Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,093 Year: 5,350/9,624 Month: 375/323 Week: 15/204 Day: 15/21 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
ICANT
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 316 of 410 (459521)
03-08-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by tesla
03-08-2008 9:52 AM


Re: Structure scale
Hi tesla,
tesla writes:
more info please, I'm fascinated !
The big picture is the nearby active galaxy NGC7314. The inset picture is the diffuse X-ray emission from the distant cluster XMMU J2235.3-2557.
Which is 10 billion light years away and would have been about 3.7 billion years after T=O.
Amazing it could be 12 competely formed galaxies in only 3.7 billion years from T=O.
You can find it Here
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 9:52 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 12:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 392 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 317 of 410 (459527)
03-08-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by ICANT
03-08-2008 9:35 AM


Re: Structure scale
Is the Universe like a bowl of whipped cream which has substance throughout.
Or is it like the balloon where the universe is on the outside edge of the balloon with the galaxies like the ants crawling around on the outside.
* sighs *
It's like both of them, depending on which particular aspect of cosmology we're trying to explain by analogy.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 9:35 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22677
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 318 of 410 (459530)
03-08-2008 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by ICANT
03-08-2008 9:15 AM


Re: Re-Inflation
ICANT writes:
Percy you have constantly reminded me to study before putting my fingers into gear. So as a reason for my statement on dark matter holding the universe together I present the following 4 pieces of evidence. If they are wrong please correct.
Before I take a quick look at these, let me ask you a question. Did you understand the responses to your previous "pieces of evidence?" And your "pieces of evidence" before that? And the ones before that? And those before them?
In other words, what is the point of anyone responding to your "pieces of evidence" if instead of spending the time to understand the responses you just go off and find more "pieces of evidence" that just raise pretty much the same issues?
By "study and learn" we don't mean go off and find more excerpts that you don't understand. We mean work to understand the ones you've already provided. All you're doing is lengthening the list of extremely similar excerpts about things you don't understand.
http://www.ur.umich.edu/9495/May08_95/phantom.htm
New phantom particle could be cold dark matter that holds universe together
You're quoting an article from the University of Michigan school newspaper from May of 1995. That issue also included the news that Gary Moeller had resigned as head football coach as well as advice about what to do in the event of a tornado.
You should be seeking recent, well informed technical articles. This is none of these. Don't cast your net too far. There are probably billions of words on the Internet about the Big Bang. Every kind of weird belief is represented out there somewhere, and if you're not discriminating you're just going to waste a lot of time. Stick with mainstream technical journals, magazines and websites, and don't go too far back in time.
I have no idea why this article says that dark matter could be "the glue that holds the universe together." It was an obviously very speculative hypothesis 13 years ago, and it just as obviously hasn't panned out, not in the form of supporting evidence, anyway.
But what would it mean if it turned out that dark matter *is* the "glue that holds the universe together?" Are you thinking that such a discovery would somehow invalidate the evidence that supports current theories of cosmological origins?
Anyway, the bottom line is that there is very little we understand with any degree of confidence about dark matter at the current time. We know it exists because we can see the effect its mass has upon the structure of galaxies, but beyond that we know very little.
Dark Matter - Celestial Objects on Sea and Sky
The Case for Dark Matter
The evidence for dark matter lies with gravity. Gravity is the force or "glue" that holds the universe together. Everything in the universe is mutually attracted to everything else.
In this case the article's author obviously does not mean to imply that gravity holds the universe together. He's merely stating that gravity is the attractive force within the universe.
Like I said before, there are literally billions of words about cosmology on the Internet. Not everyone is going to express themselves perfectly clearly every time. If you're going to scour the Internet looking for sentences here and there that reinforce your misinterpretations, you will have no trouble finding them. But finding people who actually have detailed and accurate knowledge of cosmology has got to be a rare event, but you're for the most part rejecting this blessing.
Just a moment...
This question arises from years of progressively stranger observations. In the 1960s, astronomers discovered that galaxies spun around too fast for the collective pull of the stars' gravity to keep them from flying apart. Something unseen appears to be keeping the stars from flinging themselves away from the center: unilluminated matter that exerts extra gravitational force. This is dark matter.
The above appears wholly accurate.
I don't know how you get this:
Percy writes:
This contains the most fundamental misunderstanding of all. The Big Bang isn't science because it's what scientists want to believe.
From this:
ICANT writes:
Just because I don't believe like you do does not mean that I do not understand what has been discussed...
You said, "I don't believe like you do." For scientists it isn't a matter of belief but of what the evidence and replicated experiments/observations indicate. Reaching conclusions from evidence is one thing, believing something without being able to offer any evidence is another.
Would you please explain the difference in what you see from the Big Bang point of view and what I see from a Genesis 1:1 point of view.
Now you're missing the entire point of this website.
No one's trying to talk you out of your religious beliefs. No one is lobbying for equal time before your congregation to preach the Big Bang, an ancient earth, and evolution. If you want to believe Genesis is how it happened, that's fine by all of us here.
Problems only arise when creationists claim their religious beliefs are actually scientifically valid principles that should be taught in public school science classrooms, but when lobbying school boards they can't admit that the principles they advocate are religious in nature, so they drop references to God and Bible in such venues.
So if you want to believe that Genesis is how it happened, fine, no argument from me. And I have absolutely no worries about creationists who go to schools boards and argue that Genesis is what should be taught in science class about cosmological origins, because not a school board in the country would ever think they could get away with such a blatant violation of the First Amendment, no matter how sympathetic they might be to such a proposal.
EvC Forum exists to examine creationisms claims to be legitimate science. Once you start citing Genesis you've lost that debate outright, so go ahead and cite Genesis all you like. But not here in the science forums, okay?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 9:15 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 12:29 PM Percy has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 319 of 410 (459532)
03-08-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Dr Adequate
03-08-2008 11:06 AM


Re: Structure scale
Hi Dr
Dr Adequate writes:
* sighs * It's like both of them, depending on which particular aspect of cosmology we're trying to explain by analogy.
Sorry for all the anxiety Dr but this is a place I have a hard time trying to understand the standard model.
I was privileged to spend 15 years in the beautiful Cayman Islands. While there I found a very wonderful spot on Cayman Brack on the Bluff. You could go there in the late evening or early morning and stand and behold this marvelous place in which we live. I loved to take the telescope and set it up and peer into the vastness of this universe. It did not make any difference which direction I looked morning or evening I could see all kinds of different stars.
If the universe is like the balloon how is that possible?
If it is like the bowl of whipped cream and everything scattered through out the whipped cream, I could understand seeing stars in every direction.
If everything is on the surface of the whipped cream I don't.
I guess my problem is I don't understand how expansion can take place in one direction from the T=O point.
If you had a small pea and it began to expand from within and the exterior did not burst it would expand in all directions equally.
Or did I miss something somewhere?
Dr this is not a place to make fun of my ignorance as I plead completely and utterly guilty. I would much rather have information.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2008 11:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 135 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 320 of 410 (459536)
03-08-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Percy
03-08-2008 11:53 AM


Re-Inflation
Thanks Percy,
Percy writes:
You said, "I don't believe like you do." For scientists it isn't a matter of belief but of what the evidence and replicated experiments/observations indicate. Reaching conclusions from evidence is one thing, believing something without being able to offer any evidence is another.
Percy I understand you look at your evidence and come to certain conclusions. But you do have to believe those conclusions don't you?
Or else you would not repeat them.
I view my evidence and come to my conclusions and I believe them and therefore I am willing to repeat them.
Percy writes:
Now you're missing the entire point of this website.
No one's trying to talk you out of your religious beliefs. No one is lobbying for equal time before your congregation to preach the Big Bang, an ancient earth, and evolution. If you want to believe Genesis is how it happened, that's fine by all of us here.
Percy I was not asking you to examine my religious beliefs.
I did ask you to compare: This I will now call it my hypothesis.
T=O = The energy that was there moved and everything begin to come into existence until creation was complete.
Expansion = This energy then stretched out the universe.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy = This energy holds the universe together.
(Without this extra mass the universe would fly apart)
To the Standard Theory and explain the difference.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Percy, posted 03-08-2008 11:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Percy, posted 03-08-2008 1:14 PM ICANT has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 321 of 410 (459537)
03-08-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by ICANT
03-08-2008 10:28 AM


Re: Structure scale
fascinating structure. the square or pyramid shape is also evident by star patterns in the other diagrams. I'm going to look up clusters in the Orion's belt as well as the supposed galactic center. it would seem impossible to have such a definite production of symmetry by chance star rotations.
sorry this is off topic, i will close this conversation. after some research my friend, i will e-mail you the results to decide whether or not its worthy of an ID topic concerning the possibilities under given dynamics.
found this on an orions belt x-ray tho: The dark vertical and horizontal lines, and the streaks from the brightest stars are instrumental effects.
not sure if its related to what we see in the other image. but I'm a skeptic until something is more validated. ill withdraw scrutiny, but for those interested, it is a curios form in ICANT's image that is visible with or without x-rays on imaging. food for thought i recon.
apologies again for the off topic post.
Edited by tesla, : final note on the image.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 10:28 AM ICANT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22677
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 322 of 410 (459543)
03-08-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by ICANT
03-08-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Re-Inflation
ICANT writes:
Percy I understand you look at your evidence and come to certain conclusions. But you do have to believe those conclusions don't you?
Or else you would not repeat them.
I view my evidence and come to my conclusions and I believe them and therefore I am willing to repeat them.
This isn't a semantic game. My conclusions are supported by the evidence, yours are not. Your conclusions are simple unsupported beliefs inspired by Genesis.
Percy I was not asking you to examine my religious beliefs.
If you don't want your religious beliefs examined then in the future I suggest not introducing them into the discussion, which is a good rule of thumb for the science forums anyway.
I did ask you to compare: This I will now call it my hypothesis.
T=O = The energy that was there moved and everything begin to come into existence until creation was complete.
Science has no direct evidence for what happened at T=0 and shortly after, and what theory we have tends to break down at that early time, so in the absence of both evidence and theory, science says we don't know.
You, on the other hand, though also having no evidence or theory to guide you, claim to know. Whether right or wrong, such conclusions are inherently unscientific because they have no empirical base, and the phrasing and terminology reveal an unfamiliarity with basic physics.
Expansion = This energy then stretched out the universe.
I see no point in being picky, so I'll just say that this seems consistent with currently accepted views within cosmology.
Dark Matter, Dark Energy = This energy holds the universe together.
(Without this extra mass the universe would fly apart)
This is contradicted by the available evidence, which indicates that the universe is flying apart.
You said this to Dr Adequate:
Dr this is not a place to make fun of my ignorance as I plead completely and utterly guilty. I would much rather have information.
I see little hint of a desire for information. You're repeating the same mistakes now as when you first began participating. If you want to construct your own cosmological theories you might want to at least make sure they're consistent with the evidence already in our possession, which means, in case you weren't sure, learning about it.
Guth Bless,
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by ICANT, posted 03-08-2008 12:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by ICANT, posted 03-09-2008 10:10 PM Percy has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5628 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 323 of 410 (459601)
03-08-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by tesla
03-08-2008 10:09 AM


Re: Pea size
Just a taste.
Your model is based on the idea of an explosion expanding into an pre-existing flat static space.
That explosion would have to have a center and, unless we happened to be at the center of the explosion, we ought to see different things depending on the direction of the space we chose to look at. There's no reason we should expect to be at the center of the universe.
Your model cannot explain the cosmic microwave background.
Your model is not consistent with General Relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 10:09 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:41 PM fallacycop has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 324 of 410 (459604)
03-08-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by fallacycop
03-08-2008 7:26 PM


Re: Pea size
wrong. you misunderstand what i am saying.
Your model is based on the idea of an explosion expanding into an pre-existing flat static space.
let me try to put it into perspective:
imagine a depth of water, the water goes up down left and right and in all directions and fills all. only the water is.
the water finds a point in itself that it condenses. it takes material from the water and makes a harder concentration that becomes solid like iron. but as the water becomes iron, air takes up the space between the water and the iron. and the iron is set inside the air. the iron is attracted to all sides of the water at once and so remains in the center of its point of fusion. a give off of the effect of the water becoming the iron is background radiation.
as the amount builds the "air" in the water expands from the iron points. the water chooses other parts in the air to condense more of the water into iron. at a certain level the matter is released by the water and it "implode/explodes". the iron i still attracted to the water, but it is more attracted to the other irons. and so it both pulls back towards itself, but as a whole also seeks the waters edge, but the attraction becomes less powerful as the waters edge becomes even more air so the attraction is much less because of the distance, but as its initial desire ad initial stat the iron still travels towards the direction it was moving, but is influenced by other "iron" in the area. the space between the water and the iron becomes so much air from the matter production, that it becomes impossible for the iron to reach the waters edge.
Your model cannot explain the cosmic microwave background.
it just did. its a by product of matter production when its converted from the body (water) into matter (iron) the radiation is ashes left over from the reaction.
black holes are points of matter production or reduction in and to the main body of water, because even the "air" is a part of the "water", just less dense.
do you understand the proposal now ?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 7:26 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 9:32 PM tesla has replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5637 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 325 of 410 (459606)
03-08-2008 7:53 PM


And how come some of the experts speak with such great authority about the Big Bang, its phases, how it started, how it proceeded, how matter came to be, when, in fact, the Big bang itself is not proven to be a fact? It's just one of the proposed theories/albeit the best one, so far/. As time goes by, new theories will arise and replace older ones, as we gather more knowledge and evidence of the world. Sitting here explaining to others what happened at T=0, or close to it, is super silly, to say the least. We simply don't know and any attempt to explain it with our current knowldge base, in such great detail, is super funny and ridiculous. A lot of you guys got carried away in explaining the universe down to the last detail. Take a deep breath, relax and come back to reality. It's 2008, not 3008. We still don't have enough information about what you're discussing to make such bold statements, and it doesn't seem likely that it will change soon. In the meantime, it's not a shame to ask a question, it's a shame to pretend to know all the answers/even those concerning T~0/!
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Chiroptera, posted 03-08-2008 8:48 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 331 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 8:23 AM Agobot has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 410 (459613)
03-08-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Agobot
03-08-2008 7:53 PM


And how come some of the experts speak with such great authority about the Big Bang, its phases, how it started, how it proceeded, how matter came to be, when, in fact, the Big bang itself is not proven to be a fact?
Well, because the Big Bang is pretty much a proven fact.
When the laws of physics as we understand them are applied to a very hot, very dense universe, the result is pretty much the universe we see around us.
It seems like a remarkable coincidence that a completely wrong theory would produce a universe like the one we see around us. So remarkable that it's pretty improbable that some unknown process is responsible for the universe around us.
The closest contender that I can think of is that God created the universe with every appearance that it was once very hot, very dense, and then expanded to our current universe with the laws of physics that we understand operating. Why he would do such a thing, I can't imagine, but I don't believe that such a god exists so it doesn't really matter.

...Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can't sell fiscal responsibility, they can't sell "values," they can't sell competence, they can't sell small government, they can't even sell the economy. -- Matt Taibbi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Agobot, posted 03-08-2008 7:53 PM Agobot has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5628 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 327 of 410 (459627)
03-08-2008 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by tesla
03-08-2008 7:41 PM


Re: Pea size
Tesla, you might as well give up. Nothing you said in this thread has made an inkling of sense so far. I guess cosmology isn't your thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 7:41 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 9:36 PM fallacycop has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1701 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 328 of 410 (459628)
03-08-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by fallacycop
03-08-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Pea size
as you see it, so be it for you. i surely hope a true cosmologist (which is rare) would be able to understand what I'm saying and see the truth in it.
we all will loose this body. i have given what i can of what i was given to give.
Gods will be done. so be it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by fallacycop, posted 03-08-2008 9:32 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Zucadragon, posted 03-09-2008 7:28 AM tesla has not replied
 Message 330 by Percy, posted 03-09-2008 8:12 AM tesla has not replied

Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 113
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 329 of 410 (459638)
03-09-2008 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by tesla
03-08-2008 9:36 PM


Re: Pea size
as you see it, so be it for you. i surely hope a true cosmologist (which is rare) would be able to understand what I'm saying and see the truth in it.
Isn't this the same as the whole "only real experts understand what I say and thus you can't be real experts because they would understand me" argument, which is pretty childish.
On topic though.
If I understand correctly, and I'm trying to even though its a hard way to think for me, the universe shouldn't be seen as an actuall ball thats expanding but more or less a surface that is expanding in all directions.
And on that surface we find the little specks that are the stars, and to normal observation it might look like they are moving away from eachother, but in reality they aren't moving, its just that space is still expanding in between them creating the illusion of movement just as the illusion of everything circling around the planet earth while in reality we are circling around the sun ?
Is this correct ?
Edited by Zucadragon, : grammar and adding of qs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 9:36 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by fallacycop, posted 03-09-2008 8:48 AM Zucadragon has not replied
 Message 333 by cavediver, posted 03-09-2008 10:25 AM Zucadragon has not replied
 Message 334 by Chiroptera, posted 03-09-2008 10:43 AM Zucadragon has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22677
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 330 of 410 (459641)
03-09-2008 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by tesla
03-08-2008 9:36 PM


Re: Pea size
tesla writes:
as you see it, so be it for you. i surely hope a true cosmologist (which is rare) would be able to understand what I'm saying and see the truth in it.
Just in the interest of correcting misinformation, a couple cosmologists have been participating in this thread, and a couple other people seem to have a high degree of familiarity with the field.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by tesla, posted 03-08-2008 9:36 PM tesla has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024