Happy Atheist Forum

QuoteThe Big Bang describes how the Universe began as a single point 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since, but it doesn't explain what happened before that. Researchers from Penn State University believe that there should be traces of evidence in our current universe that could used to look back before the Big Bang. According to their research, there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.

Full article: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish ... _bang.html (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/beyond_big_bang.html)

I don't understand what exactly this would mean in relation to the fate of our own universe. I tried googling loop quantum gravity, but didn't find much in the way of how it applies to whether this universe is open or closed. If it is true that prior to the BB a contracting universe existed which bounced back into what we have now, does that mean that this universe could also face the same fate of contraction even though it is currently accelerating outward?

I found this article while trying to find current theories related to the idea that our current universe is the result of infinate expansions and contractions. But I couldn't remember what that theory was called.

Anyway, although it is pretty much impossible at this point to definately say how the universe came to be and what it will become, what is everyone else's pet theory?
_________________
“Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous” - David Hume

The big bounce is part of the LQG theory. Here's a wiki article on the big bounce:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce)

Lee Smolin talks about loop quantum gravity:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin0 ... index.html (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_index.html)

Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity)

Smolin also had an article in the January 2004 issue of Scientific American:

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?f ... 1F85536798 (http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=66752753-2B35-221B-619EB81F85536798)

thanks for the links...very helpful.

No problemo.

well, since you asked

(not sure if i'm gonna get my ears chewed off by you for posting my beliefs in this section instead of the preaching forum, but since you asked it in this section, here goes.

look around you, at all the trees, hills, dirt, planets, stars - billions and billions of them, containing soooooo much matter we cant even begin to grasp how much -  how can you believe this sprang into being, by ITSELF, out of nothing, with no creator?  after all, its here, and its BIG.  could you not allow yourself the possibility of considering that maybe it was CREATED?  it makes at least as much sense as the big bang theory from an infinitely SMALL dot of infinite density.  my viewpoint makes more sense, i believe.

dont you ever look up at the stars, etc, with a sense of awe, and just wonder?
or, as i suspect, do you struggle really hard to go out of your way to find an alternative explanation because maybe you dont WANT to accept things as being created?   i mean, your belief requires at least as much faith as mine.

Our belief doesn't really require as much faith as yours. We have compelling evidence to back ours up. And I do look at the stars with a sense of wonder. When I see then, I think "I wonder what's out there, and will I ever get to see it?"

but, twist of cain, how can you say you have compelling evidence? as the original posting said,

"Anyway, although it is pretty much impossible at this point to definately say how the universe came to be and what it will become, what is everyone else's pet theory?"

where is the evidence, or is it just pet theories?

Compelling evidence is not absolute proof. I have compelling evidence for my theories. I recognize that I could be wrong. My evidence for my hypothesis (admittedly untestable) is the current state of the universe. It can be shown that the universe is expanding. If the universe is finite, which I believe it is, then it makes sense that it would contract at some point. Given physical laws that state that matter cannot be created or destroyed, this implies that matter has always existed. Therefore, the universe always existed. That's my evidence. But, again, I'm no scientist.

Quotehow can you believe this sprang into being, by ITSELF, out of nothing, with no creator?

I ask you the same question about your god. You bleevers always say creation ex nihilo is impossible, but you beleive your god was created ex nihilo.

If your comeback to that is, god has always existed, how do you know matter hasn't always existed?

Quotewhere is the evidence, or is it just pet theories?

I really wish that they would ban bibles in jail, and only allow science or other usefull books. That way, when you get out of the pen, you can be a usefull member of society instead of a godbot.

Insted of asking this question here, why don't you pull your nose out of your musty tome of fairy tales, and read something else? Learn something new. It won't kill you, I promise.

Quote from: "MikeyV"Insted of asking this question here, why don't you pull your nose out of your musty tome of fairy tales, and read something else? Learn something new. It won't kill you, I promise.

You've gotta give him credit for trying. He's just learning why we think how we do. It's hard for a Christian to step out of their own worldview, even for a few seconds. I think he's asking some great questions which will enable him to learn a lot of stuff he otherwise would have overlooked.

as a matter for the record, i've studied in depth all kinds of scientific theories over a number of years, including evolution, particle physics, string theory, black holes.  im not coming from a totally uninformed position, you may know.

as a matter of interest, current theories on subatomic particles seem strongly to suggest something of what you would call metaphysics to explain what scientists are observing, not hard and fast science after all.

Quote from: "onlyme"as a matter for the record, i've studied in depth all kinds of scientific theories over a number of years, including evolution, particle physics, string theory, black holes.  im not coming from a totally uninformed position, you may know.

as a matter of interest, current theories on subatomic particles seem strongly to suggest something of what you would call metaphysics to explain what scientists are observing, not hard and fast science after all.

Well that's good to know. As an amateur astronomer I've been studying and teaching astronomy for about 25 years. I also have a BS in Biology and a great interest in evolutionary biology. We might have a lot to discuss.

However, I'd be interested to know what theories on subatomic particles you speak of that go into "metaphysics". I doubt that they are current accepted theory.

While we're at it, let's differentiate between the words "theory" and "hypothesis". They seem to get people into trouble as scientists tend to have different definitions than lay folks and, especially, creationists and intelligent design folks.

A theory isn't something that is just an idea. Here is a brief definition from the American Museum of Natural History:

"In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space."

So that will hopefully keep us out of trouble when we start discussing theories. They aren't guesses, or hypotheses.

Quote from: "onlyme"but, twist of cain, how can you say you have compelling evidence? as the original posting said,

"Anyway, although it is pretty much impossible at this point to definately say how the universe came to be and what it will become, what is everyone else's pet theory?"

where is the evidence, or is it just pet theories?

by "pet theory" I was actually referring to origins prior to the big bang.  Although the big bang is a theory it is also backed up by quite a bit of evidence, so it is logical to think that something like the BB happened.  However there are numerous BB based theories which try to further make sense of the universe.

My current idea is that matter may have just always existed in some form or another.  Something existing could just be the natural state of things.  Theists think god always existed...so why can't that idea just apply to matter and cut out the middle man.  I think the big difference you'll find between atheists and theists is that atheists are willing to change their beliefs in light of new evidence.  Theism, esp of the religious variety, doesn't give that much room for changing beliefs without altering core beliefs.  Right now we have the question "why is a universe here rather than nothing?"  The real answer is we don't know right now but have some theories that seem promising.  Theists use god to replace "we don't know" (often called god of gaps) atheists are generally content with admitting to not have the answer yet.

Quote from: "onlyme"as a matter of interest, current theories on subatomic particles seem strongly to suggest something of what you would call metaphysics to explain what scientists are observing, not hard and fast science after all.

Yes, Metaphysics is traditionally a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the universe and reality.  However, physicist studying sub-atomic structures and particles are performing metaphysical studies, only using the empirical methods of scientific inquiry.  This is what makes it hard science.  
Just so we're clear, empiricism was, and is, also a branch of epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge in philosophy.  Science cannot ask questions about the nature or value of empricism, since it takes this as a basic assumption.  Within philosophy, hardly any other idea is more solid than empiricism as a method for attaining true knowledge about the world.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "onlyme"but, twist of cain, how can you say you have compelling evidence? as the original posting said,

"Anyway, although it is pretty much impossible at this point to definately say how the universe came to be and what it will become, what is everyone else's pet theory?"

where is the evidence, or is it just pet theories?

by "pet theory" I was actually referring to origins prior to the big bang.  Although the big bang is a theory it is also backed up by quite a bit of evidence, so it is logical to think that something like the BB happened.  However there are numerous BB based theories which try to further make sense of the universe.

My current idea is that matter may have just always existed in some form or another.  Something existing could just be the natural state of things.  Theists think god always existed...so why can't that idea just apply to matter and cut out the middle man.  I think the big difference you'll find between atheists and theists is that atheists are willing to change their beliefs in light of new evidence.  Theism, esp of the religious variety, doesn't give that much room for changing beliefs without altering core beliefs.  Right now we have the question "why is a universe here rather than nothing?"  The real answer is we don't know right now but have some theories that seem promising.  Theists use god to replace "we don't know" (often called god of gaps) atheists are generally content with admitting to not have the answer yet.

Well, technically, the statement that matter cannot be created or destroyed is wrong. Therefore, saying that matter has always existed in some form or another is tenous. It has to be better defined. Matter, isn't always well-defined either. If you're talking about "everyday" matter, the fermionic kind, then your talking about the stuff we're familiar with. But that excludes electromagnetic energy and certain types of field energy.

Anyway, the point is that matter is not conserved, especially in Special Relativity, according to the common definition of matter. The Law of Conservation of Matter does not propose that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Even though it states that matter is not destroyed in a reaction, it doesn't prevent matter from changing form, which is what happens.

And besides, none of this is relevant to the universe prior to the Big Bang. Neither does the Big Bang address, or need to address, what came before. It is an accepted theory for what happened from the time of singularity, through inflation, and just after. The predictions made by BB theory have been borne out by experiment and observation. It's a pretty damn solid theory. It does not try to account for more than that.  There are other hypotheses out there trying to do that now.

I've rambled now, and even managed to lose my own train of thought, so I'll quit here! LOL!
(damn, I hate it when I do that!)

i'll get back to you on that

it's a big and complicated subject

another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

but although scientists use this law to explain the current working of things, they also say that the laws of physics break down at the point of the big bang, which seems a convenient way to opt out of a serious consideration of the contunuity of these natural laws, or rather, the creation

i know this is only a general, not in depth posting, but it shows i think that at least my concept of our origins is no less valid than yours

none of us can prove or disprove our own or the others system

so i might be right, right?

Quote from: "onlyme"actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation

There are a lot of contradictions and outright impossibilities in Genesis. I will start a thread when I have more time.

Quote from: "onlyme"another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

If you were talking about the second law conflicting with evolution (seems to be a fairly common claim recently) here is an article from talkorigns which explains why there is no conflict...why that law doesn't even apply.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html)

You guys might want to clarify that you're talking about the same thing. "Law of Conservation"
"Second Law"

What the hell do you mean? LOL!

Shortcuts are dangerous, they lead you into brick walls sometimes.

Quote from: "onlyme"another bone of contention is concerning the law of conservation.  actually, this seems to agree with what God said, that after his 6 day period of creation, it was finished, so nothing new (in terms of matter, was being created anymore),

but although scientists use this law to explain the current working of things, they also say that the laws of physics break down at the point of the big bang, which seems a convenient way to opt out of a serious consideration of the contunuity of these natural laws, or rather, the creation

i know this is only a general, not in depth posting, but it shows i think that at least my concept of our origins is no less valid than yours

none of us can prove or disprove our own or the others system

so i might be right, right?

The only thing you're showing right now is a fairly significant lack of understanding of physics, biology and chemistry. You didn't specify what law of conservation you're talking about. Are we to assume it is the Law of Conservation of Energy? If so, it has no bearing whatsoever on Evolution!

You also seem to confuse human origins with the origin of the universe. That's ridiculous. They're not the same thing.

Additionally, the bible is not a science textbook, and any decent, respectable bible scholar ought to know that.  

You're all over the place with your theories. Stick to one thing at a time. Evolution and Big Bang Theories have nothing to do with one another!

McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

basicially, we have a lot to learn.

i will try to elaborate a more on these points in the future, but you can research the points ive hinted on quite easily.

science is not the god people thought it was, basically

theres a lot of interesting things to find out in the points ive made

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

Yep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

Quote from: "onlyme"science is not the god people thought it was

You can't take something that we currently don't know and say "Aha! So science doesn't know everything!" Science requires objective reasoning and time to explain the universe. Just because we don't know something now, doesn't mean we won't in the future, or even the near future for that matter. Taking something that science has failed to explain, injecting "God did it." and moving on has never helped in the past. It's just an easy cookie-cutter answer to fill in all of the holes in our understanding.

People at one point thought that Earth was flat.

Using the scientific method, we have proven that the flat earth concept is false.

People at one point thought that Earth was the center of the universe.

Using the scientific method, we have proven that the geocentric model is false.

And so on, and so on...

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ

No, what im trying to say is that evolutionists and secularists use a set of laws to explain the universe, but are then basically forced to abandom them to explain the big bang. i know its a concise posting, not much detail.

No, cosmologists don't have to abandon current theory to explain the Big Bang. The most recent developments, even the ones from a decade ago, like the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, only lend further credence to it.

Quote from: "onlyme"also, as you probably know, research into quantum physics is revealing a great deal of disturbing probabilities, rather than dependable, observable laws which we can depend on for every understanding of the universe and its workings.

Actually, QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is the most verified, scientifically accurate and proven theory of natural phenomena there is. It successfully merges Quantum interactions with Special Relativity. And even if cosmologists don't yet have a Grand Unification Theory (GUT) that will answer the Big question, this is a nice step towards it. The problem comes when someone says, "We don't know this yet. It must be God." Rather than saying, "Let's keep searching." The advancements science has made to this point were ALL unknown at some point, and religious leaders always invoked God, and scientists always kept looking until they found the truth. It will be no different with GUT.

Quote from: "onlyme"also, a general consensus exists that there is not enough matter in the universe to account for the distribution of galaxies, and their different rotations.

Not enough space (no pun intended) or time to go into this can of worms, but see my above point on "keep searching" vs. "It must be God". Trust me, God doesn't explain this seeming inconsistency.

Quote from: "onlyme"the constant speed of light concept is being challenged seriously by some scientists,

Another topic that needs to be discussed on its own.

Quote from: "onlyme"in short, i know its not detailed, i'm saying that the more scientists find out, the more perplexed and uncertain they are about their long held beliefs, and are having to question or even abandon them.

No, that's incorrect. They are actually finding out more and more that they are correct, and headed in the right direction. Your assertion is just plain wrong.

Quote from: "onlyme"basicially, we have a lot to learn.

I agree.

Quote from: "onlyme"i will try to elaborate a more on these points in the future, but you can research the points ive hinted on quite easily.

science is not the god people thought it was, basically

theres a lot of interesting things to find out in the points ive made

No one, not any scientist, or any sane person, said science was a god. Neither does it care about god, or replacing god. That's a fallacious statement. Additionally, I need no more research on any of these topics. I'm quite up to date on everything you've talked about, and up to date on some things we haven't gone into yet, like Evolutionary Biology, or just plain old Genetics. I sincerely and with no malice, suggest you take some real university level classes in these topics and stop reading the I.D. propaganda. It's wrong and easily refutable.

Regarding the law of conservation of energy and its relation to the Big Bang...

I really enjoy reading about cosmology; I'd say it's kinda like a pet interest of mine.  Lately I've been reading The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris.  The author describes a theory in which our universe bubbles out of a previous universe.

Standard big bang cosmology looks kinda like this:
----Initial Singularity
-----------/\
T--------/---\
I-------/-----\
M-----/--------\
E----/-----------\
     Volume of Universe

In this theory, it would look more like this:
 
--(existing universe)
--____--____
T------/--\
I-----/-----\
M---/-------\
E--/----------\
     Volume(of our universe)

A cosmological model like this one could be explained as a singularity exploding in the previous universe (which may be the 11 dimensional universe described in M-theory) in order to create our current 4 dimensional one.   It's an interesting and very plausible hypothesis that eliminates the need to violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy because any matter that "was created" in our universe merely came from the previous one.

The problem with this theory, of course, is where the previous universe came from, which either creates a previous big bang or a very big infinity of universes jumping out of previous universes forever.

Edited because my initial pictures were even uglier than the ones you see now.

QuoteYep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

Nor will we ever according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Quote from: "Aullios"Regarding the law of conservation of energy and its relation to the Big Bang...

I really enjoy reading about cosmology; I'd say it's kinda like a pet interest of mine.  Lately I've been reading The Whole Shebang by Timothy Ferris.  The author describes a theory in which our universe bubbles out of a previous universe.

Standard big bang cosmology looks kinda like this:
----Initial Singularity
-----------/\
T--------/---\
I-------/-----\
M-----/--------\
E----/-----------\
     Volume of Universe

In this theory, it would look more like this:
 
--(existing universe)
--____--____
T------/--\
I-----/-----\
M---/-------\
E--/----------\
     Volume(of our universe)

A cosmological model like this one could be explained as a singularity exploding in the previous universe (which may be the 11 dimensional universe described in M-theory) in order to create our current 4 dimensional one.   It's an interesting and very plausible hypothesis that eliminates the need to violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy because any matter that "was created" in our universe merely came from the previous one.

The problem with this theory, of course, is where the previous universe came from, which either creates a previous big bang or a very big infinity of universes jumping out of previous universes forever.

Edited because my initial pictures were even uglier than the ones you see now.

Great book! One of my all-time favorites. I read it in 1996, I believe. The first year it was published. Did you read a revised version, Allios?

QuoteYep, we don't know everything about this strange universe around us. Yet.

Nor will we ever according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Quote from: "McQ"Great book! One of my all-time favorites. I read it in 1996, I believe. The first year it was published. Did you read a revised version, Allios?

No, I'm reading the original version.  I'm about 3/4 of the way through it right now.. I just finished the section on string theory.  It's interesting to read about a theory that so quickly became supplanted by an even more complete theory (M-Theory).

I don't have access to many newer books because I live in Nowhere, Bible Belt, GA and the library is quite underfunded.

Damn double posts!!!!!!!!

iplaw, you seem to be afflicted a lot by these double-posts.

what's going on, mate?

darned interesting, discussion, though

Darned difficult discussion. Do you beleive that the universe is infinite or finite?

It's finite.  Just remember, finite can be very big.

If the universe was infinite, and the universe were expanding currently, it would mean the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time as well.  Since matter in the universe is more or less homogenous, any given direction would have a star.  Since the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be able to see light from every star in the sky.  Therfore, night would be just as bright as day, because the night sky would so dense with stars, you wouldn't be able to discern them.

Quote from: "Aullios"It's finite.  Just remember, finite can be very big.

If the universe was infinite, and the universe was expanding currently, it would mean the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time as well.  Since matter in the universe is more or less homogenous, any given direction would have a star.  Since the universe had been around for an infinite amount of time, we would be able to see light from every star in the sky.  Therfore, night would be just as bright as day, because the night sky would so dense with stars, you wouldn't be able to discern them.

But that's not strictly true, is it?   For one thing, if there are as many black holes as stated in current theory, an awful lot of stars would have ceased to 'exist'.  Also, since galaxies are said to be speeding away, and the further they are away, the faster they are travelling, then the outermost galaxies would no longer be visible, due the the fact that some of them, after such a long time, would be travelling at or beyond the speed of light....and the constant speed of light has supposedly been redefined, if current science is to be believed.

I think, though, that the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is one we cannot answer.  Both theories seem to come loaded with impossiblities, which we can't get our heads round.

This is one reason I said that as 'men', we should remain humble in the face of facts which we, in our finite state, are incapable of comprehending.

One point for the creationists!

Quote from: "onlyme"But that's not strictly true, is it?   For one thing, if there are as many black holes as stated in current theory, an awful lot of stars would have ceased to 'exist'.  

Whoa there, big fella! An awful lot of stars HAVE ceased to exist. Did you think there were only a couple thousand stars in the universe? This is where you need to learn a little astronomy. Really, even just a little would have prevented you from saying something so meaningless as that.

Quote from: "onlyme"Also, since galaxies are said to be speeding away, and the further they are away, the faster they are travelling, then the outermost galaxies would no longer be visible, due the the fact that some of them, after such a long time, would be travelling at or beyond the speed of light....and the constant speed of light has supposedly been redefined, if current science is to be believed.

Again, a little astronomy education would be in order. Ok, admittedly, a lot of education would be in order for this one, but you shouldn't get in over your head when you don't actually know what you're talking about. Did you read this off of a tract or something? Even our Milky Way galaxy is travelling at a speed far less than than the speed of light. FAR less. In fact, it's not travelling at any one speed, but at different speeds relative to other objects in the universe. Here's a tidbit from "Ask the Space Scientist":

"Due to relativity, the speed of the Milky Way varies when compared with different objects in space. For example, I have learned from my research that the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other with a speed of about 130 km/s (80 miles/sec), however the collision of these two galaxies will not occur for about 5 billion years (AstroFile). Another result I found was that our galaxy and neighbors are moving at 600 km/s (373 miles/sec) in the direction of the constellation Hydra (Scientific American). Finally, I found that the Milky Way moves through space within the cluster of galaxies it is a member of, and this cluster in turn moves through space towards yet another larger cluster of galaxies off in the direction of the constellation Virgo. This speed is approximately 300 km/s (186 miles/sec). Therefore, the speed of the Milky Way galaxy is not a single number, its value is relative to the speed of other objects."

In a billion years or so, we'll be travelling at about 1000 miles per second, still not close to 186,000 miles per second. Additionally, not everything is expanding at the same rate, or at a constant acceleration. The universe isn't smooth, it's "lumpy".

Quote from: "onlyme"I think, though, that the question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is one we cannot answer.  Both theories seem to come loaded with impossiblities, which we can't get our heads round.

Finally, something that is at least partly true! We do not know for sure if the universe is finite or infinite for certain. But the theories are not loaded with impossibilities. Two things to stress with not knowing the answer to "finite vs. infinite" universe:
   1. That doesn't mean you throw your arms up and say, "We don't know, so we'll never know! Let's just give up looking."
   2. It signifies all the more reason to only make hypotheses and theories based on observation and experimentation, not on conjecture. Especially not based on a book that is not a cosmology textbook, like the Bible.

This is much more complicated than you are making it out to be, which is an all-too-common mistake. Do you even know the implications of a finite vs. infinite universe? Do you realize that even in a finite universe, the universe wouldn't have an "edge" or boundary? That no matter where you are in the universe, it always appears that you are at the center?

I'm guessing you don't know the answers to any of these, or their implications. This is observable, testable, science. We've already learned more than you know. Until about 75 years ago, people were convinced the universe was static and unchanging. If you had lived then, you would be saying the same thing you are now, but using the static universe as your reason to just be humble and not ask questions. Well, guess what? People did ask questions and did get answers! We will keep getting answers as long as we keep asking questions and looking.

Quote from: "onlyme"This is one reason I said that as 'men', we should remain humble in the face of facts which we, in our finite state, are incapable of comprehending.

One point for the creationists!

Sorry! Point taken! I came out of semi-retirement from the forum to answer this one, because it's so full of errors and oversimplified thinking.
We can be humble, but we can humbly ask questions and seek answers to the world and universe in which we live.

(once again, this post not checked for spelling. I'm in a big friggin hurry!)

McQ, you were right when you said that you posted this in a hurry.  So did I.  It was meant to provoke research, and discussion.  There is much that is wrong, and over-simplified in what you say, also.

Time constrains me at present on debating this in further detail.  We will go head to head on a future date, ok?

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ, you were right when you said that you posted this in a hurry.  So did I.  It was meant to provoke research, and discussion.  There is much that is wrong, and over-simplified in what you say, also.

Time constrains me at present on debating this in further detail.  We will go head to head on a future date, ok?

I'm all ears, chief.

Yes, i was thinking about that boundary thing. Why does it appear as though we are always in the middle of the universe? is it possible that we could suddenly bump into the edge of the universe, assuming that we had such advanced space technology? or maybe when we reach the edge of this universe, we travel into another?

i know we are rotating, but i never knew we were "moving". is the sun moving too? if we are moving at different rates, then shouldn't we feel when we suddenly get slower, much as when a car suddenly brakes? and if different masses move at different rates, then could a drifting planet move into the sun's gravitational pull, resulting in a 10th planet?

and if the galaxies are rushing together, won't earth have a much higher collision rate?

if black holes are endlessly sucking in light and matter, after a couple of eons, won't there be nothing but black holes left? can black holes suck in black holes? what supposedly happens when you get sucked into a black hole, do you get crushed to a size of an atom, or something like that? if so, won't black holes eventually "fill up?" how is it possible to "get rid" of black holes? can black holes eventually collapse upon themself? do black holes have mass?

and sorry, i don't really have an advanced knowledge in astronomy yet. maybe when i get to college. or high school.

Quote from: "silviakjell"Yes, i was thinking about that boundary thing. Why does it appear as though we are always in the middle of the universe? is it possible that we could suddenly bump into the edge of the universe, assuming that we had such advanced space technology? or maybe when we reach the edge of this universe, we travel into another?

i know we are rotating, but i never knew we were "moving". is the sun moving too? if we are moving at different rates, then shouldn't we feel when we suddenly get slower, much as when a car suddenly brakes? and if different masses move at different rates, then could a drifting planet move into the sun's gravitational pull, resulting in a 10th planet?

and if the galaxies are rushing together, won't earth have a much higher collision rate?

if black holes are endlessly sucking in light and matter, after a couple of eons, won't there be nothing but black holes left? can black holes suck in black holes? what supposedly happens when you get sucked into a black hole, do you get crushed to a size of an atom, or something like that? if so, won't black holes eventually "fill up?" how is it possible to "get rid" of black holes? can black holes eventually collapse upon themself? do black holes have mass?

and sorry, i don't really have an advanced knowledge in astronomy yet. maybe when i get to college. or high school.

In kind of a hurry this morning (so what else is new these days with me? !) All good questions. Easy answers to them. A little heads up on the direction that the answers are going: space is much, much, MUCH bigger than you think it is. Galaxies can pass right through one another without obliterating each other. They will do some massive damage to parts of each, but there's a lot of space in between everything in the universe, and within galaxies.
Black holes is a term used for massive stars that have already collapsed. They have enormous mass.
More to come.

McQ, when you say that 'we are always in the middle', do you mean you agree that space is somehow curved, as on the outside of a balloon, in a 2 dimensional sense, from which we can't escape?...and so end up back on ourselves no matter how far we travel?

And do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding?  And that space is expanding too?

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ, when you say that 'we are always in the middle', do you mean you agree that space is somehow curved, as on the outside of a balloon, in a 2 dimensional sense, from which we can't escape?...and so end up back on ourselves no matter how far we travel?

1. You say there is "much" wrong and "over-simplified" with what I posted. Tell me what. And if I over-simplified, it was because I'm trying to gear my answers to the correct knowledge level of the people I'm talking to.

2. I didn't say that we WERE at the center of the universe. I said (if you re-read my post, you'll see), that it APPEARS that you are at the center of the universe, no matter where you are located in the universe. But, essentially, even the closed universe has no edge or boundary, so there is no center. At the same time, since it has no bundaries, then everything IS in the center to all appearences. All points see the rest of the universe the same way. I'm sorry if you don't understand this, but it's the way it is. And it appears this way regardless of it being finite, infinite, open, closed, flat, etc. Here's a link that might help:

http://www.science.ca/askascientist/vie ... php?qID=14 (http://www.science.ca/askascientist/viewquestion.php?qID=14)

3. The balloon analogy is used a lot, and is a simple analogy to START people off with understanding the shape of the universe, among other things. I don't like using it much, for the very reason that we are having to discuss it here: many people never get beyond it, and you need to get beyond it to have an accurate understanding of the structure and action of the universe. It is not an accurate analogy for the shape of the universe. It is also not a 2D depiction. It is a 3D depiction.

4. The shape of the universe is open to debate, because so is the fact of whether it is finite or infinite. As stated before, even if it is finite, it would appear "virtually" infinite, because of it's shape. Consider the analogy of a torus. Even a mobius strip gives you an idea of how a simple figure could appear infinitely large, or have a counterintuitive number of sides.

5. Hope this helps. I'm just afraid that I'm wasting my time because instead of starting with what is observable and testable and going from there, you are starting with a pre-supposed view of how none of this can be true and you'll argue against it in the face of the evidence. That argument, I will not enter. It is pointless.

Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

Quote from: "silviakjell"Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

Hey, I'm just trying to answer the questions you asked. Your questions indicated that you don't have a grasp of the size of the Universe. I'm trying to be specific to the questions as they were worded. Maybe a good web site will help more.

Here's a site to get you on your way:

http://library.advanced.org/27930/ (http://library.advanced.org/27930/)

Why do we always appear in the middle of the universe?

Because we are in the middle of the observable universe.  The universe, however, is much bigger than just what we can see.  We can only see 14.5 billion light years in any direction.

Quote from: "onlyme"And do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding? And that space is expanding too?  
 

Yes, this is a more or less accurate analogy.  

Quote from: "silviakjell"Yes i know that the universe is big, and that black holes are stars wich have collapsed upon themself. My knowledge in astronomy is not that limited. What i was thinking with the black holes, if they have such enormus mass, won't they eventually collapse upon themselves? and what are white holes and how are they formed?

Black holes cannot collapse upon themselves because they are already defined as a singularity -- that is, all their mass is at one point with infinite spacetime curvature.

As for white holes, I'm not completely sure what that term even means...  I'm not familiar with anything described as a "white hole" in astronomy.

Quote from: "Aullios"

Quote from: onlymeAnd do you agree that space itself is expanding, much like a lump of dough containing currants (which represent stars and galaxies), in which the whole lump, along with the stars, etc, is expanding? And that space is expanding too?  
 

Quote from: "Aullios"Yes, this is a more or less accurate analogy.

With the exception that the lump of dough, in the analogy, is expanding outwardinto existing space. The Universe is not expanding into anything. All space is contained within it. Important caveat, or the analogy fails.

Yeah... I knew that, but people have a hard time grasping the "nothing" that space isn't expanding into, so I think it's simpler to just ignore it.  Most people think of air around them not being there, so they leave out that piece of the analogy.

And wow, I butchered those quotes, didn't I?  Lemme go fix 'em.

McQ, you said:

'With the exception that the lump of dough, in the analogy, is expanding outwardinto existing space. The Universe is not expanding into anything. All space is contained within it. Important caveat, or the analogy fails.'

McQ, can you clarify this a little, please, as at one point it seems you are saying it is expanding into EXISTING space, - then, that ALL space is contained within it.  If it is EXISTING space, then space must have been present before the 'big bang' for it to expand into.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a trick question.  I know that none of us can explain fully what we see in the universe.  I'm just after picking your brain regarding your thoughts on this issue, that's all.

McQ (sorry if I get this wrong, I'm not an expert) was saying that the universe contains all space and as it expands it is expanding into nothing.

McQ wrote:

 "Did you think there were only a couple thousand stars in the universe? This is where you need to learn a little astronomy. Really, even just a little would have prevented you from saying something so meaningless as that. "

Of course not, McQ, I know, according to the latest theories, that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and at least  100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.   In other words, there are at least as many stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand on every beach in all the world.

Awesome, eh?

One of the points I'm making here is that we should all be a little more humble, and civilised towards one another, -a s supposedly thinking, civilised people, - otherwise we would be no better than the religious extremists who are willing to kill and maim one another because they think they have a monopoly on truth.

This is a fascinating subject for debate, I think.

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ, you said:

'With the exception that the lump of dough, in the analogy, is expanding outward into existing space. The Universe is not expanding into anything. All space is contained within it. Important caveat, or the analogy fails.'

McQ, can you clarify this a little, please, as at one point it seems you are saying it is expanding into EXISTING space, - then, that ALL space is contained within it.  If it is EXISTING space, then space must have been present before the 'big bang' for it to expand into.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a trick question.  I know that none of us can explain fully what we see in the universe.  I'm just after picking your brain regarding your thoughts on this issue, that's all.

I said that the lump of dough is expanding outward into existing space. I never said the universe was, because it isn't. There is nothing "outside" of the universe, because there is no "outside".

This is why I don't like the dough analogy very much (and why I made my comment to Aullios' post) because people can't get beyond it. You're thinking of the universe a a ball of dough, or a balloon, expanding into the space that surrounds it. A balloon does expand to fill up the space that surrounds it. So does a ball of dough. But there is no "space" for the universe to expand into, or fill up. It's not analogous to a balloon, which has a surface, and an inside, and an outside.

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ wrote:

 "Did you think there were only a couple thousand stars in the universe? This is where you need to learn a little astronomy. Really, even just a little would have prevented you from saying something so meaningless as that. "

Of course not, McQ, I know, according to the latest theories, that there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and at least  100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.   In other words, there are at least as many stars in the observable universe as there are grains of sand on every beach in all the world.

Awesome, eh?

What? That you know that bit of information? Yes, that is awesome. That you said it was according to the latest theories is atrocious. Try this: because it's according to observation, which proved the hypotheses that astronomers put forth.

Quote from: "onlyme"One of the points I'm making here is that we should all be a little more humble, and civilised towards one another, -a s supposedly thinking, civilised people, - otherwise we would be no better than the religious extremists who are willing to kill and maim one another because they think they have a monopoly on truth.

Just because I call you out on your mis-information doesn't mean I'm not humble or civil. I have been very civil with you. I am also becoming impatient with your lack of acknowledging that you are mistaken. That I know and can teach astronomy is not hubris. That you refuse to learn anything is.

Do not equate me with religious zealots for pointing out the holes in your arguments. Once again, I never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. But I do have a superior knowledge of astronomy and cosmology over you. That much is evident.

Quote from: "onlyme"This is a fascinating subject for debate, I think.

It would be, if you knew which points were and weren't debatable. If anyone is showing a lack of humility it is you, by claiming to have the truth (of creation and evolution) and then ignoring the evidence presented.

AND, by the way, onlyme...

I've just re-read this entire thread from beginning to end. You have not yet answered my posts, including the ones you said you would, going back as far as the first page. You've also not told me, even though I asked in one of my posts, what is "much wrong" in what I've said. You told me that there was, so tell me what you think is wrong. This is why I have become impatient with you. Show a little courtesy by answering posts and maybe you'll get more yourself.

[quote="McQ]This is why I don't like the dough analogy very much (and why I made my comment to Aullios' post) because people can't get beyond it. You're thinking of the universe a a ball of dough, or a balloon, expanding into the space that surrounds it. A balloon does expand to fill up the space that surrounds it. So does a ball of dough. But there is no "space" for the universe to expand into, or fill up. It's not analogous to a balloon, which has a surface, and an inside, and an outside.[/quote]

So that's why you got nitpicky.... I've never taught the stuff, so I don't know how other people react to the information.  Thanks.

McQ, I think you misquoted me there.  I didn't claim that YOU had a monopoly on the truth.

Superior knowledge? Maybe.   But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers.  Not you, not me.  But it is only that - an estimate.  A rough guess.  In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

why are you now getting uncivilised with me, McQ?

You know yourself that on a forum, which requires typing, that a person's points cannot be put accross adequately, since so much typing, and time, is involved.  In person you can not shut me up, and I love to debate what I said earlier is a fascinating subject.

Again, I ask, why are you now being uncivilised with me?

Quote from: "Aullios"[

Aullios, it's ok. But that is the reason I get nitpicky. It's because when people have inadequate perceptions of something, such as evolution or let's just say science in general, then we have problems. We end up with ID/Evolution trials in Dover, Pennsylvania. We get Kansas school boards that don't know jack shit. We get people who think centrifugal force is a real force (this is bound to open up a new thread for sure!).

I like analogies. I use them all the time. But you have to make sure that the analogies are accurate, which the ball of dough is as a starter, and then you have to go beyond the analogies, or use more accurate ones.

The biggest crappy analogy still in use is the Bohr Model of the atom. Nice little electrons, spinning in orbit around the nucleus. Aaaaagh!!!  :bang:

It's not a miniature solar system! LOL!

Anyway, that is why this topic of the Big Bang is so hard. Mostly because the majority of the people engaging in it don't know "Big Bang" from "Big Gulp" (that's a drink at a convenience store). So I get a little frustrated when people are trying to argue the nuances of something when they don't know the basics of something, which onlyme is doing (you paying attention, onlyme?). That's like worrying about how to fly the Space Shuttle without ever having even flown a paper airplane (see, an analogy...how fun was that! LOL!).

Anyway, it's cool, but yes, that is why I pick at nits.

I'm paying attention, McQ

So you ARE a nitpicker?  No offence meant.  It's your own words.

But there is no serious, incontrovertible proof that black holes even EXIST, for a start.  And what of 'dark matter'?

I'm not trying to provoke you into hostility, it's just that in a forum, with my  typing ability, it's hard to have a head to head discussion with anyone on any subject.

And yes, I DID say that there is no incontrivertible proof that black holes exist.

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ, I think you misquoted me there.  I didn't claim that YOU had a monopoly on the truth.

I didn't misquote you. You implied that I was being uncivilized toward you. You tried to equate that to religious fanatics who kill one another. I have already responded to this question. I was not uncivil toward you.  

Quote from: "onlyme"Superior knowledge? Maybe.  

No. Definitely. Add biology, physics and chemistry to that as well.

Quote from: "onlyme"But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers.  Not you, not me.  But it is only that - an estimate.  A rough guess.  In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

Wrong again. It was put forth by astronomers, not astrologers. And what is your point with that statement anyway? I already know it's big.

Quote from: "onlyme"why are you now getting uncivilised with me, McQ?

I'm not. But I would be justified for being so in the future because of your lack of courtesy in answering direct questions and posts that I took the time to make.

Quote from: "onlyme"You know yourself that on a forum, which requires typing, that a person's points cannot be put accross adequately, since so much typing, and time, is involved.  In person you can not shut me up, and I love to debate what I said earlier is a fascinating subject.

Again, I ask, why are you now being uncivilised with me?

Already answered. Now you try going back and try answering the posts and questions and then please be so kind as to tell me why you are being discourteous to someone who welcomed you to the board, took your part, and tried to engage in civil debate with you?

McQ, and what of the speed of light, supposedly being both a particle and a wave, when it suits it?  Strange, eh?   I don't have the answer, do you?

And what of atoms?  According to my latest research, an atom can never be 'observed' regarding it's current position and direction, (even with electron microscopes) since, to observe a single atom, at least ONE photon of light must shine upon it, which itself is travelling at the speed of light, therefore 'knocking off course' the atom that it is observing.

These things are perplexing at best.  I admit I'm still a searcher.  Are you?

Quote from: "onlyme"I'm paying attention, McQ

So you ARE a nitpicker?  No offence meant.  It's your own words.

But there is no serious, incontrovertible proof that black holes even EXIST, for a start.  And what of 'dark matter'?

I'm not trying to provoke you into hostility, it's just that in a forum, with my  typing ability, it's hard to have a head to head discussion with anyone on any subject.

And yes, I DID say that there is no incontrivertible proof that black holes exist.

I'm done answering your questions, onlyme until you answer mine. And I don't take offense at being precise. I used the term "nitpicking" because Aullios used it. I'm proud of the fact that I'm accurate in describing things in detail.

P.S.: Three of my children can answer your last insipid questions. If you had bothered to even use the correct terminology in the questions themselves.
LOL!

It seems I can't compete with such a superior intellect as yours, McQ

I will wait on the sidelines til all be revealed

onlyme....will you please answer McQ's questions....part of participating in a civil debate is not sidestepping questions to only ask new ones.  McQ is not here to teach you.  If you want to debate, fine offer something that can be debated rather than more questions.

Ok, McQ, what is it you are asking me, in a concise and easily recognised manner?

Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Oh, I know, you are not willing to answer my posts anymore.  No matter.

I will stick to my guns.

Glory go God.

McQ, Ok, I wrote:

Superior knowledge? Maybe. But the current estimate of 100 billion (stars, galaxies) is put forward by eminent astrologers. Not you, not me. But it is only that - an estimate. A rough guess. In other words, the universe is SERIOUSLY BIG.

It should have been astronomers or cosmologists, not astrologers.  A stupid mistake on my part.

Quote from: "onlyme"Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Fine, I'll bite then.

Stars, gasses, vacuums, planets, comets, asteroids, black holes, pulsars, quasars, galaxies, or clusters cannot speak.  Therefore, at least most of the "heavens" are uncapable of declaring the "glory of God."

Secondly, the Earth is not hung upon nothing.  The Earth is held in place by angular momentum, centripedal force, and gravity, as described by the laws of planetary motion.  Take away any of those three forces and God can't help you.

There, I disproved them both.  However, you're just going to ignore this post and ask another dumb question.  Sorry, McQ.

Not quite true, Aullios.  Gravity itself (the attraction between two massive bodies) is still a phenomena - as is 'magnetism'.

In early days, people thought the earth was supported on the back of giant turtles, etc.

But God suspends the earth in empty space.  He hangs the earth upon 'nothing'

Quote from: "onlyme"Not quite true, Aullios.  Gravity itself (the attraction between two massive bodies) is still a phenomena - as is 'magnetism'.

In early days, people thought the earth was supported on the back of giant turtles, etc.

But God suspends the earth in empty space.  He hangs the earth upon 'nothing'

Depends on which definition of phenomenon you use.  I usually think of a phenomenon as something that is unexplainable, and in that case, no, gravity and especially not magnetism are not phenomena.  We have equations that can predict and govern their properties.

Also, I have a problem with you using the verb "hung."  It implies that the Earth was placed here, which is a very flawed hypothesis.  The Earth was formed here of dust and rocks left over from past supernovae, along with the Sun.

Quote from: "Aullios"

Quote from: "onlyme"Also, McQ, as a former Christian yourself, you know, and I believe, that the bible says that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that 'he hangs the earth upon nothing'

Can you honestly disprove these two astounding concepts?

Fine, I'll bite then.

Stars, gasses, vacuums, planets, comets, asteroids, black holes, pulsars, quasars, galaxies, or clusters cannot speak.  Therefore, at least most of the "heavens" are uncapable of declaring the "glory of God."

Secondly, the Earth is not hung upon nothing.  The Earth is held in place by angular momentum, centripedal force, and gravity, as described by the laws of planetary motion.  Take away any of those three forces and God can't help you.

There, I disproved them both.  However, you're just going to ignore this post and ask another dumb question.  Sorry, McQ.

No problem, Aullios. You're right on the money. Gravity is indeed one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with the Electromagnetic Force, the Strong and the Weak Nuclear Forces.

McQ, look at the dictionary definition of magnetism.  According to my reading, it is classed as 'phenomena'

Oxford English dictionary

Quote from: "onlyme"McQ, look at the dictionary definition of magnetism.  According to my reading, it is classed as 'phenomena'

Oxford English dictionary

Quote from: "Aullios"I usually think of a phenomenon as something that is unexplainable, and in that case, no, gravity and especially not magnetism are not phenomena.

Ok, aullios, I can't argue with what you usually think

But I'm referencing the Oxford English dictionary

Dictionaries are a poor source for scientific terms, very few dictionaries are even able to define evolution properly.

Odd.  You win on this one... most dictionaries do define magnetism as a phenomenon.  (I checked American Heritage and Webster's.)

However, connotation is very different from definition... and thus would prevent me from defining magnetism as a phenomenon.

Thank you, aullios.

I, too, will admit my mistakes and shortcomings when shown to be wrong.  It's certainly refreshing to hear that from an atheist. Some would say the same about Christians, I know.  But I will certainly admit to what I don't know.

But why so odd, aullios? Ok, i may not be able to win a lot of arguments on this forum, due to lack of education maybe, but may I point you to my signature?

I stand by that.

Quote from: "Aullios"Odd.  You win on this one... most dictionaries do define magnetism as a phenomenon.  (I checked American Heritage and Webster's.)

However, connotation is very different from definition... and thus would prevent me from defining magnetism as a phenomenon.

Aullios, you are not wrong. Here are two helpful links for you.

First, definitions of what forces are in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28physics%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28physics%29)

Now, magnetism and the electromagnetic force:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism)

laetus, you signature says:

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous"

And what of those in atheism, in your view?

Quote from: "onlyme"laetus, you signature says:

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous”

And what of those in atheism, in your view?

How could atheism have multiple errors when it is simply a statement of non-belief?

Quote from: "onlyme"laetus, you signature says:

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous”

And what of those in atheism, in your view?

Onlyme's Random Questions thread was started for a reason.   Use it!


http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic143.html (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic143.html)

Ah, wikipedia

The fount of all knowledge

Not that the Oxford English dictionary is a world class standard?
Not that wikipedia is edited by anyone and everyone who has something to say?

Never mind.

Quote from: "onlyme"But why so odd, aullios?

Usually dictionaries don't use definitions that may be misconstrued by an interpretational difference.  It's the first time I've seen it happen.

Quote from: "Aullios"

Quote from: "onlyme"But why so odd, aullios?

Usually dictionaries don't use definitions that may be misconstrued by an interpretational difference.  It's the first time I've seen it happen.

Aullios,
Dictionaries, especially good ones like the OED, use ALL definitions of any given word, which is why people are able to pick the one they want from the listing and ignore the others in the listing. I have three different dictionaries at home, and found four online, including the OE Compact Dictionary. ALL of them list gravilty as a force, or a fundamental force in their listings, usually as the first listing.

They also list things for gravity like: solemnity, importance, seriousness, difficult situation, etc as definitions.

See what I mean? You can cherry pick the definition you want, especially if you want to misuse the wrong definition and ignore the correct one for the context in which you are talking. Not that anyone here would do that, of course.  :wink:

McQ...I couldn't find the quote...but earlier in this thread I think you made a statement about an atom not being like a tiny universe.  That's the type of model I was taught in high school chemistry...do you know of a source that explains how they actually work?

Quote from: "laetusatheos"McQ...I couldn't find the quote...but earlier in this thread I think you made a statement about an atom not being like a tiny universe.  That's the type of model I was taught in high school chemistry...do you know of a source that explains how they actually work?

Right, laetusathoes. I made mention that atoms aren't like tiny solar systems. I was taught that they were that way in school  as well. In college physics they elaborated on atomic structure.

Here's the thing with that: The Bohr Model is a great way for us to visualize atoms and the interaction of the electrons. It's easy to draw. It's easy to understand. And electrons do "orbit" or spin, so-to-speak.

But electrons, like photons, act both as particles and as waves, so in reality, and electron isn't like a small ball orbiting an atomic nucleus. It's more like a cloud surrounding the nucleus. The Bohr Model is only useful for simple atoms, then you need to use the Wave (or Quantum) Model to describe complex atoms.

This ties in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which tells us  that you cannot know the precise location and momentum (mass times velocity) of a subatomic particle. A couple of sites with pics and descriptions of the Bohr model and/or Wave Model:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/3-atoms.htm)

http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html (http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/atoms.html)

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm (http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm)

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I answered your question entirely. Let me know. (EDIT: Wanted to add a source) Byt the way, the "Dummies" series of books are good for a lot of subjects, and the "Physics for Dummies" is really good. No offense! LOL! In keeping with that, the "Complete Idiot's Guide to Physics" is also very good. One of my favorite books, as well as one of my most used by my family (and some friends), is "Basic Physics", by Karl F. Kuhn. It's a self-teaching guide. I recommend it highly for anyone who wants to learn the basics, or is going on to study physics and science in school.

Most textbooks use the Bohr model because it's tough to grasp the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, especially in a high school physics class.

You can see that from McQ's explanation.

McQ:
Isn't the electron still a subatomic particle, but the "cloud" is just the area of probability where the electron may be?  I haven't heard of the electron itself being a cloud before.

Quote from: "Aullios"Most textbooks use the Bohr model because it's tough to grasp the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, especially in a high school physics class.

You can see that from McQ's explanation.

McQ:
Isn't the electron still a subatomic particle, but the "cloud" is just the area of probability where the electron may be?  I haven't heard of the electron itself being a cloud before.

Yes.

Here I'll clarify my analogy, because it was confusing. Sorry. The electron isn't actually a  cloud (I don't think I said it was actually a cloud, but like one), it is akin to, or like a cloud, because it is a wave, in addition to being a particle.

Just as a photons in the "double slit" experiments act as particles and waves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)

(Wikipedia...a source I check carefully for accuracy before using, explains this nicely)

It's totally counterintuitive! LOL! But it accurately describes and predicts behavior at the subatomic level.

What I love is when Richard Feynman got into all this, he really turned QED around. His Feynman diagrams are so simple looking (deceptive, they describe complexity that is beyond me). I especially love his "Sum Over Paths" that says a photon, or an electron not only occupies many different possible paths, but ALL possible paths on it's merry way somewhere. It really comes out the same as the Probability Wave idea mathematically, but gives a different way to look at it. Did the can of worms just open wide? LOL!

That makes sense.  To make sure I understand correctly I'm going to state how I understand the electron nucleus relation:  So, the electron does kinda spin around the nucleus....just not in a standard path like illustrated by Bohr model.  Because it doesn't have a standard path, the path is better illustrated by a cloud (rather than circular orbits like we use to illustrate planetary motion).  Is that right?

no offense taken...I like the dummies/idiot's series too (they keep things simple).  Unfortunately my physics eduaction hasn't been top notch and I haven't been around much chemistry since high school.  I'm determined that one day I'll undestand string and m theory (as much as possibe for a layman)...but, anything dealing with quantum physics is kinda confusing for me...Especially since I'm a visual learner, if I can't see it, I have a hard time understanding it.

Apologies for posting so quickly and with poor clarity. I'm supposed to be working, and not screwing around in here! LOL! I'm trying to multitask. It's not working out so hot. Back to work for a while.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"That makes sense.  To make sure I understand correctly I'm going to state how I understand the electron nucleus relation:  So, the electron does kinda spin around the nucleus....just not in a standard path like illustrated by Bohr model.  Because it doesn't have a standard path, the path is better illustrated by a cloud (rather than circular orbits like we use to illustrate planetary motion).  Is that right?

no offense taken...I like the dummies/idiot's series too (they keep things simple).  Unfortunately my physics eduaction hasn't been top notch and I haven't been around much chemistry since high school.  I'm determined that one day I'll undestand string and m theory (as much as possibe for a layman)...but, anything dealing with quantum physics is kinda confusing for me...Especially since I'm a visual learner, if I can't see it, I have a hard time understanding it.

Yep, the electrons are in an "orbit" around the center of the atom. This link gives a nice visualization. The "cloud" is a way to visualize the wave function of the electron. My only problem in their description offhand is that they use the term centrifugal force incorrectly. It's a pet peeve. Centrifugal Force is not a real force, it is a "virtual" force. Centripetal force is the real force. Anyway, that's a whole 'nother thing!

EDIT: That reminds me. If the electromagnetic force wasn't actually a force, there would be no atoms. So if anyone tells you it's not a force, then watch them closely, because they will immediately disintegrate. It should be cool. :-)

McQ.

As far as I remember those terms are just placeholders to help people distinguish different force behaviors.  It's easier to just say centripetal force than to talk about angular momentum and multiaxial forces.  When it comes down to it it's just combinations of interacting x,y,z "lateral" motion am I correct?  It's been a long time since Dynamics and Physics III for me.

I'm pretty sure we learned both of those models in my chemistry class, the Bohr model just for simplicity. It was explained, however, that the electron doesn't use a standard path and that is best visualized as the "cloud" in the other model. We didn't go much into the wave function, though...

Quote from: "iplaw"McQ.

As far as I remember those terms are just placeholders to help people distinguish different force behaviors.  It's easier to just say centripetal force than to talk about angular momentum and multiaxial forces.  When it comes down to it it's just combinations of interacting x,y,z "lateral" motion am I correct?  It's been a long time since Dynamics and Physics III for me.

I keep popping in here when I'm supposed to be working. Nobody tell on me! LOL! iplaw, Centripetal Force is the correct term which describes the force on an object in accelerated motion, or motion in a curved path. It literally means, "center seeking", because that's the way it acts on objects. It is directed toward the center of the curve of the path.
Circular Motion, Angular Momentum, Rotational Motion, Angular Velocities are all in the picture, as well as a host of other things. You seem to remember it pretty darn well.
Ok, I really have to work steady now, for the next two hours!

I always get a little freaked out about conversations like this.  I do have a scientific background but understand that I am in no position to discuss particle physics or GUT theory or cosmology because as much as I want to understand those fascinating topics I just don't have the background to sustain a decent debate.  The worst part is when they try and draw conclusions about things based upon what they read in books without understanding the foundational aspects that underly the discussion.

Widly varying topics like Lorentz-invariant theorems, basics like Stokes/Greens Theorems, Quantum Mechanics, Heisenberg uncertainty, Godelian Logic, Bayesian Logic, Hilbert spaces, Affine Connections, Gauge Fields and so on make it very hard for people without PHDs in their respective disciplines to discuss it.  It's hard enough for mathematicians with PHDs to discuss particle theory.

It is so complex that laypeople tend to interject more confusion than anything.  Not a knock against us laypeople, me included, but I think it's better just to read and appreciate rather than engage in debate about certain things, just like laetus said earlier.  What's worse is when conclusions are drawn, often in error.

Wow... I've only been gone for a day and this topic has hopped to 7 pages. :D

Quote from: "silviakjell"Wow... I've only been gone for a day and this topic has hopped to 7 pages. :D

The quick answer: Here is everything you need from Ted Bunn, who teaches physics and astrophysics at the University of Richmond. And he plays a heck of a game of chess too.

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html)

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebunn/ (http://www.richmond.edu/~ebunn/)

Gotta run. Going to help someone move into their new house.

An interest website for your perusal.  This is directed more towards the layperson, and not the highly scientifically minded among you.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html (http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html)

Leader U?  Oh man.  This is the same site that had an article by Paul Vitz about atheism being a "condition" of a broken home using outdated, no longer valid psychoanalytic views.

This doesn't really say much at all about the big bang but harps on the perceived fact that Hawking is a Christian.

From reading his work and his comments, Hawking believes in a god but not the same omnipotent, omnipresent god most Christians do.

And for whoever typed that article, it's Purdue, not Perdue.

Hugh Ross is has a Ph.D. in astronomy not astrophysics

That's good, Squid.  You seem to know about this website already, from your answer. I've never heard of it before, but then, I've not been on the internet very long.

Thanks everyone!

Quote from: "onlyme"That's good, Squid.  You seem to know about this website already, from your answer. I've never heard of it before, but then, I've not been on the internet very long.

Yeah, I've seen LeaderU more than a few times.

LeaderU is an online theistic thinktank.  Some articles are very good and written by credible and highly credentialed scholars in their respective fields and others are written on a more personal basis and are less persuasive.  

Just like anything else on the internet, take it with a grain of salt.  Research the author before wasting your time reading what they write.  That being said, there are many good and competent authors on that website.

I find that this is a better site, even though the quality of the site is remedial.  http://www.starcourse.org/ (http://www.starcourse.org/)

thanks, iplaw, i will check it out in a few minutes or so, since I have the kids to deal with just now.  I will get back to you, though.

Quote from: "iplaw"LeaderU is an online theistic thinktank.  Some articles are very good and written by credible and highly credentialed scholars in their respective fields and others are written on a more personal basis and are less persuasive.  

Just like anything else on the internet, take it with a grain of salt.  Research the author before wasting your time reading what they write.  That being said, there are many good and competent authors on that website.

I'm skeptical if it comes from that website but I still read the articles to assess the author's arguments.

Quote from: "iplaw"I find that this is a better site, even though the quality of the site is remedial.  http://www.starcourse.org/ (http://www.starcourse.org/)

They really need to invest in a professional created template or hire someone who has some design background.

Yeah, just like I'm skeptical of anything on Infidels.org.  Seems to me that we all are automatically skeptical of anything that doesn't line up with what we see as truth, or when we discover an entity designed and crafted to directly challenge any strongly held belief.  BTW, the guy that runs the site is an old-timer (sorry no offense to old-timers) but he is in his late sixties I think.

To be fair, I'm a bit skeptical of anything.

I'm skeptical of Starcourse simply because it looks like it was tossed together by a 3 year old.

I'm skeptical of Infidels because they take a theistic label and place it upon themselves in order to make fun of the theists.

Never give much creedence to appearances in this world.  It's good to be skeptical but it's another thing to ignore something all together based upon snap judgements.  Even though I am skeptical about Infidels I read Infidels often even though I disagree with most of what is on there.

Quote from: "iplaw"Yeah, just like I'm skeptical of anything on Infidels.org.  Seems to me that we all are automatically skeptical of anything that doesn't line up with what we see as truth, or when we discover an entity designed and crafted to directly challenge any strongly held belief.  BTW, the guy that runs the site is an old-timer (sorry no offense to old-timers) but he is in his late sixties I think.

I'm skeptical because of past experience with that site.  I have had people reference articles which contained technical errors and distortions.  That is why I am skeptical of the LeaderU site.

Quote from: "iplaw"Never give much creedence to appearances in this world.  It's good to be skeptical but it's another thing to ignore something all together based upon snap judgements.  Even though I am skeptical about Infidels I read Infidels often even though I disagree with most of what is on there.

I'd have to agree.  World Science (http://www.world-science.net/) looks like it belongs to a kid but it's content is sound.  It was recommended by Carl Zimmer.  They could also use a good template or professional to redo the site.

It must be something with highly intelligent people that they feel compelled to appear non-conforming so they throw up dog sites or maybe it's that they are lacking in the "creative" department.  Anyways it always funny to see websites published by double PHDs that have clipart images, and that's the high tech part.

Quote from: "silviakjell"Wow... I've only been gone for a day and this topic has hopped to 7 pages. :D

Another source for you, kiddo. :-) Hope all is well.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bh_reallyexist.htm)

Too...much...information......not....enough....time.

BUT - Science HAS the answer. There is no First Cause, because - there is no "First." It’s just that so few people get it, it’s hard to wrap the head around â€" because of what a head evolved to do, survive in a LOCAL 3D Euclidian space - it hobbles our concept of it. We didn’t evolve to think in
4D.

And yes, it was a struggle - for consistency. And yes - we get some, lots of it. Religion does not - it is lazy. It is all about giving up, and accepting I will never know - when, in fact, I may.

FIRST does not exist. It's an illusion - an artifact of the way our heads work, of our LOCAL 3D space.

Both Time and Space have Curvature, not “ends” or edges. I’ll describe the weird qualities of SpaceTime, and bear in mind TIME. Let's look at Space first â€"

First, we come up with a theory â€" Relativity â€" that leads us to conclude a “Big Bang”, an further conclude that this would be a Opaque Fireball until around 380,000 yrs. after the explosion, and that it would give off radiation of a certain wavelength â€" IF it is so.


Then, some time later, we discover the radiation is there â€" coming from all directions â€" but the resolution is poor. We design and build a satellite telescope specifically for the purpose of mapping it precisely in all directions, launch it, conduct a survey at high resolution, and it yields an image â€" a backdrop, all around us.

And in high resolution, we see â€" the roiling surface of the Primordial Fireball, projected on the surrounding sphere of 3D space. It appears to explode AT us, simultaneously, from all directions â€" IT DOES â€" but it is “dragged away” even faster than it explodes â€" space itself expands faster than the explosion.

We appear to be in the center â€" in fact, we would appear to be in the center no matter where we went in the entire Universe. WE ARE.

Simple Model â€" reduce everything by one dimension â€" imagine we are 2D beings in a 2D Universe, Flatlanders living in a planar LOCAL space, but â€" we actually live on the surface of a large 3D sphere, it just APPEARS “flat” locally â€" there is curvature, but it’s so slight, we don’t notice.

If we travel in a straight line, we would eventually return to our point of origin â€" our 2D space is finite (the surface area of the 3D sphere), but completely unbounded â€" there is no limit to our motion within it, but if we keep moving, we will cover the same space over and over.

If the 3D sphere expands, 2D space expands â€" and every point on the sphere’s surface will get further away from every other, and other things will appear to be “dragged away” from the vantage point of any given thing. Each thing, including us, gets stretched â€" but we can’t notice; the space we occupy ITSELF is expanding.

Now, each point of Stuff on the surface has Mass. Think of the 2D surface being drawn inward toward the 3D sphere’s center at each massive point, as if it the 3D sphere center were the center of gravity. The masses create bigger, deeper “dimples” in the LOCAL 2D space as they increase in mass.  
Now, here’s what you didn’t expect â€" time flows at a lower rate in these pits, depending upon how deep they are. If they reach the center â€" Black Holes â€" time doesn’t flow at all. It stretches all the way in to the center â€" the Beginning â€" and there is no Time there.

So now, roll a frictionless bowling ball on the surface. In the simpler model (without dimples), the ball would return to us by a great circle route around the sphere; but with the dimples, it rolls around the rims of the dimples, where the rate of roll also accelerates, and â€" it gets pretty well randomized. The likelyhood of the ball returning â€" coming up behind us â€" is now just about nil. The bowling ball will most likely fall into a dimple and stay there at some point in its journey anyway.

Now it may appear from the “average” surface that Time flows more QUICKLY in the pits, the ball appears to accelerate as it spins around a pit rim; but when the bowling ball goes into one, it’s slower from the vantage point of the bowling ball â€" it does not age as rapidly in the pit, although it’s moving faster.

I f I see you fall into a black hole, you accelerate inward from my vantage point, and are destroyed on the way in, torn apart by tides â€" but from yours, things slow down, and you take forever to fall in.

Time IS NOT ABSOLUTE and uniform everywhere, it flows at different rates in different places, dependent on gravitational field density. Simply synchronize two atomic clocks, put one through a high-altitude flight â€" and they are no longer in synch. The one at high altitude ages differently than the one on the ground â€" their gravitational field density was different â€" one was further from the center of the earth, and gravitational field density drops as the inverse square of the distance from the earth’s center â€" and in a manner precisely in accord with Theory, Time slips.

If we run in a straight line, we will not reach an “end” of the Universe. If we run Time backwards or forwards, we will not reach an “end.”

The “outward” motion of the Big Bang is from a 4D vantage point, don’t get confused. This would be seem in the Simple Model as the expansion of the sphere (and it was not a uniform expansion, either.)

We “appear” to be in the center, but from a 4D vantage point, no “place” on the 3D surface is different from any other. This fit the Simple Model analogy very well.

We do not see “things” around us, only Time â€" the things are long gone by the Time we see them. Although distant things appear to have older, more primitive structures, you may presume they have evolved everywhere to a state similar to the Stuff immediately around us â€" there “are” no Quasars, they are all long gone.

And from the Simplified 3D Model perspective, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but the 3D sphere is 58 billion light years in diameter. The limiting rate is the speed of light â€" in the 2D realm â€" but the Universe is much bigger than its limited age would have allowed it to achieve at that speed â€" because the space itself expands. The 3D speed of light â€" in 4D â€" is not a limitation.

There is no “first.” It is â€" human bias regarding the image of Time.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Anyway, although it is pretty much impossible at this point to definitely say how the universe came to be and what it will become, what is everyone else's pet theory?

My take on it is that I don't really care about what scientists have to say right now as to what happened before the Big Bang. I still look into their theories, models and hypothesis and I find them interesting, don't get me wrong.

But since our actual physics cannot tell us what happened at the very first moment of the big bang (at Plank's Epoch), it certainly cannot tell us what happen before the BB. So I don't have any pet theory. Let's wait and enjoy the mystery  

Hey Promethium, I liked your post a lot.

Quote from: "Promethium147"There is no “first.” It is â€" human bias regarding the image of Time.

I dig it!

I like the cyclical universe ideas put forth by (at least) Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt.  I think the idea of an infinitely existing universe, with no "firsts" in it, appeals to me very strongly.  Ultimately, to me, "elephants all the way down" makes a lot more sense than "Atlas".  I know infinite regressions are not popular and that people don't like this answer, but I can't think of any good philosophical reason that they can't be true.

Well really, my point is here that Time is not at all what we think it is (what we "sense" it to be), and it can be easily demonstrated that no one has a very good concept of linear Time - let alone NonLinear Time.

The assumption of a "before" is just that - an assumption, we are human and like the idea of Continuity. There is no "before".

The "Big Crunch" idea, that the Universe expands, slows, reverses and collapses again, is a fine example of this - it turns out it just isn't so, the expansion of the Universe happens to be accelerating - and it was just an assumption, without any basis in reality.

Infinite regressions seem to work - Newton's Integral Calculus solves Zeno's Achilles paradox (apparently!)

Achilles wants to walk to the wall, but - to get there, he must pass the half-way point.

When Achilles arrives at the half-way point, he must then proceed to the NEXT half-way point before reaching the wall, etc.

And it would seem Achilles will never reach the wall, because he must first pass an infinite number of half-way points.

But by integration, we sum the infinite series 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16...
...and arrive at a finite sum of 1. Achilles reaches the wall on schedule.

However, Infinity is not required, and is in fact a very, very small error - just very large number of steps is required, but a finite number. The final, minimal possible step of Achilles covers one Planck length, and occurs in a single quantum instant - not long, but quite finite in size.

So, infinite regression seems to work, for all intents and purposes - but it is off a little, and the philosophical implications are startlingly different.

DUDE! It's Finite in every sense! At least, this Universe is.

And the definition of Universe is basically one of Information Transfer - we can't receive any information from another Universe, or send any - by definition. Every "thing", spacetime, matterenergy, has properties, and this constitutes information.

If there is no Information inherent in a thing, that thing does not exist.

There just is no Infinite, and no Zero, accessible from any Universe, or any other Universe accessible from here, though the M theory - a single fusion of five previous, separate flavors of string theory - seems to tie everything together in a Unified Field (HA! We even find the Graviton!), and it seems to have no limit on the number of POSSIBLE - but indemonstrable - simultaneous Universes.

But hey, as far as Religious questions go, I've seen a few people drop by here to announce that there is no more evidence for the Big Bang than New-Earth Creationism - now, I haven't seen their photos of God creating the Universe, but we do have high-resolution images of the primordial fireball at an age of about 380,000 years, and of course, photos of everything that has happened thereafter, on a cosmic scale - and I find this very convincing.

lucifer_astrum - are you Promethius147 by a new name?

QuoteWell really, my point is here that Time is not at all what we think it is (what we "sense" it to be), and it can be easily demonstrated that no one has a very good concept of linear Time - let alone NonLinear Time.

I concur.

QuoteThe "Big Crunch" idea, that the Universe expands, slows, reverses and collapses again, is a fine example of this - it turns out it just isn't so, the expansion of the Universe happens to be accelerating - and it was just an assumption, without any basis in reality.

I agree - but  I think the cyclical model has the contraction happening differently.  The two "brane worlds" collide rather than all the matter and space within one collapsing back on itself.  Right?

I love Zeno's paradoxes and I agree, the calculus seems to resolve them.  The philosophers have pointed out that applying calculus to the problem maybe doesn't address the problem Zeno was pointing out (which is probably why you qualified with the word "apparently").

This, however, seems like it would:

QuoteThe final, minimal possible step of Achilles covers one Planck length, and occurs in a single quantum instant - not long, but quite finite in size.

I like this idea too - that there really is nothing "infinitely" small.  I'll have to do some readin' on Planck lengths - I'm unfamiliar with the concept.

QuoteDUDE! It's Finite in every sense! At least, this Universe is.

I'm certainly willing to accept that this could be true.

Quotewe do have high-resolution images of the primordial fireball at an age of about 380,000 years, and of course, photos of everything that has happened thereafter, on a cosmic scale - and I find this very convincing.

:lol: - yeah, so do I!

Thanks man - you've given me some things to think about.