some divine interference.
MODERATORS; I know this is off topic and apologize. I do feel however the topic deserves addressing, with religious influence in science and to many of us who feel this influence has taken some science in the wrong direction. Not being critical to *Creation*, as many hold his/her view on the universe, his/her has an interesting twist...
December 12th, 2007, 11:50 AM
Besides the current Laws of Physics and the other expariments and observations, my evaluation of the HDF's North, South and the Ultra, they do not show any difference from what we see here now.
Galaxies of all types that appear to have different ages than others such as those with a larger number of 'blue giant stars like the spirals as compared to the elipticals.
Also the number of Galactic clusters that one mathematician said would take hundreds of billions of years to form. I believe his name was Anthony Perrault if I remember correctly.
The DF's exhibit the same quality and galaxy densities throughpout space.
According to one researcher, there have been discovered some DF galaxies that exhibit iron rich stars that the BB cannot justify during the time of their creation.
In the meantime the BBU has so many unanswered questiosw that that proves it is unscientific,
Cosmo
December 12th, 2007, 12:08 PM
Spiritual forces can influence the physical realm, I am certain of this because I've seen these influences in other areas of life.
Then how does the Earth keep us glued to its surface? Is space pushing down on us?But, gravity isn't a force. Gravity simply changes the paths in space of which objects move along.
Cosmo
December 12th, 2007, 09:25 PM
You lost me there, pal.
It doesn't. We, and everything else are in constant free-fall, and the "pressure" you feel on your feet is the Earth accelerating up towards you.Then how does the Earth keep us glued to its surface? Is space pushing down on us?
You can experience this yourself by jumping off a high point. You won't feel any forces acting upon you as you're in free-fall, no forces whatsoever.
That is nonsense. Untold millions do not embrace the realities of the spiritual for no reasons, it is tested and observed in effects, and proven over and over, and has been for millennia. The sorts of proofs we look for in spiritual things are quite different than what we look for for physical things.
We do not have the kind of absolute nothing you do, for the premise of your old age claims.
Well, no, it is an observation of the risen body of a man, that demonstrated how it works! He walked through walls, ate food, dissapeared, flew up in the air, etc. There are no physical law limits to a spiritual also material eternal state body.I sit in a chair, with faith it will hold me and based on quite a few established facts. "Travel at leisure to the ends of the Universe" in my mind is unsubstantiated faith, based on myth at best. That is the faith is in the person...
Completely false, one cannot drive a car back to the future! If you drive one billions of years, then you can talk. Meanwhile, it is myth.On the Sun; No, there are reason, these expectation can be justified. In driving your car, you fuel it knowing the fuel will go so far. Strike a match and when the fuel is gone the match goes out and so on. The sun has just so much fuel, can not burn forever and will go out.
I do not ignore any any any evidence at all. Neither do I ignore you have none for the foundational premise of all your old age claims.You are welcome to feel what you like, but to ignore science, which I'll add technology, we would be back to waring over which God was correct, cooking food over wood fires, living in those proverbial caves dieing horrible deaths from countless causes at 30-35, while waiting around for some divine interference.
December 13th, 2007, 01:26 AM
Looking far away, we still look at our universe. A universe change includes far away. The seeming fact that the distant Hubble observations have the universe the same far away means nothing. Why would it not be?? Only when you filter that fact through your assumptive glasses, that say the universe always was in this state does that mean what you think it does. If all the universe was different thousands of years ago, science of the present woulld have no way of knowing.
Appear is a good word. I guess a lot of different sorts of stars were out there, even if they were created. That they would be caught in that difference, and start reacting according to the universe state they found themselves in is expected. All you have done, is assume they GOT that way also in and by a present state.Galaxies of all types that appear to have different ages than others such as those with a larger number of 'blue giant stars like the spirals as compared to the elipticals.
Assuming what? That they started in a little hot soup so small, we couldn't see it with the naked eye? So small, a drop of sneeze might be a million times bigger? Assuming they 'formed' rather than were formed??Also the number of Galactic clusters that one mathematician said would take hundreds of billions of years to form. I believe his name was Anthony Perrault if I remember correctly.
Got that right, there was no big bang.The DF's exhibit the same quality and galaxy densities throughpout space.
According to one researcher, there have been discovered some DF galaxies that exhibit iron rich stars that the BB cannot justify during the time of their creation.
Well, apparently some disagree with you here on that. I consider science to be a study of the natural world, and universe. Unless it was the same nature in the past, this nature simply cannot be used to set the clocks.In the meantime the BBU has so many unanswered questiosw that that proves it is unscientific,
Moderator Statement:
Creation, this is a science forum, not a location for you to promote unscientific nonsense under the pretence of a scientific stance. Your opening question was, superficially, a good one. The angle you are adopting in answering it is pseudoscience and will not be tolerated. You have two choices - cease the pseudoscientific content of your posts in this thread, or see this the thread moved to pseudoscience, or the trash can. Your choice.
Here is a selection of the nonsense you have been spouting.Provide a single peer reviewed piece of research to substantiate this claim. Certainly millions embrace the spirtitual for many reasons, but these are either a) bad reasons, or b) not at all the reasons you imagine.
But this is a science forum, where we adhere to the scientific method. If you are going to offer up proofs, they had better meet the standards of science.
Superstitious twaddle. This is the astronomy section of the forum, not the 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' forum.
This betrays a comprehensive ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific method. You are correct that science is based upon certain axioms. One of these is that, broadly, the same processes, laws and constants are in effect today, as in the remote past. Observation strongly supports these assumptions. Science is ready to abandon these particular assumptions when appropriate. (Lyell's Principle of Uniformity in geology, for example, has been amended to recognise the importance of catastrophic events in shaping the landscape and the biosphere.) To describe these validated assumptions as myth is, as noted, pure ignorance.
I was trying to stop that sort of thing, you misunderstood. I pointed out that the state of the past is unknowable to science. If you want to toss the word 'nonsense' around, why not put that notion to rest? Otherwise you have the nonsense. Really.
You forgot the other one. I might be done here already.Your opening question was, superficially, a good one. The angle you are adopting in answering it is pseudoscience and will not be tolerated. You have two choices - cease the pseudoscientific content of your posts in this thread, or see this the thread moved to pseudoscience, or the trash can. Your choice.
My peers are believers in the spiritual, and those that experienced it. You really want to go there? Remember, Mickey mouse physical only science is limited to the physical. You may not hold the entire universe to it's pitiful, handicapped, limited, little standards. This is news?Provide a single peer reviewed piece of research to substantiate this claim.
Tell you what. You strike me as such an irreligious bigot, I may not post here again, I will give you a chance to humanize, however. Let's see you put on you best behavior here. Otherwise, bye bye.
Says you. What being a mod means your silly opinion matters more than others??Certainly millions embrace the spirtitual for many reasons, but these are either a) bad reasons,
Prove it. Let's see your peer reviewed stuff on that puppy. What a crock.or b) not at all the reasons you imagine.
If you want to discuss spiritual things, better get your little turd science up to snuff. As it is, it is in a fishbowl. Don't blame me. If anyone is that thick, as to ask the scientific method to deal with the known, proved, evidenced, tested spiritual, go after them. What mod school did you go to again????But this is a science forum, where we adhere to the scientific method. If you are going to offer up proofs, they had better meet the standards of science.
No, unlike most cosmo fairy tales,- that was observed by us. If you claim it is twaddle, prove it, or you are a twaddler.Superstitious twaddle.
Good, then prove the same state past you need, or stop big bang thumping.This is the astronomy section of the forum, not the 'Believe and thou shalt be saved' forum.
Right, since I pointed it out, you claiming it is ignorant is moronic. Work on that.This betrays a comprehensive ignorance of the nature of science and the scientific method. You are correct that science is based upon certain axioms. One of these is that, broadly, the same processes, laws and constants are in effect today, as in the remote past.
Bull. Too bad you likely don't have the guts to actually discuss it, and be really exposed and beaten here. You likely will try to silence me.Observation strongly supports these assumptions.
Great. Meanwhile don't pawn them off as science, they are assumptions, that are unprovable, unsupportable, untestable, unobserved, and anything but science.Science is ready to abandon these particular assumptions when appropriate.
I see you have no clue as to what the thread is even about. Whatever events happened after the universe was as it is now, is not any issue at all.(Lyell's Principle of Uniformity in geology, for example, has been amended to recognise the importance of catastrophic events in shaping the landscape and the biosphere.) To describe these validated assumptions as myth is, as noted, pure ignorance.
Bye all. I can see this mod has a spiritual helper I don't care to have fire me. I quit first. (Unless the mod here tucks his fangs in, and tail between his legs fast)
Cheers.
We have religious members (dayton tuner and Mitchell McKain spring to mind) who offer reasoned, sober contributions on all manner of subjects, including the spiritual ones. They do this within the context of a scientific forum. It does not seem to create any special problems for them. Obviously a simple request to adhere to sound scientific principles generates a near hysterical response in you. Did I hit that close to the mark?
An examination of my posts will reveal many wherein I condemn attacks upon religion, as well as my oft stated commitment to agnosticism. Characterising me as an irreligious bigot is, therefore, simply laughable. However, please don't let this misinterpretation of my character halt your plans. And make sure the door does not hit you in the back on the way out.
I wil take time to deal with one point you raised in your otherwise infantile diatribe. In relation to the constancy of process from the past to the present I observed:
You responded:Observation strongly supports these assumptions.
On the contrary, I am quite happy to allow you to speak and publicly reveal your ignorance.Bull. Too bad you likely don't have the guts to actually discuss it, and be really exposed and beaten here. You likely will try to silence me.
I'll take a single example, already touched on in my previous post: Lyell's Principle of Uniformity, often expressed as The Present is the Key to the Past.
And from the huge range of geological data I shall choose a single concept. Sea floor spreading. The notion is that oceanic crust is generated at the mid-ocean ridges and destroyed in subduction zones. From the reversals of polarity known to take place in the Earth's magnetic field we can estimate when, for example, South America split from Africa. And, knowing the distance involved we can calculate the rate of spreading.
If processes in the past were different from today we would expect that the former rate would be much slower, or much faster than at present. Guess what? When we measure with satellites, the actual rate of movement it is right there where we predicted it would be, based upon what you have chosen to call a mythical assumption. Some myth.
And, of course there is folks like you as well, who prefer to call it science, for some reason.
No, I am not hysterical in the least. You missed by a country mile. The spiritual, newsflash, does not in any way adhere to physical only science principles. get a grip.They do this within the context of a scientific forum. It does not seem to create any special problems for them. Obviously a simple request to adhere to sound scientific principles generates a near hysterical response in you. Did I hit that close to the mark?
No problem, Have fun howling at the moon, and whistling in the dark, now. You like to call respected and supportable beliefs 'Superstitious twaddle' and come out with threats.An examination of my posts will reveal many wherein I condemn attacks upon religion, as well as my oft stated commitment to agnosticism. Characterising me as an irreligious bigot is, therefore, simply laughable. However, please don't let this misinterpretation of my character halt your plans. And make sure the door does not hit you in the back on the way out.
Good. We shall see who reveals what. (Assuming your word is of any worth.)On the contrary, I am quite happy to allow you to speak and publicly reveal your ignorance.
No, you can't do any such thing. All you can do is use superstitious twaddle to assume that the universe was in this same state, and then assign dates, by the clock set to that fairy tale! Polarity reversals are not something only explained using your premise of the present is the be all end all, not at all. You simply assume that present reversals are the way it always was, when, in actually, if the universe was different, and changed, such reversals also would be par for the course. Also, if there was no decay in the created former state, then, present decay cannot be used to apply to the past either. So your ages are utterly meaningless unless you prove that this universe state we live in existed.I'll take a single example, already touched on in my previous post: Lyell's Principle of Uniformity, often expressed as The Present is the Key to the Past.
And from the huge range of geological data I shall choose a single concept. Sea floor spreading. The notion is that oceanic crust is generated at the mid-ocean ridges and destroyed in subduction zones. From the reversals of polarity known to take place in the Earth's magnetic field we can estimate when, for example, South America split from Africa.
Absurd. You talk religion there, as pure as any could be. If the continents separated fast, and we have a little residual movement still going on, we could NOT use that to set the rates. If you claim that they always had to move slow, because they now do, you again need a same state past. You don't have one. Let's see you prove one, or solidly evidence it.And, knowing the distance involved we can calculate the rate of spreading.
But the prediction involves a fantasy world, you seem to forget. All you really do is observe how it now works, and work from there. Guess what, when I measure with satellites, the rate of movement is also where I predict it will be. So??If processes in the past were different from today we would expect that the former rate would be much slower, or much faster than at present. Guess what? When we measure with satellites, the actual rate of movement it is right there where we predicted it would be, based upon what you have chosen to call a mythical assumption. Some myth.
Prefer to call what science? You are not making any sense. You are also being extremely and persistently rude in the way you are addressing me. If I valued your opinion I would be offended.And, of course there is folks like you as well, who prefer to call it science, for some reason.
I did not say that it did. I pointed out - and I do so again - that this is a science forum. We shall discuss matters here in a scientific fashion. The two indviduals I cited (dayton and Mitchell) are two spiritual individuals, in any sense of the word. They have no difficulty discussing spiritual and scientific matters in a logical, thoughtful, scientific context. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.
It is my immense respect for the spiritual that causes me characterise belief in Christ's physical resurection, or walking on water, etc superstitious twaddle. You will not proselytise your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. I am not issuing a threat. I don't threaten. I'm simply telling you how it is.
I am allowing you to continue you with these ad hominems since they show you in a much worse light than they show me.
My apologies. I hadn't realised just how thick you are. The above nonsense simply reveals a total failure to understand anything and a determination not to risk understanding anything. Your mind is closed.
Please do honour your commitment to leave this forum. It is unlikely I shall waste anymore time on you.
Prefer to call what this thread was discussing science. Let me see, you say I am rude, then proceed to say you disrespect my opinion OK.
Good, then why not discuss how you can evidence a same state past universe?? And do so in a scientific fashion.I did not say that it did. I pointed out - and I do so again - that this is a science forum. We shall discuss matters here in a scientific fashion.
You seem to feel that science is well justified in claiming a same state universe in the past. Such claims should be evidenced, as many on science forums do. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.The two indviduals I cited (dayton and Mitchell) are two spiritual individuals, in any sense of the word. They have no difficulty discussing spiritual and scientific matters in a logical, thoughtful, scientific context. Unless you have some mental limitations we are unaware of I expect the same from you.
Excuse me? This is a science forum. What are you going on about religion for? And in a negative way at that? If you claim someone walked on water, or not, show us the science.It is my immense respect for the spiritual that causes me characterise belief in Christ's physical resurection, or walking on water, etc superstitious twaddle.
Belief in the spiritual, for your information is the majority belief. That is how it is. Unless you back up your so called science claims of a same state universe in the past, you are proselytizing your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. And did I hear you are a mod??? Hang your head in shame.You will not proselytise your minority religion in a thread on astronomy. I am not issuing a threat. I don't threaten. I'm simply telling you how it is.
Hey, what is with the personal attacks here???? Just stick to science please, and support that same past universe claim.I am allowing you to continue you with these ad hominems since they show you in a much worse light than they show me.
There you go again with the ad hominems. If you claim that the universe was the same, simply prove it. No need to try and get personal.My apologies. I hadn't realised just how thick you are.
Not to the facts, despite your petty insults. Can't you be a man, and back up your own claims, and cut the insults?The above nonsense simply reveals a total failure to understand anything and a determination not to risk understanding anything. Your mind is closed.
No. I prefer to expose whether your word is any good. I already said my goodbyes, so why not leave in a way that shows you have no case as I said here? Obviously, or you could discuss it reasonably, and support it. I also was tempted to 'quit before I got fired', but, since you claimed to be so fair minded, and said you would not cut me off, why not let it play out, so all can see what is really going on here???Please do honour your commitment to leave this forum. It is unlikely I shall waste anymore time on you.
You are making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Arrividerci.
Great. C ya. Not that you addressed the topic much anyhow, but thanks for stopping in.
What do you mean by a 'same state universe'? Are you referring to a SSU?
I believe is a SSU that has more evidence for its existence than a BBU that has no 'real' evidence for its wide spread acceptence among the credited scientists. The BBU is 'power science' in my opinion.
Cosmo
December 15th, 2007, 12:48 PM
This was a duplicate post. So I deleted it.
Cosmo
Cosmo; Am sure he/she means Steady or as in Same, to him/her.
In case don't talk at you for awhile...An early Happy Birthday wish for you in a few days...."another 90" not realistic, but get as many as you can....
No. I meant that we now have a certain fabric of the universe, and laws, and forces, etc. Let's call it the present state. I have never seen anyone prove that the far past universe was this state at all.What do you mean by a 'same state universe'? Are you referring to a SSU?
I believe is a SSU that has more evidence for its existence than a BBU that has no 'real' evidence for its wide spread acceptence among the credited scientists. The BBU is 'power science' in my opinion.
Cosmo
Some people of faith believe for example, that there will one day be a new universe, or heavens, and that this universe will be no more. Yet they still envision trees, and people, the earth, sun, etc etc. But in an eternal state, not one, for example, in decay as this state universe matter generally is.
How would science know if the past also was in some sort of created state that was far different fundamentally than ours?? All science does is ASSUME it was the same. They assume that the present is the key to the past. I assume that it is not. Assumptions aside, what can we solidly evidence? The answer, as far as I can tell, is NOT a present state in the far past. We by science, basically do not know. Period. Therefore, making claims based only on assuming it was the same, not being able to prove it, amounts to myth.
Thanks. I hope to pass a hundred years. That would give me an oppor tunity to see the NGST (or is that the JWST?) and any subsequent observations.
I am certain that those observations will debunk the BBU for good.
The Hubble Deep Fields are already creating problems such as giant galaxies with redshifts of 6+ and other galaxies having iron cntent
(another poster on another site) that the BB cannot explain at those time periods.
Cosmo
December 16th, 2007, 10:34 AM
Duplicate post again. I deleted it.
Cosmo
Well, I too hope to make 2013 or see results from the James Webb. Fear it will be delayed.
Yes I have seen the reports on distant thought make up of matter. In short it infers a much older age. I like to use our solar system, which was nearly 100% hydrogen when formed, yet had to be debris from other stars, which infers regeneration of helium and other matter. Regeneration a prime argument against SSU...stability of elements.
Creation; You continue to confuse me on which faith you could possibly be expressing. I am only vaguely familiar with a couple Hindu philosophies which could be where your coming from. Is that it??? The problem here would be your stance on Social issues, which could not come from them...
It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
Real science is confined to the present.
You either are incredibly ignorant or you don't have a shred of academic integrity. How do you think SCIENCE WORKS AT ALL if not based on the fact that the laws of the universe do not change. Science is BASED on repeatability and the fact that science's track record is so outstanding with results you can see, hear, smell, and type on speaks for itself. Your position is classic Last Thursdayism which no one with an ounce of intellect takes seriously. Including most creationists.It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
Real science is confined to the present.
When I drop a ball one million times, record the results, deduct the law it follows, and observe the planets and realize they follow the same law - it is not FAITH that enables me to "believe" that when I drop the ball for the million-and-first time, it'll drop again. It's called having a brain.
Your definition of "faith" shoehorns in absolutely every possible belief about all things, making it as useless as your opinion is.
Creation
See this site from page 4 of Astronomy and Cosmology:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Stead...erse-1351t.php
Cosmo
Technology is confined to the present and built on science, which by nature must have a past to confirm the present.It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
Real science is confined to the present.
On cosmology; We have already gone over the images offered by NASA which gives a clear picture of what thing were in fact 1-2-8-10 BILLION years ago. Other instruments using X-rays and other energy have offered additional history. What more do you require to see at least some historical value to what exist today and then...
Science is not faith based, people in science may be and often do look for and evaluate evidence to prove a personal point. Think half my post have argued this point, but this doesn't mean by any means, all go this route.
Just in case; Steady State Universe, has several understandings, no less than Big Bang Theory. Personally I prefer to track and accept SSU, for a number of reasons based on what makes sense to what I was taught which admittedly was pre BBT acceptance. Cosmo has offered his view which under his previous handle (name). The number one issue, that the Universe known or not (known being observable) has always existed. That stars form from the old debris of dead stars, galaxy are always evolving (Adding or joining another), elements can regenerate and gravity controls the flow of all, which by the way is very fast flow. We can and do disagree on some issues. Fred Hoyle, mentioned by Cosmo, was one of the first to argue BBT, using SSU. In fact he gave the name Big Bang to the theory. He did feel the Universe was increasing in size, but used inflationary, not expansion the reaction of the action BB. Personally I have no guess at this time, but feel it could be expanding similar to the reasons any single galaxy does..Its said there are 2 billion known galaxy with untold unknown and thats a lot of mass in motion to be contained...IMO.
Not really: you have to remember that science is actually peering into the past as other posters have mentioned. And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...It doesn't matter what faith if any I have or not. What matters is that the claims of science are faith based, concerning the distant past, unless you can prove a same state past. Since it can't, we should remember to call it a myth.
Real science is confined to the present.
Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
That means your point is moot.
My apologies. If you were talking about a different universe, then you're right: we can speculate almost anything...Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
That means your point is moot.
Well, yes, such as speculate it was and will be the same as now. Just don't call it science, and we'll be alright.My apologies. If you were talking about a different universe, then you're right: we can speculate almost anything...Obviously, but, as I mentioned, how far into the past?
Thanks for expounding your misunderstanding of what I think. I think that the universe is now in this state. The far away universe falls into that category, unless evidence indicated otherwise. Why would it be a surprise how light speed is in this present universe, close or far?? If the universe was different, then, you need to look at when it was different, and how fast the light of the time got around then. Not now, close or far away.And let's start with hyperfine split spectral lines for example. Astronomers can use spectroscopy on multiaged stars and in all cases these hyperfine split spectral lines will give the speed of light. And, as you might guess, the speed of light is the same from all stars! In other words, in all stars, whether they are a few light years away or millions, you get that the speed of light is the speed of light. Astronomers would have noticed years and years ago if there was variability through time and space on constants such as these...
That means your point is moot.
Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
That is ridiculous. Circular reasoning, and logic. The claims that say things are old are based on a same state of the universe, that no one has a clue about. So, no, that myth is certainly not good enough for me, any more than saying the toothfairydidit.Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
If you, on the other hand, had some evidence that was solid, and testable, and repeatable, and actually observed, that would be science. Do you have any such things for a claim of what the universe state in the future, or past was or will be like?
Remember, we don't just assume, and proceed from there, in a present based state extrapolation backwards, into the mystic. If that is all you do, you have a myth.
Like I said, this is classic Last Thursdayism bullshit. For all you know the universe was created last Thursday. For all you know your parents are aliens. For all you know the God you worship is actually a piece of bacon I shat out 3 weeks ago. You open quite a can of worms when you toss out the "You can't just ASSUME the universe is in the "same state" it used to be". It's intellectually bankrupt as is your entire position for that reason.That is ridiculous. Circular reasoning, and logic. The claims that say things are old are based on a same state of the universe, that no one has a clue about. So, no, that myth is certainly not good enough for me, any more than saying the toothfairydidit.Billions of years - that not good enough for ya?
If you, on the other hand, had some evidence that was solid, and testable, and repeatable, and actually observed, that would be science. Do you have any such things for a claim of what the universe state in the future, or past was or will be like?
Remember, we don't just assume, and proceed from there, in a present based state extrapolation backwards, into the mystic. If that is all you do, you have a myth.
That's nice. Try to sound debonair, when you have no idea what you are talking about. The only last week type BS, is your old age falsely called science myth. There is a lot more proof of last week, than the BS same state universe you preach. Go play in the minor leagues. They might be impressed with stuff of your caliber.
Please. There are adults here. Many of us know lots of evidences that there was a last week. I know a lot better than that kindergarten nonsense. There are observations, which is something you don't have for your myth.For all you know the universe was created last Thursday.
Nonsense, many of us have met our parents. Just because I question the unproven mother of all assumptions, that you base a fantasy world on, is no reason to question things that are actually known. Learn the difference.For all you know your parents are aliens.
I know a lot better than that, as do billions of others over time. But thanks for showing us all where you are coming from. Really.For all you know the God you worship is actually a piece of bacon I shat out 3 weeks ago.
Thank you. You are busted.You open quite a can of worms when you toss out the "You can't just ASSUME the universe is in the "same state" it used to be".
Great. Glad to hear that. Now then, so end the thing fast here, and prove that BS same state universe in the past, now will you???It's intellectually bankrupt as is your entire position for that reason.
I guarantee you can't. Maybe you should start hunting for aliens, or some such, where actual facts doesn't mess up your claims. I mean that.
If you want to include some content in your post that'd be nice, it's hard to respond to "u r teh stoopid" 4-5 times in one post. I'll try though -
Well if the universe were created last Thursday you wouldn't know any better. It was created complete with memories, unless you don't consider those part of the universe. But there's no reason to speculate such nonsense seriously which is where I draw a comparison with your position.
Again you betray your ignorance of science. I can't prove that the speed of light or other constants have remained constant throughout the history of the universe. In fact I concede that certain constants may have changed slightly over time. But the slight changes that reality and observation allow for are nowhere near the kind of changes you imply if your "point" is to have any validity. If the speed of light for example changed by a factor of a million, it would leave evidence. There is none.
So I ask you - what reason is there to think that massive changes to reality may have occured? What mechanism could there possibly be to account for such a change?
Oh really? You know better than that? Hypocrite alert! You sit here asking me for PROOF that the laws of the unvierse have not massively changed at some point (mere observational evidence isn't good enough, you require some impossible burden of proof) yet you refuse to admit that your own personal speculation about God could possibly be incorrect. Because you know better. Well, where's YOUR proof?I know a lot better than that, as do billions of others over time.
Or is it only science (which doesn't usually deal in proof) that requires it?
I'll take science - observational evidence without proof - ANYDAY over your pure speculation without proof.
Baloney. Those that don't know reality from the tooth fairy might find that a challenge.
The comparison is lame, because we have proof of last week in thousands of real ways. At least reasonable proofs. You have nothing for your same state universe in the past claim. Nothing at all. Think about it.But there's no reason to speculate such nonsense seriously which is where I draw a comparison with your position.
Again you betray your ignorance of science. I can't prove that the speed of light or other constants have remained constant throughout the history of the universe.
No one asked you to. I assume that out light in this universe state was constant since it came to be. The question is, when was that? The change is not IN our universe, but our universe is the change.
In fact I concede that certain constants may have changed slightly over time. But the slight changes that reality and observation allow for are nowhere near the kind of changes you imply if your "point" is to have any validity. If the speed of light for example changed by a factor of a million, it would leave evidence. There is none.
My point as well. So? Try to focus here. Our light has nothing to do with the state of the universe in the far past. We have assumed it does.
Whatever it was, the fact is, science can't know, because it is a creature of this present universe only. Therefore, we must admit science is ignorant about either a change in the state of the universe, or no change in it, either one. It is merely assumed that it was and will be the same. Since this is a science forum, it may not be the place to see which myth among men best fits the evidences, where science cannot go. (here are a few ideas on the matter, you should see what I mean, that I don't want to bring them into a science forum http://www.geocities.com/heddidit/ )So I ask you - what reason is there to think that massive changes to reality may have occured? What mechanism could there possibly be to account for such a change?
Name calling aside, you HAVE no observational evidence! Remember, that all you can observe is in this universe, and is, far as we know, in the same state, and under the same laws. Therefore you do not observe the past universe state, or the future.Oh really? You know better than that? Hypocrite alert! You sit here asking me for PROOF that the laws of the unvierse have not massively changed at some point (mere observational evidence isn't good enough,
Why would God enter the picture here? How is He to blame all of a sudden for your false science claims??? If this were not a science forum, we could discuss how the world abounds in proofs, and observations, and testings, and knowledge of God. But, here, we simply display your severe limitations about what you can test, observe, and know about the universe state out of the little fishbowl of the present. If you could prove it, you would. You can't. That suits me just fine, I have my own myths, thank you very much.you require some impossible burden of proof) yet you refuse to admit that your own personal speculation about God could possibly be incorrect.
Science can't prove either one. So I need no science proof, unless I, like you do, make a science claim. You must pony up. Or admit your so called science claims of the past are bogus, and mere myth.Because you know better. Well, where's YOUR proof?
It deals in knowing. It knows by testing, and being able to repeat that test. Also by observations, and other evidences. You have nothing at all for the foundational assumption upon which ALL old age claims rests.Or is it only science (which doesn't usually deal in proof) that requires it?
I think anyone that can read here should begin to realize I am absolutely correct on that. You don't. Now, go do the right thing.
You don't know anything about the history of our universe, save for the present state of it. You have only assumed it was the same. Observations of man began with the Sumerians, and Egyptians, more or less, no?? Anything you say before that, unless the universe was the same then as well, is speculation. Looking at Sumer records, it seems they talk of long lifespans, and a few things, that sound different than today. Why not admit we don't know?I'll take science - observational evidence without proof - ANYDAY over your pure speculation without proof.
Wait a second - the speed of light is DIRECTLY related to what you're talking about. If you believe that the speed of light has been constant then HOW CAN YOU NOT ALSO CONCEDE that we have direct observational evidence of the past universe? Do you not understand the connection? If the speed of light isn't what you're talking about stop saying such meaningless, generic things like "universe state" and BE MORE SPECIFIC.Again, I am forced to believe that you don't understand the implications of what you are saying. If you believe the SOL is constant - how exactly is it an assumption that things work the same now as they used to, if we're staring at it every day.Whatever it was, the fact is, science can't know, because it is a creature of this present universe only. Therefore, we must admit science is ignorant about either a change in the state of the universe, or no change in it, either one. It is merely assumed that it was and will be the same. Since this is a science forum, it may not be the place to see which myth among men best fits the evidences, where science cannot go.
2 questions - can you define exactly what you mean by "present universe"? You claim that's the only thing we're able to actually observe but that doesn't make any sense. Please define it for me. Also you keep saying "the universe state" or something like that and saying we assume it's the same as in the past. What the hell do you mean by that exactly, if not for the values of constants like the speed of light?
Nope, not the speed of our light.
Easy. It has only been constant SINCE it came to exist. That would be at the time this state of universe started to exist. If there was a different state universe, with it's different light, before that, then we can't hold it to our laws, and speed limits.If you believe that the speed of light has been constant then HOW CAN YOU NOT ALSO CONCEDE that we have direct observational evidence of the past universe?
The speed of our light is not an issue, unless it was our light here at the time. If the universe was different, then the light was different. We don't know. Historical documentary evidences of the bible, for example, record how light supposedly reached man very fast, from far stars.Do you not understand the connection? If the speed of light isn't what you're talking about stop saying such meaningless, generic things like "universe state" and BE MORE SPECIFIC.
Because if we were left in this temporary state universe, from another state, where there was a different light, that had near unlimited speeds compared to our light today, then how our present form of light works, in this present time and space fabric universe, doesn't matter. That is why it would be essential to your case to be able to prove there was a same state universe, if you base all claims on it. Otherwise, you have mere myth.Again, I am forced to believe that you don't understand the implications of what you are saying. If you believe the SOL is constant - how exactly is it an assumption that things work the same now as they used to, if we're staring at it every day.
Sure. The universe we live in, and it's physics laws, fundamental forces, gravity, light, etc. The only universe man has known, it seems since recorded history began, thousands of years ago. This is our present universe. Before that, who knows? Back in the time some call pre flood, or others call pre history.2 questions - can you define exactly what you mean by "present universe"?
What else could we observe but the universe we live in? We can't observe the future universe state, or the far past state of the universe. Even science appeals to different laws, when they get down to the so called singularity. If they can do it, so can I.You claim that's the only thing we're able to actually observe but that doesn't make any sense.
I tried to clear that up a while ago, by some comparisons with the bible future. But a mod had a kiniption, at the mention of God, or anything of that nature, I guess. So I try to avoid that now.Please define it for me. Also you keep saying "the universe state" or something like that and saying we assume it's the same as in the past. What the hell do you mean by that exactly, if not for the values of constants like the speed of light?
Briefly, the different future new universe described there, as an example has very different laws than this universe state. I have wondered why not have it's past created universe also different? I looked at all that science can say about it, I think, and found, that they have nothing at all to say about it. They have simply assumed the universe was the same and will be. If you don't believe me, google 'the sun will burn out billion years'
Science does say our sun will cease to exist, because they assume the future is the same. Here is the first link I got with that.
"The stars, the sun and the earth will die -- evaporating into radiation -- and there will be no light, only a vast soup of subatomic particles."
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/
To me, that is silly prophesy. No more than a pure statement of blind faith and religion, that this universe will always only be as we have known it.
Well there's shit entering our telescopes from billions of years ago and from the oldest to the newest there sure doesn't seem to be anything different. Are you suggesting the light, en route already, changed properties?Easy. It has only been constant SINCE it came to exist. That would be at the time this state of universe started to exist. If there was a different state universe, with it's different light, before that, then we can't hold it to our laws, and speed limits.
Yeah...that's how science works...it's based on repeatability. If mankind had your attitude we'd get absolutely nowhere because there'd be no use doing science. No sense studying the stars - no sense making predictions - it's all based on assumptions and things might change tomorrow, or may have changed years ago. That's a 100% useless way of looking at things.What else could we observe but the universe we live in? We can't observe the future universe state, or the far past state of the universe. Even science appeals to different laws, when they get down to the so called singularity. If they can do it, so can I.
Fortunately most people are rational and realize that observation is consistent with a universe which does seem to behave consistently, and we've made the progress that we have.
You only seem to be happy with something you can hold directly in your hands and see directly with your own eyes.
Which makes your belief in God rather curious, I must say.
You'd probably have been much happier living in the dark ages.
So where do you draw the line exactly? You obviously don't like the data we gather from stars which are millions of light years away. Too much assumption there. What about stars 100,000 light years away, is that recent enough to rely on? What about 5 light years? How about our own sun, whose light takes 8 minutes to reach us?
So wherever you draw the line, what do you make of the fact that data seems consistent across the board?
Yeah stellar evolution is pretty well understood. What reason do we have to think the sun won't follow the same behavior we observe in other stars and observe in the sun itself?Science does say our sun will cease to exist, because they assume the future is the same
I tell you one thing though, if we were living at the point where our sun did start to go red giant on us I bet you'd be the first person on the shuttlecraft to our neighboring star system. I suppose you *could* be dumb enough to say "We just ASSUME the sun will run out of fuel, I'm staying put. Jesus <3's me".
Have fun turning into a crispy critter
Only the stuff you make up. All that really enters it is light.
No. Our light never changed properties, since it came to be. The stuff that did change was beyond present science, and we were left with what part of light could exist in a temporal universe that was physical only.Are you suggesting the light, en route already, changed properties?
You have none of that for the same state past myth. Pity, that.Yeah...that's how science works...it's based on repeatability.
Nonsense, we would get a lot further, because we wouldn't be weighed down with the false science mixed with the actual science. Like a runner without the weights.If mankind had your attitude we'd get absolutely nowhere because there'd be no use doing science.
Well, you can study how our universe works now, but keep your silly predictions based only on myth. Long as your predictions are within the little fishbowl of the present, fine. Thus far, and no further, you shall not pass. You can't Buzz Lightyear your myth to infinity and beyond, as much as you would like to.No sense studying the stars - no sense making predictions -
Yours is all based on assumptions and things might not change tomorrow, or may not have changed years ago. How useless, and absolutely not science.it's all based on assumptions and things might change tomorrow, or may have changed years ago.
I agree. When it is based on nothing, as your myth is! Unlike other beliefs, more well founded.That's a 100% useless way of looking at things.
Don't blame progress on your myth now, that is insane. Progress was made in this present state, understanding how it works, and that info is good here, in the real world. Not in your made up la la land past, which is nothing but the stuff of dreams.Fortunately most people are rational and realize that observation is consistent with a universe which does seem to behave consistently, and we've made the progress that we have.
Dealing in reality is a fault in your philosophy then. Fine. No wonder your myth has the entire universe in a speck o soup so small, it could fit in a pore on your nose.You only seem to be happy with something you can hold directly in your hands and see directly with your own eyes.
People in the dark ages thought they were clever, no doubt, as you do. I say this is the darkest age of man. I suppose I am happy enough here. Not wallowing in that darkness, mind you, but exposing it.Which makes your belief in God rather curious, I must say.
You'd probably have been much happier living in the dark ages.
Distance has nothing at all to do with it! Our universe apparently close or far has our present slow light.So where do you draw the line exactly? You obviously don't like the data we gather from stars which are millions of light years away. Too much assumption there. What about stars 100,000 light years away, is that recent enough to rely on? What about 5 light years? How about our own sun, whose light takes 8 minutes to reach us?
Why would it NOT be????? We live in a certain state universe now, all of it changed, far as we can tell.So wherever you draw the line, what do you make of the fact that data seems consistent across the board?
There is no reason to say it will. Stellar evolution is a crock. Taking a few dying stars, and assuming that all will die, because this state is forever is baseless religion.Yeah stellar evolution is pretty well understood. What reason do we have to think the sun won't follow the same behavior we observe in other stars and observe in the sun itself?
Baseless fears. Balderdash. Our sun is fine, and always will be.I tell you one thing though, if we were living at the point where our sun did start to go red giant on us I bet you'd be the first person on the shuttlecraft to our neighboring star system.
Only in your dreams. That is funny. Not only do you puplit pound your myth, but offer prophesies of a dying universe, and hell fire of a dying sun. Get serious. Try and stick to facts.I suppose you *could* be dumb enough to say "We just ASSUME the sun will run out of fuel, I'm staying put. Jesus <3's me".
Have fun turning into a crispy critter
If I may interject, Creation, are you saying that our understanding of how stars work is fundamentally flawed? Do you have an alternative explanation or do you go with "we don't and can't know"?
That depends on what you mean by how they work. If you mean how they now work, why, we may have a bit of a handle on that. The problem is in the assuming it always worked like that.
Therefore, if it all, say, started as a created universe, in some state or other, then changed, we would not know, cause we measure all from here. That means that we really should not extrapolate present processes, etc all the way back in our mind, as if they were responsible for, or part of, the actual creation.
We may see them work just fine now, the error comes in trying to apply that to infinity and beyond just because we figure it is all we know.
Ok. So if we have a "handle on it" of how the stars work now, would that not suggest that our sun will run out of fuel sometime in the future? Also, the light we get from stars that are billions of light years away: Do you contend that they are in fact not that far distant and the light we receive and by extension the information we are able gather about them, are more recent than we have assumed up to now? Or are they maybe that distant, but that the properties of light might have changed recently for all we know and we may be interpreting the information wrong?
Heres an idea to think about. Suns attract time. Once you have left the milky way galaxy you then enter a time with no change or a slower decreasing change rate. With less light and radiation the less space for heat and steady increasing change.
When astronauts go into space they need to exercise more then an hour in space time. Are their bodies changing at different rates or is space just having a different affect?
Your bones lose mass in space, because there is no net gravity effect. It works in a positive reinforcement kind of way. If your bones bare weight, your body strengthens them to be able to carry the weight. So when you exercise in space, you put a load on the skeleton, so it stays dense. It does not work 100% though, so you can’t stay in zero gravity for ever.
Not at all, that is simply assuming it will work this way for billions of years. There is no evidence of that any more than reading tea leaves.
[/quote]Also, the light we get from stars that are billions of light years away: Do you contend that they are in fact not that far distant and the light we receive and by extension the information we are able gather about them, are more recent than we have assumed up to now? Or are they maybe that distant, but that the properties of light might have changed recently for all we know and we may be interpreting the information wrong?
The latter is closer to it. I think that our universe has a certain light, and a different universe stat has another light. Not the same stuff, or the same universe laws to get around in. So, the question is was the universe different or the same? The answer, as far as science goes, is, we have no idea. Therefore all claims, like big bang, universe expansion, stellar evolution, etc etc are based on only a myth.
Are you suggesting then that all research concerning the distant past and distant future be stopped? Has any evidence come to light (excuse the pun) recently to suggest that such a change in the laws has happened in the past? Do you think that light en-route to us for a billion years might have changed it’s nature halfway through?
First it needs to get started. That means it needs to deal with the state of the future, or the far past, and have some inkling what that is! You ain't got there yet.
Has any evidence come to light (excuse the pun) recently to suggest that such a change in the laws has happened in the past?
What are "the laws"??? Present laws? No one says there was a change IN them.
No. Our light was not anywhere doing anything, or going anywhere. The different universe light of the time was. Our light IS the change. It is all science knows, and has assumed that this was more than a temporary state. Yet, when it suits them, they do call this a temporary state universe, although they try and fit it in the same past myth.Do you think that light en-route to us for a billion years might have changed it’s nature halfway through?
Example..
"The universe as we know it, with stars and planets and life, is only temporary..."
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/15/end.universe/
I'm carious as to what the space in between galaxies is called because I believe without rotation of planets and the simply laws of attraction there is no law, there is only the fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is anti-life, without the correct amount of light and radiation, no matter can live. Unless the o-so bending gravity is made of some type particle matter that can sustain lifeforms with tampered technology. Hence Space ships are tampered biotechnology. But the rations can only last so long in a space ship. I wonder if molecules can be reproduced in the chemical reaction that takes energy and reverses its effect, but if energy is an example of time then it can't be reversed. Freezing is the anti-energy. So maybe gravity is a type of freezing particle pushing against the heat the plants and sun produce and eventually is life span will fail like a space ship would, it's just the matter of time.
Freezing is anti energy? So I guess strange things go on in your fridge?
| « Water/Ice on other planets? | What is this? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
