Care to elaborate?d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
As I learned in my thread about the origins of life, evolutionary theory is not related to the origins of anything in the universe save the current state of flora and fauna on Earth.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
Well but that's the thing, we know that gravity can't ever take hold of the universe and either stop the expansion or start pulling it together because it's not just getting bigger, it's getting bigger faster. Some other expansion force in the universe isn't just acting on the universe, it's greater than the force trying to pull the universe together.Kmarion wrote:
The battle between dark energy and gravity will ultimately determine the fate of the Universe. It could just be that gravity has not reached the point at which it can slow the expansion. It does not necessarily mean that ultimately the mass of the universe will at some point meet back at the beginning. This could be a cycle of many universes. You hit the nail on the head when you said there was too many unknowns.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes to the last question, that's what the dark energy kids are trying to prove. The critical density of the universe (according to the FLRW model) changes, but the energy density can't change.CommieChipmunk wrote:
okay, one thing that has always troubled me. Mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So as the universe expands, does that mean that the total amount of energy in the universe is decreasing? Not being destroyed, but having to stretch over a more and more vast expanse? (If that makes any sense). Would that mean that eventually everything would come to a near stand-still?
Just because it's expanding doesn't mean there is more mass being created necessarily, it just means things are being stretched.
But yeah, that's just what all the scientists are scrambling to work with given the current data. Honestly if the energy value of the cosmic microwave background tripled, there would be papers out by the end of the week trying to explain it.
Well one day, perhaps when we have a genuine explanation of what dark matter really is, we might be able to answer that definitively. Galaxies are still colliding and forming bigger galaxies. In fact we have a date with Andromeda in the distant future. The problem is we really have no idea of where we are on the cosmic timeline. We can look back to nearly the beginning, but the rest is speculation. Good convo btw.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well but that's the thing, we know that gravity can't ever take hold of the universe and either stop the expansion or start pulling it together because it's not just getting bigger, it's getting bigger faster. Some other expansion force in the universe isn't just acting on the universe, it's greater than the force trying to pull the universe together.Kmarion wrote:
The battle between dark energy and gravity will ultimately determine the fate of the Universe. It could just be that gravity has not reached the point at which it can slow the expansion. It does not necessarily mean that ultimately the mass of the universe will at some point meet back at the beginning. This could be a cycle of many universes. You hit the nail on the head when you said there was too many unknowns.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes to the last question, that's what the dark energy kids are trying to prove. The critical density of the universe (according to the FLRW model) changes, but the energy density can't change.
Just because it's expanding doesn't mean there is more mass being created necessarily, it just means things are being stretched.
But yeah, that's just what all the scientists are scrambling to work with given the current data. Honestly if the energy value of the cosmic microwave background tripled, there would be papers out by the end of the week trying to explain it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm glad I won't be here for that date. Though I think impending cosmic armageddon would make for some really sweet desktops.Kmarion wrote:
Well one day, perhaps when we have a genuine explanation of what dark matter really is, we might be able to answer that definitively. Galaxies are still colliding and forming bigger galaxies. In fact we have a date with Andromeda in the distant future. The problem is we really have no idea of where we are on the cosmic timeline. We can look back to nearly the beginning, but the rest is speculation. Good convo btw.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well but that's the thing, we know that gravity can't ever take hold of the universe and either stop the expansion or start pulling it together because it's not just getting bigger, it's getting bigger faster. Some other expansion force in the universe isn't just acting on the universe, it's greater than the force trying to pull the universe together.Kmarion wrote:
The battle between dark energy and gravity will ultimately determine the fate of the Universe. It could just be that gravity has not reached the point at which it can slow the expansion. It does not necessarily mean that ultimately the mass of the universe will at some point meet back at the beginning. This could be a cycle of many universes. You hit the nail on the head when you said there was too many unknowns.
But yeah, that's just what all the scientists are scrambling to work with given the current data. Honestly if the energy value of the cosmic microwave background tripled, there would be papers out by the end of the week trying to explain it.
well, it's a thread going in one direction really. It's meant for the science explanation to things.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
Feel free to start another thread on the universe with creationism as it's focal point.
Nothing explains what came before the Big Bang. In all honesty, creationism is the best explanation for it.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
Is it? I don't think so. I don't reject it because it's religious, but because there is no evidence for it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Nothing explains what came before the Big Bang. In all honesty, creationism is the best explanation for it.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
That's why it's the best explanation. Physics completely breaks down before the Big Bang, so we have zero knowledge to base what it came from on. I didn't say it was necessarily a good explanation, but in the absence of any other explanation, it's the best one.SenorToenails wrote:
Is it? I don't think so. I don't reject it because it's religious, but because there is no evidence for it.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Nothing explains what came before the Big Bang. In all honesty, creationism is the best explanation for it.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
I'm an atheist by the way.
Or of course the human mind can't wrap it's brain around the idea that time began with the big bang. But yea, that makes creationism a more viable solution.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Nothing explains what came before the Big Bang. In all honesty, creationism is the best explanation for it.d4rkst4r wrote:
I love it when people assume everyone else is an evilutionist
Yea, we probably will live and die like the billions of other humans before us. However, as we just discussed, there are so many perilous things out there that we are just beginning to discover. We have seen some pretty radical and unexplained things happen in the universe. There have been stars that have went supernova out of nowhere. I can just imagine what a gamma ray burst would do if aimed towards our planet . I look at Betelgeuse every time I go outside on a clear night. It's a safe distance away but it will be cool when it finally does go supernova (actually it could have already went @ 400 light years away). You will be able to see that puppy light up in the daytime.I'm glad I won't be here for that date. wtf Though I think impending cosmic armageddon would make for some really sweet desktops.
Have you heard the theory our Sun has a companion star? Nemesis is the name I think they gave it. In theory that is.
Edit: Nemesis
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Endorsing any belief (especially in relation to science) in the absence of evidence is bad. As a scientist myself, I understand that physics does not exist prior to the big bang. What sense would there be in assuming our laws of physics in this universe would or could exist prior to the existence of the universe itself?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That's why it's the best explanation. Physics completely breaks down before the Big Bang, so we have zero knowledge to base what it came from on. I didn't say it was necessarily a good explanation, but in the absence of any other explanation, it's the best one.
I'm an atheist by the way.
There are a number of scientist who have actually been turned on to creationism as they explore our universe. A personal opinion is what everyone is given in the absence of science. When there are no options there are unlimited options. Anything that can not be disproved with the scientific method is a viable solution. As a scientist you should know that .SenorToenails wrote:
Endorsing any belief (especially in relation to science) in the absence of evidence is bad. As a scientist myself, I understand that physics does not exist prior to the big bang. What sense would there be in assuming our laws of physics in this universe would or could exist prior to the existence of the universe itself?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That's why it's the best explanation. Physics completely breaks down before the Big Bang, so we have zero knowledge to base what it came from on. I didn't say it was necessarily a good explanation, but in the absence of any other explanation, it's the best one.
I'm an atheist by the way.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Dude, I didn't say I endorsed it either, I said it's the best one. If I was given a test in the following format:SenorToenails wrote:
Endorsing any belief (especially in relation to science) in the absence of evidence is bad. As a scientist myself, I understand that physics does not exist prior to the big bang. What sense would there be in assuming our laws of physics in this universe would or could exist prior to the existence of the universe itself?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
That's why it's the best explanation. Physics completely breaks down before the Big Bang, so we have zero knowledge to base what it came from on. I didn't say it was necessarily a good explanation, but in the absence of any other explanation, it's the best one.
I'm an atheist by the way.
Q: How was the Universe created?
a) God did it
b) -----------
c) -----------
d) -----------
edit: or going with Kmarion's post:
a) God did it
b) al;kghga
c) the swallow flies at dawn
d) Bush did it
Then yeah, I'm going to pick a. You might go to the proctor and try to argue there is no viable answer to the question or whatever, but I just don't care. It's a silly test anyways, I'm just putting the only choice that's there.
Man, I hope that's how I die. Not a terrorist attack, not AIDS, not cancer, not a freak accident, not spontaneous combustion, a freak gamma ray burst. Bonus points for inability for an open casket and/or radiation proof coffin.Kmarion wrote:
Yea, we probably will live and die like the billions of other humans before us. However, as we just discussed, there are so many perilous things out there that we are just beginning to discover. We have seen some pretty radical and unexplained things happen in the universe. There have been stars that have went supernova out of nowhere. I can just imagine what a gamma ray burst would do if aimed towards our planet . I look at Betelgeuse every time I go outside on a clear night. It's a safe distance away but it will be cool when it finally does go supernova (actually it could have already went @ 400 light years away). You will be able to see that puppy light up in the daytime.
No, and that's pretty funny. Meteorite killed the dinosaurs? Nooooooooo, psh, it was obviously a star that came close enough to Earth to (I assume?) burn all the life off of it.Kmarion wrote:
Have you heard the theory our Sun has a companion star? Nemesis is the name I think they gave it. In theory that is.
Edit: Nemesis
pshaw!Kmarion wrote:
There are a number of scientist who have actually been turned on to creationism as they explore our universe. A personal opinion is what everyone is given in the absence of science. When there are no options there are unlimited options. Anything that can not be disproved with the scientific method is a viable option. As a scientist you should know that .
The scientific method includes a need for a clear, well stated hypothesis that can be tested. One cannot test what existed before our universe, since we are trapped within it.
lmao.. I've got 45 cases of SPF fifteen-hundred sitting in my living room right now as I prepare. There isn't enough aloe-vera on the planet to save me from that burn. Damn I wish I had some karma..lolFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Man, I hope that's how I die. Not a terrorist attack, not AIDS, not cancer, not a freak accident, not spontaneous combustion, a freak gamma ray burst. Bonus points for inability for an open casket and/or radiation proof coffin.
Kmarion wrote:
Have you heard the theory our Sun has a companion star? Nemesis is the name I think they gave it. In theory that is.
Edit: Nemesis
It has to do with the sister star bringing other celestial object within striking distance of the earth. Most stars do infact have companion stars.. I dunno it's a little out there tbh.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
No, and that's pretty funny. Meteorite killed the dinosaurs? Nooooooooo, psh, it was obviously a star that came close enough to Earth to (I assume?) burn all the life off of it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Chuck Norris could.SenorToenails wrote:
pshaw!Kmarion wrote:
There are a number of scientist who have actually been turned on to creationism as they explore our universe. A personal opinion is what everyone is given in the absence of science. When there are no options there are unlimited options. Anything that can not be disproved with the scientific method is a viable option. As a scientist you should know that .
The scientific method includes a need for a clear, well stated hypothesis that can be tested. One cannot test what existed before our universe, since we are trapped within it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Isn't calling it the best option somewhat of an endorsement? Nitpicking, I guess. I'm just sayin, is all.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Dude, I didn't say I endorsed it either, I said it's the best one.
I'm fairly certain that if I saw that on a test, I would probably explode. Heh, then people would know what existed before my big bang. Hi-oh! (sorry, bad joke)Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If I was given a test in the following format:
Q: How was the Universe created?
a) God did it
b) -----------
c) -----------
d) -----------
edit: or going with Kmarion's post:
a) God did it
b) al;kghga
c) the swallow flies at dawn
d) Bush did it
Then yeah, I'm going to pick a. You might go to the proctor and try to argue there is no viable answer to the question or whatever, but I just don't care. It's a silly test anyways, I'm just putting the only choice that's there.
He would have to fight Bill Brasky first.Kmarion wrote:
Chuck Norris could.
And that's only the parts we can see. Could be much much older.Kmarion wrote:
Approximate. I think 11~billion is old news. Probably before the acceleration of the Universe was factored in.Hakei wrote:
Good write up, although 15 billion seems a little big, I thought the most distant galaxy we've located was around 11~ billion lightyears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#G … luster_age
It's calculated by looking back and doing some crazy formulas.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And that's only the parts we can see. Could be much much older.Kmarion wrote:
Approximate. I think 11~billion is old news. Probably before the acceleration of the Universe was factored in.Hakei wrote:
Good write up, although 15 billion seems a little big, I thought the most distant galaxy we've located was around 11~ billion lightyears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#G … luster_age
Xbone Stormsurgezz
check kaku's new book, Physics of the impossible, came out on the 11th. Ive gotten about half way through it, not quite as good as his great parrel worlds, but still a good read. Also brian green's elegant universe is almost required reading on string theories and all this mumbo jumbo.
The abbreviated video version is online.beerface702 wrote:
Also brian green's elegant universe is almost required reading on string theories and all this mumbo jumbo.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Do you watch Stephen Hawking too?ATG wrote:
My understanding of the universe{s} is that there are ten or eleven dimensions. These appear to facilitate big bangs as the different ' bubbles ' sometimes collide. It may be a repeating cycle and indeed our reality seems to be smaller than a speck of dew on a blade of grass in a field of wild flowers.
Moderne physics has not gone beyond the string theory and it is silly, tbh to try as we have more pressing issues our science people should be dealing with like solar power, reclaiming water, new propulsion for space travel.
Trying to understand the mechanicals of the universes is putting the cart before the horse as we need to survive as a species.
Think that's confusing? I'm still trying to get my head around how time travel can work and how everyhting related to it can occur lol.ATG wrote:
heh.
yup.
fuck all, it's confusing.
Planet formations has always been a big interest of mine. All planets are failed stars in that they form exactly the same way.
As your sig points ( ed ) out, Jupiter is a star that failed to ignite.
It hurts my head I'll tell you that.
Good thread though .
You will only be able to go back as far as the time travel machine was invented. Say the machine was invented today... in a year from now you might be able to go back to March 19th, 2008.M.O.A.B wrote:
Think that's confusing? I'm still trying to get my head around how time travel can work and how everyhting related to it can occur lol.ATG wrote:
heh.
yup.
fuck all, it's confusing.
Planet formations has always been a big interest of mine. All planets are failed stars in that they form exactly the same way.
As your sig points ( ed ) out, Jupiter is a star that failed to ignite.
It hurts my head I'll tell you that.
Good thread though .
Watch this on the 25th for more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz