Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13821 - 13840 of total 22937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Mar 24, 2013 - 09:23pm PT
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/13-neil-turok-universe-has-no-beginning-or-end#.UU_P3RzUmSo

A cyclical view of the infinite arising and falling of forms, including our universe as we know it, is starting to get some traction with even with some physicists.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 24, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
^^^ I couldn't even read past this....,
the universe emerged from a point of infinite density and temperature—what’s known as the initial singularity.

I mean " infinite density"?,, doesn't seem like these two words work together?

But "infinite temperature"?

I can imagine one day long ago. When the entire universe was void of all energies.
And all the matter laid on a linear plane. Was without form. No movement. No time.

So how could there be ANY temperature?

I'll go read on.

Edit:
We are now close to having the first mathematically and logically complete, consistent description of the passage of a universe through a singularity.
OK that's enough. I guess i'm stupid?
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 04:46am PT
Yes, that's enough. If that's what your theory requires, you have a problem. Physicists seem to like these kind of results, but they should be disturbed by them. Also, there seem to be two related ideas that people use interchangeably. One is that everything is moving away from the point where the bang occured, just like an explosion. The second is that space itself is expanding rather than things moving though space. The second one may be true or may just require some tweaking of relativity, but its not the big bang theory.

JL, the reason some people believe the big bang has to be cyclical, is that if you believe in the big bang the obvious question is, how did the universe get to be an infinitely small point? How did it get that way? Kind of like if you believe God created everything, what created God? So having a universe that expands and contracts like that in a cycle makes a little more sense, but only a little, since it still requires you to accept so many impossible things. That is the hallmark of relgious dogma, by the way. Ed, since you obviously have physics training it would be great if someone could explain all this in layman's terms. As far as I can tell the only real evidence are the red shifts, which become "Hubble's Law", and when you put a few simple geometry and calculus (dx/dy) ideas into it, you can derive some equations that seem to provide credibility. However, it's all based on the assumption that the red shifts are caused by the doppler effect, which is the fatal flaw in the idea. The cosmic background experiments are not convincing at all. Hey, I'm not the one arguing that the universe was once a tiny point of infinite density, and then all the animals and whatnot sprang forth when it exploded. If you're going to believe that, why not believe in all of creationism?
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 07:57am PT
It should be all the differences in energies among the orbitals of the electron. There's more than one wavelength. So I suppose if there is a doppler effect, it would be different for the different wavelengths in the spectrum. Is that what you mean, that red shifts are observed in multiple emission lines of hydrogen, and the only way to reconcile them is the doppler effect?
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 25, 2013 - 08:39am PT
I think that you are trying to tell us all about absorption spectroscopy.

Go wiki it up before you post. It saves time and you look smarter!!

Credit: BASE104

edit: sorry. I posted before I saw Ed's post. He finally gets to talk physics again.

Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 08:39am PT
What does this have to do with anything? When pressed to explain the red shifts I said there is an energy loss over distance, that can only be measured at very long distances. It's true, I made that up, but it's far more believable than what you get from the big bang. (Base104 - I do know about absorption spectroscopy and have published papers on exafs while at brookhaven, but like Ed's comment, I dont see how the diagram of the hydrogen spectrum helps you prove the big bang)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 25, 2013 - 08:47am PT
It's true, I made that up,

Said every creationist, ultimately, every time.
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 25, 2013 - 08:52am 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 - 08:59am 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 - 09:35am 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 - 09:38am 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 - 09:47am 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 - 09:48am 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 - 09:57am 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 - 10:25am 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 - 10:27am 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 - 11:22am PT
Credit: Dr. F.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Mar 25, 2013 - 11:45am 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 - 11:57am 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 - 12:08pm PT
Marlow that house of cards is bound to crash. Just remember, you heard it first from some dirtbag in a rock climbing forum.
Messages 13821 - 13840 of total 22937 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews