Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12801 - 12820 of total 23205 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 11:52am PT
OK Ed, go copy more stuff off wikipedia then run away. If you have made a coherent argument, I was just too impatient to get it.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 11:59am PT
The Bible said 6 days then a rest on No. 7
the bible says a day is 24 hours, one rotation of Sun (earth)

And since the first modern Human was created (evolved) around ~120,000 years ago,
You will have to say that the Bible is telling us with certainity that the earth was created in 144 hours between 120,000 - 6,000 years ago

You can try and spin it anyway you want, but that is Not what is written in the bible.
jstan

climber
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
It's true, I made that up,

Making stuff up is OK. Making stuff up and assuming it is true absent an argument based upon measurements

isn't.

It is not because it has no extension. It does not lead to anything.

Possibly what you made up is tired light. That has been around for some time. To see a discussion of it, using data, go to

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm



I can't remember the actual idea, but when I thought of it, it seemed absolutely brilliant. Later on in writings from the classic Greek period hundreds of years before X

I encountered the same idea. What really killed me was that there, it was explained better than I could.

Making up something that is actually new rarely happens.

Which is what you would expect if you took a lot of people, put the same machine between their ears and then gave them a lot of similar experience. That's why Einstein beat out Hilbert by a few months at best.

Edit:

Thanks, Marlow. Well worth reading.

Edit:

Don:

How is it you have experience with exafs and do not know all about the quantum?
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:38pm PT
Death and Dying, the Animal Way
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/science/death-and-dying-the-animal-way.html?ref=claudiadreifus
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:47pm PT
I should mention that the big bang theory is not important to me. It's just an example of how people will believe in something impossible because everyone else does. Particularly if all the experts believe it. It may be more sophisticated than the creation story in genesis, but it's of the same nature. But why would all the experts believe it? It's ludicrous and gives ludicrous results.

The real issue for me, and for all religions, is consciousness. What they all have in common is some kind of concept for the soul. I have yet to see a good explanation for the subjective experience of consciousness. That doesn't lead me personally to believe in souls or a God, but I can understand why some people would. To just sweep it under the rug is to deny the amazing experience of being alive.

If Dawkins is on a mission to extinguish religions, he's on the wrong track by focussing on evolution. The real questions religions try to solve are ones like, why am I here, what am I, what is the purpose of my life? Not how old is the earth and how did bats develop their sonar ability. I think Dawkins is a little misguided, just attacking religion without addressing the reasons why people seem to need them. Although, I wonder if science could ever provide really satisfying answers.

Edit - JS thanks for tired light link. That's what I was looking for. Think of it this way. If you were going to invest all your life savings in one company's stock, and you could choose the tired light company, or infinite singularity company, which one would you bet on?
MH2

climber
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
Good old NY Times. They realized we would want to know how Bill was doing.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
The real issue for me, and for all religions, is consciousness. What they all have in common is some kind of concept for the soul. I have yet to see a good explanation for the subjective experience of consciousness

Don,

If you look back on this thread, we argued about consciousness until we were blue in the face. This thread has been dominated by maybe 20 personalities who have been at it since we moved over here from Largo's "What is Mind?" thread. It is at least 2 years old and is full of science and spirituality.

So you aren't going to get much debate on ground that we have all covered to death.

Ed is a physicist at Livermore I believe. He is pretty sharp. The math angle is covered by Gill and Stannard. I'm the Earth History guy.

We have a lot of Christians who come and go. We try to be polite to all opinions and there is almost no flaming.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 01:25pm PT
The real questions religions try to solve are ones like, why am I here, what am I, what is the purpose of my life?

why am I here? you are an accident of nature, evolution has not planned for you to happen

what am I? a Homo sapien

what is the purpose of my life? there is no other purpose other than to grow, live and propagate the species (if you feel that is right for you)

so don't forget to live your life to the fullest, because that's all there is
Question? What more could there possibly be?
Answer- nothing

Questions Solved
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Yes, you start out with a fixed wavelength. When you measure it, it's longer than its supposed to be. John Stannard has figured out what I was trying to say, I'm a "tired light" guy, as it turns out. Now I'm not ready to go defending some theory I only heard about 15 minutes ago, and the link JS cites, from a UCLA professor, really trashes the work of some guy named John Kierein. So I follow his link to Kierein's work and it turns out there's a whole other side to the story, and Kierein is criticizing all kinds of other discrepancies that the big bang can't explain.

The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere.

I'm not ready to jump on this bandwagon yet, but it sure looks more promising than the universe and all Noah's ark on the head of a pin.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 25, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 25, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
Upon Big Bang - from some years ago:

"Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it. Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.

In its original form, an expanding Einstein model had an attractive, economic elegance. Alas, it has since run into serious difficulties, which have been cured only by sticking on some ugly bandages: inflation to cover horizon and flatness problems; overwhelming amounts of dark matter to provide internal structure; and dark energy, whatever that might be, to explain the seemingly recent acceleration. A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.

The historian of science Daniel Boorstin once remarked: "The great obstacle to discovering the shape of the Earth, the continents and the oceans was not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments and contradictory witnesses." Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come."
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 25, 2013 - 02:57pm PT

Evidence for the Big Bang

The CMB signal detected by Penzias and Wilson, a discovery for which they later won a Nobel Prize, is often described as the “echo” of the Big Bang. Because if the Universe had an origin, it would leave behind a signature of the event, just like an echo heard in a canyon represents a “signature” of the original sound. The difference is that instead of an audible echo, the Big Bang left behind a heat signature throughout all of space.

Another prediction of the Big Bang theory is that the Universe should be receding from us. Specifically, any direction we look out into space, we should see objects moving away from us with a velocity proportional to their distance away from us, a phenomenon known as the red shift.

Edwin Hubble, in 1929, was able to correlate the distance to objects in the universe with their velocities -- a relation known as Hubble's Law. Big Bang theorists later used this information to approximate the age of the Universe at about 15 billion years old, which is consistent with other measurements of the age of the Universe.
http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasics/a/Origin-Of-The-Universe.htm
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
Marlow that house of cards is bound to crash. Just remember, you heard it first from some dirtbag in a rock climbing forum.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 25, 2013 - 03:13pm PT
Just read an article in Physics Today about quantum space time. Bunch of crazy sh#t I will never understand, apparently just to get some funky looking graphs.

It is no wonder Merkins prefer religion... any 5 year old can understand THOSE stories.
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 25, 2013 - 04:09pm PT
That Boorstin quote is the whole point.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 25, 2013 - 04:12pm PT
nice one, cintune

says it all
jstan

climber
Mar 25, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
That article on Quantum Loop Gravity which quantizes space itself was written densely. The one on
slow neutrons however was written for a wider audience. Two things:

1. Kepler's paper on the earth going around the sun got more than disbelieving ridicule. It also
caused planning in some quarters as to how this guy might be stopped.

2. When you have a problem for which you can't write equations that explain the measurements,
you question first your IQ and then you question your assumptions. When you question your
assumptions you are in terrain where Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, Dirac, Planck, and many others too
numerous to mention have worked. All came up with crazy theories.

That worked.

String theory is a crazy theory with crazy consequences. No problem. String theorists are even more
interested than the rest of us to get a test of it. Up or down does not matter. Maybe polarization in
the CMB will be that test. Exciting stuff!

When I try to think of a time when it might have been more exciting to be alive than it is today,
I have to go back to 400BC.
Spider Savage

Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
Mar 25, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
The Big Bang Theory has always seemed kind of sketchy to me. I can only swim in the shallow end of that pool.

But...


Why does the universe have to have a beginning and an end?


It's like the popularity of monotheism. Why is one god so good?

Egyptian, Greek and Roman polytheism seems waaay more fun. (more gods to blame for misfortune)


Every time we improve our technology we keep extending the age of the universe. Why? Because people in Science circles would freak out if you showed irrefutable evidence that the universe is over 100 Billion years old. Or a Trillion. Orrrrr perhaps never even started but has always been. Choke on THAT bone.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
Every time we improve our technology we keep extending the age of the universe. Why? Because people in Science circles would freak out if you showed irrefutable evidence that the universe is over 100 Billion years old. Or a Trillion. Orrrrr perhaps never even started but has always been. Choke on THAT bone.

Spider. Explain to us how the age of the universe is determined.

You know. Hit Wiki for five minutes before you speak.

I'll give you a hint. It isn't a trillion years.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2013 - 06:25pm PT
OK. About half of the info posted in the last 48 hours is either false or based on willful ignorance. If you have been around this thread for very long, you will know that willful ignorance is a big peeve of mine.

Before you start wasting everyone's time here, please go read up.

The science of cosmology increases both with theory and observation, but lately, it has been a lot of observation. Ever since the first telescope looked at the sky, something new was learned. Now with newer and better telescopes, satellites that study certain wavelengths of "light," and general advancements in radio astronomy, there seems to be something new around every corner. 20 years ago these instruments were not available.

Here is a good one that you should know about. I'm a geologist and I know what it is:

Credit: BASE104

Messages 12801 - 12820 of total 23205 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews