Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9190 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: critterridder
Post Volume: Total: 919,055 Year: 6,312/9,624 Month: 160/240 Week: 7/96 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 34 of 373 (679661)
11-15-2012 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Lurkey
11-14-2012 6:24 PM


Re: Cosmological Horizon
Seems all^ makes the CH very real and physical. Like you’ve just defined the edge.
No, not really. Imagine an ant jogging as fast as it can on an expanding rubber band. Now, if we know the speed of the ant and the rate of the expansion, then there is a certain point on the band that we could identify and say "the ant will eventually traverse every point on the band up until there, and will never traverse any point on the band beyond there". And yet there is no edge. There's nothing special about that point of the rubber band, because it only exists relative to the point that that particular ant started from. Another ant that started an inch to the right on the rubber band would run right over that point and not even notice that there was anything special about it. Because there isn't.
And it's the same with us. Physics tells us that there are limits to how much of the universe we can see and explore, and that even if we could travel at the speed of light we could only reach such-and-such a galaxy and no galaxy beyond it. And yet there is no edge. A race of aliens living a billion lightyears away from us could see stars beyond our "edge" and (with sufficiently advanced technology) could cross that "edge", and they would never notice that they'd done anything special, or "crossed an edge", because the edge is only an edge for someone starting from Earth. It is otherwise completely unremarkable.
As with the ants, the "edge" only marks the point that we can't get to if we start from here. There is nothing special or remarkable about it, it's only the "edge" with respect to the place where we are, not with respect to the Universe.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Lurkey, posted 11-14-2012 6:24 PM Lurkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by vimesey, posted 11-15-2012 5:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 41 by Lurkey, posted 11-19-2012 7:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 373 (679670)
11-15-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by vimesey
11-15-2012 5:58 AM


Re: Cosmological Horizon
I wonder if that means that we can meet halfway the creationist point of view that the Earth is at the centre of the expanding universe. It's at the centre of the limit of our perception of the expanding universe.
No, it doesn't mean that.
If a looney thought that he was at the center of a flat Earth, would it support his point to explain to him that (in a flat landscape) he must always perceive himself to be at the center of his view of the Earth as limited by his horizon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by vimesey, posted 11-15-2012 5:58 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by vimesey, posted 11-15-2012 7:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 373 (695051)
04-02-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Dogmafood
04-02-2013 6:54 AM


Re: Madly off in all directions
Edit; If there are 2 stars that are 100Mpc apart from each other today. Tomorrow they will be 10.6 million km farther apart. 100 million km in 10 days. If our line of sight is perpendicular to their separation, why do we not see that distance increasing?
Because that means that the increased angle of separation between them, from where we're sitting, is 0.00000000000117 degrees, or to put it another way, the angle subtended by a typical bacterium if it was on the Moon. You couldn't see that, could you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Dogmafood, posted 04-02-2013 6:54 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2013 4:40 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 373 (695646)
04-08-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dogmafood
04-08-2013 8:06 AM


Re: Madly off in all directions
Sort of I guess but I was wondering if the expansion has any effect on light in directions other than down it's direction of travel. It stretches the light but does it bend it in any way?
Kind of, yes. And no. But if two beams of light start off parallel in (for the sake of simplicity) an otherwise empty expanding universe, then the distance between them will increase. In the geometry of GR, that doesn't stop them from being parallel ...
NoNUkes will correct me if I'm wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dogmafood, posted 04-08-2013 8:06 AM Dogmafood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2013 3:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 373 (739612)
10-25-2014 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Colbard
10-25-2014 7:28 PM


The attitude of science itself proclaims to be progressive in it's conclusions, along with the rate of discovery, so it really does not need "righteous defenders of the faith"who call others ignorant and delusional.
It seems to me that it's legitimate to call ignorant and delusional people ignorant and delusional, just as it's OK to call purple things purple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 7:28 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 373 (739613)
10-25-2014 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Colbard
10-24-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Guessing about guesses
Since I heard of evolution, the time periods for the beginning of our world and the universe have been increasing at an exponential rate ...
No. Perhaps you shouldn't base your arguments on stuff that you've made up.
It won't be long before all those who hold on to today's theories will be old fashioned, delusional and so wrong.
Not long, eh? Well, perhaps you would like to put money on it. How much will you bet that in a year's time, the scientific consensus on, let us say the age of the Earth, will have changed by more than, let us say 20% ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Colbard, posted 10-24-2014 9:16 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 373 (739617)
10-25-2014 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Colbard
10-25-2014 10:15 PM


So the topic has invited some clarification or insight into the nature of the universe.
So to be able to contribute, you must have done your own research.
However, if you have not and are just reflecting the thoughts and opinions of others, the popular material that's already out there, then you have nothing to say except whatever is fashionable and accepted.
Interesting. Have you yourself in fact conducted any scientific research, or are you just here to parrot things you've heard other creationists saying?
I am fairly certain that "anything outside the box is delusional" is not really science
I am fairly certain that it's not really what anyone said, either, and that anyone who pretends it is would be a god-damned liar and a fool.
---
Now, about that bet? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:15 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 373 (739624)
10-25-2014 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Colbard
10-25-2014 10:57 PM


"god damned liar and a fool" are religious terms, and not science, the very thing you claim to uphold?
Are we talking in a scientific community or in a cult?
One does not have to be a member of a cult to call a liar a liar and a fool a fool.
Normal people know this and do not need to have it explained to them.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 10:57 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 373 (739630)
10-25-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Colbard
10-25-2014 11:13 PM


The thread topic in part deals with the age or beginnings of the universe ...
Whereas your first post on this thread dealt in part with the age of the Earth. (And was stupid as all fuck, but I think that that point has been established, let's not flog a dead horse.) So I guess Coyote thought he'd reply to you about the stuff that you were talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Colbard, posted 10-25-2014 11:13 PM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 373 (739635)
10-26-2014 12:04 AM


Don't you think you should have found out something about science before lecturing other people on it in public?
I think maybe you should. Because, y'know, when you just guess what it is, there's practically no chance that you're going to be right.
(You also shouldn't try to guess what I think. You should ask me instead.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Colbard, posted 10-26-2014 3:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 373 (739663)
10-26-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Colbard
10-26-2014 3:27 AM


Well if you totally agree with common science then common science it is what you think
This is gibberish again.
Besides the meanings of terms Fox gave so generously helped me to understand that your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to science, unless everything you say can be verified by peer reviewed articles in a peer reviewed publication.
This comes close to the truth. In science, facts trump opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Colbard, posted 10-26-2014 3:27 AM Colbard has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 355 of 373 (741805)
11-14-2014 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by zaius137
11-14-2014 2:18 AM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
Since you research coal (probably not your dream job)
You are so bad at being snide.
I happen to know what Pressie's job is, and he could hardly have a better job unless they added And Chief Breast-Fondler Of All The Hot Women to his job description. Which doesn't usually happen to geologists.
What is your job?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 2:18 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Tangle, posted 11-14-2014 4:41 PM Dr Adequate 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