Evolution Sucks! by dougp59

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The problem I see here is that the scientific justification of God becomes leverage for the acceptance of a lot of presupposition about the will of God which is not meritted by the findings.

That is a problem with people, and ideally wouldn't need to be brought up unless we were talking spesifically about people.

Nothing is ever ideal. For example:

Quote:
Any proof that there was an entity of some significance would not necessarily push the conclusion that gays should be flogged, but will lead people to return to the bible, and draw that conclusion.

Religion, and the bible is an example of it, is created by human beings, and it has been said that nothing separates people from god more effectively than religion. If there is a god worthy of praise I think that statement is probably true.

The idea that people should connect god to a religion is faulty, and I wish people would drop it. Unfortunately that is unlikely.

For example if you could somehow prove that Jesus was indeed the Christ with all its modern connotations that would not mean you should necessarily take the Bible as correct because even if all of the words of his are recorded correctly and accurately translated (doubtful) there is a hell of a lot more there than just what he said.

Quote:
A safer attempt to explain the christian God would probably be something in the collective unconscious, and not in space.

I was just using that as an example of a possible situation because I know that the particle I described would have recently been considered the product of random chance. Whether or not it is still considered as such I do not know. Whether or not it really would be a result of random chance is something I certainly don't know.

I believe there is a god, but I don't believe I understand how that god works, if I wanted to do that I would be a scientist, which I am not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:54 PM

PSANDUSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by nevered:
I'm really curious as to how anyone can justify believing an argument that sounds so stupid.

"The Invisible Space Wizard Did It!"

Of course!

That must be it!

How could we be so blind?

Bull.

Didn't your mama teach you about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:11 PM

PSANDUSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dharmagal:
Interesting thread. All I have to say is this: if you really think evolution sucks, you only get one flu shot.

Did you happen to read the recent Doonesbury strip on that very topic? Came out in a Sunday strip, no less.

Ran a li'l sum'fin like this:

Doctor: (thinking) Uh-oh... Hope he's only a Sunday creationist.
Patient: TB? My God! Are you sure?
Doctor: Afraid so. But we caught it early.
Patient: So my prognosis is good?
Doctor: Depends. Are you a creationist?
Patient: Why, yes, yes I am. Why do you ask?
Doctor: Because I need to know whether you want me to treat the TB bug as it was before antibiotics... or as the multiple-drug-resistant strain it has since evolved into.
Patient: Evolved?
Doctor: Your choice. If you go with the Noah's Ark version, I'll just give you streptomycin.
Patient: Um... What are the newer drugs like?
Doctor: They're intelligently designed.

God bless Doonesbury, I say...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:32 PM

CUNKNOWN

I would like to point out something that may not have been emphasized enough in this thread, imo. In Darwin's time, the evidence for evolution was very strong. Although the fossil record and lack of a good method of inheritance (Mendelian Genetics wouldn't make its splash until later) were problems for the theory, it still seemed fairly clear that life wasn't static in the forms it took.

Today, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and any reasonable person is simply compelled to accept it. No, there isn't absolute "proof" per se that humans evolved from an ape-like primate, for example, but at the same time, there isn't really "proof" of anything if you want to get skeptical enough. Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to believe that life is static and never changes (or even that it never changes -much-), you have to be willfully ignorant of everything that is known in the field of biology today. Creationists talk a lot about, "Can they prove this??" "Where is the transitional form for this, huh??", but if they took even a small amount of time to actually study the basics of evolution with an open mind, they would realize their mistake. And besides, I'm sure many of those transitional forms have actually been found--have these Creationists been perusing the latest Paleontology journals lately? Have they made the slightest effort to find out if any of their questions have actually been answered by scientists yet? Of course not.

These "Seven Problems with Evolution" webpages are intellectually dishonest and don't even deserve a response. The proof for evolution is out there, if you make any effort at all you can find it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:54 PM

VALICK

The only thing I have to say is How does something that wasn't there explode and make goo which then makes itself into something more intricate by the decade? I say, there is a God, he made a boom and evolution did take place. All happy, decided, no more arguing.

Why again are we talking about this on a Firefly website? I'd like to point out we all believe in something that we KNOW doesn't exist. Enough said

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:14 PM

Quote:
My sister in law is the head optic engineer of laser diagnostic inc., she says the speed of light is not a constant, so I accept that. But it's not unconstant in an ever diminishing way that would explain the astrological anomolies we see in space.

And she's absolutely right, the speed of light is not constant, the speed of light in a vacuum *is* constant, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. May seem like I'm being pedantic but the constant c being a constant is extremely important to modern physics

Quote:
but there's enough evidence to suspect that the universe is in fact a black hole within a larger universe. Also, there's no such thing as a singularity, that's an illusion.

I think that's something you need to take up with Hawking...

The mathematics work quite well to show that matter compresses in to an infinitesimally small point (a singularity) it's just at the point of singularity our current understanding of physics breaks down...
But how would the compressed particles and plasma (plasma is still comprised of particles, it's just superheated disassociated ionised matter) orbit a central point if there's nothing there to generate the gravitational centre?
I've never seen a supporting theory, or a mathematical model to support what you suggest in anyway is all...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:31 AM

I'm sorry, Valick, are we not discussing topics from your approved list? Can you tell us what we are allowed to talk about, thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:35 AM

Chris,

Outside of the agenda for support of the presupposition like the Bible, et al., the concept of God is absurd. I think flying spaghetti monster *litterally* has more chance of success. It is rediculous, yes, but less so than God. I can actually envision the set of circumstances that would be necessary in order for the FSM situation to be possible, in order for God to possible a set of circumstances much be envisioned that would by necessity be almost totally delusional. Spending time considering the possibility might be like spending time considering the possibility that the Iraqis are going to respond to attacks by US forces by turning us into squirrels, and adjusting US strategy to account for such.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:48 AM

Citizen,

The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant, which does open the possibility for the variable speed of light theory, but accepting the theory out of hand is not wise, as the theory itself draws conclusions which don't follow, and it is probably false. If true, it would explain nothing, accept maybe a different expansion of the universe.

The mathematics are absurd, and were originally only meant as approximations. We don't need to know whether or not it is possible for matter to be compressed into a singularity, which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so. If you haven't run into studies about the unstable nature of the black hole gravitational sense or its spin, both of which lead to the idea of something moving inside, or the random particles leaving a black hole, you could simple look up at the sky, knowing that you are inside a black hole, and figure that the behavior of this universe represents a macromodel of what behavior inside a black hole must be like

Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.

The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:15 AM

SPINLAND

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I only take issue when a member of any faith attempts to push laws or teachings on non-believers; if you're not specifically asked, you keep your religion to yourself. It's that simple.

I agree with you about pushing laws or teachings, but as for keeping it to one's self:

I don't see the problem with believers of a faith, whatever it may be, trying to "spread the word." I just think when it becomes clear someone doesn't want to hear it they should shut up.

I believe you are correct, Chris, and in a later post I softened that statement with some clarification. I was "shooting from the hip" in the above-quoted post, something I should not do to the exclusion of thinking about what I'm about to spit out. Sometimes my personal experience with religious zealots leaves its mark in the form of angry retorts.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
The speed of light in a vaccuum is also not constant

Not under relativity it isn't. c is a constant. It is 299,792,458m/s. c is the natural speed of light in a vacuum which is constant.

Quote:
According to standard modern physical theory, all electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, propagates (or moves) at a constant speed in a vacuum, commonly known as the speed of light, which is a physical constant denoted as c. This speed c is also the speed of the propagation of gravity in the theory of general relativity.

One consequence of the laws of electromagnetism (such as Maxwell's equations) is that the speed c of electromagnetic radiation does not depend on the velocity of the object emitting the radiation; thus for instance the light emitted from a rapidly moving light source would travel at the same speed as the light coming from a stationary light source (although the colour, frequency, energy, and momentum of the light will be shifted, which is called the relativistic Doppler effect). If one combines this observation with the principle of relativity, one concludes that all observers will measure the speed of light in vacuum as being the same, regardless of the reference frame of the observer or the velocity of the object emitting the light. Because of this, one can view c as a fundamental physical constant. This fact can then be used as a basis for the theory of special relativity. It is worth noting that it is the constant speed c, rather than light itself, which is fundamental to special relativity; thus if light is somehow manipulated to travel at more or less than c, this will not directly affect the theory of special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Quote:
which I believe is not possible, because we already know it not to be so.

We don't know any such thing.

Quote:
Furthermore, the idea of the big bang is absurd, and not supported by quantum mechanics. The concept of spontaneous particle generation is a misnomer, the particles are not generated out of nothing, they come to pass because of the interaction of energies. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of the universe is simply impossible. The spontaneous generation of a particle the mass of a walnut is exceedingly unlikely, if not impossible.

e=mc2 shows that energy can be converted in to particles and vice versa. Frankly Steven Hawking among all of the worlds leading physicist subscribe to singularities and mostly to the big bang. The math is from the same theories that have been proven experimentally.

There's no theory (i.e. one backed up by math or experimental evidence) for the universe being inside a black hole. The properties of black holes can be explained through singularity, there are, however, flaws in the assumption that matter is spinning around a central point.

Quote:
The universe was created very slowly, and no study of our universe is going to reveal that nature, since our universe is a black hole, and so probably got its material by sucking it in from whatever is outside.

The big bang theory is actually quite solid. The conditions have been mapped backwards to within a few tenths of a second after the event. Computer models based on the Big Bang theory have produced remarkably similar universes to the one we have today.

You state this like fact but it is an entirely unsupported theory...
It's not unlike saying Evolution doesn't exist so ID must be the answer...

Edit:
The theory of black holes arose from the idea that the speed of light has a maximum speed (it's speed in a vacuum) and that matter can be crushed into a singularity.
It's a consequence of that and relativity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 5:28 AM

ROCKETJOCK

The trouble with Intelligent Design is that you have to assume that God is a lousy engineer; otherwise why would humans still have an appendix, vestigial tailbone, or a gall bladder?

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 6:27 AM

Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.

The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event. The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.

The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.

First. Here's the thing about black holes, which never approach singularity: They pull in the fabric of space time like a big knot, and that make the space time within the hole to be of greater density, thus the hole is dimensionally transcendental. Space is created by the fabric, from the point of view of anyone inside the space, the amount of space taken up by the fabric of space time is going to be relatively constant, regardless of how it might look to an outside observer. The fabric does not exist *in* space, space exists *in* the fabric. Thus, inside a black hole, by necssity is larger than it appears from the outside. I feel confident that it *must* be so, given what we know about the nature of space-time.

Second. Anything which falls into a black hole does so with some undetermined amount of tangential velocity. Everything we know about physics also tells us this *must* be so and is *always* the case. Since nothing anywhere in physics indicates that anything would ever cancel out this tangential velocity, it must be so that the progression towards the center would follow the same sort as that towards any other gravitating object, and thus miss the exact center. Since the center is infinitely small, this also *must* be so, and thus the falling particles would fall into perpetual orbit of the non-existant center, must the way a whirlpool orbits a space with no water, or an intense storm orbits a space with no wind.

Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.

Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.

Fifth. The gravitational field of a black hole exhibits behavior akin to that of a gravitating object with spin, much like would be created by a field of orbiting material, and not that which would be created by a quantum particle.

Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.

The whole nature of concepts such as speed, distance, and space, are nothing more than relative to the extant quantity of spacial fabric crossed, which is what allows some items to be conceivably capable of moving as what appears to be faster than light to us, but that most probably occurs because of an absense of space.

The so called 'doppler shift' that we view is quite possibly not a 'doppler shift' at all, but the biofringent distortion if that's the right term, cause by looking through space. Light may lose energy travelling through space, causing a redshift, and there's not really a reason to think that this isn't so. The universe logically should be expanding, because as a black hole, it is sucking material in from whatever is outside. But that said, there in not really any strong evidence to support the idea that that is what we are seeing when we look out into space, and there's an abundance of evidence indicating strongly that this is not so.

The facts as I understand them to be, indicate that the universe is substantially larger than the portion that we see, and that we are not looking at the edge of even this black hole universe we are in, let anlone whatever is outside. Rather, light, losing energy over time, is reduced to its singular quantum state and becomes merely a deep radio glow. This limits the amount we can look out in each direction to 16B lightyears, much like a light-horizon.

All of this theory can explain how the universe evolved, not how existance itself came to be created. It is a theory of evolution, deeply rooted in darwinian natural selection, chaos theory, and quantum mechanics. In contrast, the 'accept science' of big bang *is* intelligent design, creationism, an treated by science as a religion, in spite of flaws so major that they threaten the entire idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
I'm a scientist and I'm trying to keep an open mind. Everything I read about either Creationism or Intelligent Design is usually all about perceived problems with evolution, with very little support for ID. The absence of information about the theory of Intelligent Design has left me with some questions.

I'm not sure which sites you ahve dealt with, have you visited the Discovery Institute? BTW, what field of science are you in?

Quote:

1) What is the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism (assuming there is one)?

There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.

Quote:

inconsistent with evolution, why would supporters of Intelligent Design be so anti-evolution?

Because most came out of supporting evolution when for various reasons, they came to see it for what it is, myth.

Quote:

2) What is the evidence in support of Intelligent Design?

There are many, one are irreducible compex systems.

Quote:

3) What do Intelligent Design scientists research? ...test your theory you are dealing with philosophy or theology,

Watch out, that is a two edged sword.

Quote:

Intelligent Design cetainly poses all sorts of nice questions (who is the Designer? is there more than one? is creation a single event, or a controlled, interactive scenario? what was the Designer's purpose? where is the Designer now?), but I cannot figure out a way to test a hypothesis based on any of these questions. Do ID scientists perform research seeking incosistencies in evolution? If so, they studying evolution and are in truth evolutionary scientists.

Obviously the answers to these questions cross over into faith and philosophy.

Quote:

My unoriginal inclination is to say Intelligent Design is a transparent attempt to disguise Creationism, and since neither theory can ever be tested, they are not science. But I'm trying to keep that open mind.

Actually, it is more of an attempt to follow the truth in regards to origins, regardless of the final destination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil.

Absolutely false statement, just like everything else you've spewed. There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.

That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.

Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.

It is altogether fitting that Hitler writhes in agony in the fires of hell.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:28 AM

SPINLAND

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
That is hideous, you get to kill MILLIONS of MILLIONS of people, and your only punishment is nothingness upon death.

Yep, that's pretty much it. If you can't accept that, well, tough rocks. It's reality, and as I said before, reality bites sometimes.

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:
Untimately, it is not the punishments that man doles out in justice to evil, it is God's eternal judgements which are righteous and true.

Meaningless drivel referencing a "god" which doesn't exist. Please, continue to believe in your make-believe god if it comforts you, but I reserve the right to hold you and your imaginary playmate in contempt--and to do so with impunity, since there's no such thing as any divine retribution for my failure to kiss your god's divine ass.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:30 AM

Quote:

The Bible says something like "By their works you shall know them". So, how do you account for the fact that atheists are generally more moral (lie, cheat, steal, and divorce less) than "believers"?

The Bible also says "All (atheists included) have fallen short of the Glory of God."

Quote:
Barna's results verified findings of earlier polls: that conservative Protestant Christians, on average, have the highest divorce rate, while mainline Christians have a much lower rate. They found some new information as well: that atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all./QUOTE]

Barna is not the untimate arbiter of who is in and who is out of the flock, as it were.

For the truth on what the founding fathers really said, visit one of my other sites;

www.whateveristrue.com/heritage

True, that Jefferson and Franklin were diests. Too bad.

Quote:

Evil Uncle Chuckles (Pat Robertson) calling for various assassinations and Dubya himself are certianly NOT good advertising for religious morality!

Personally I find Pat an embarrasment and not truly representive of true followers of Christ. I think Chavez maybe a little whacky, but I would never advocate his assasination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

I find it sad, really, that all you atheists from your perspective, are on the same plain as the Hitlers and the Stalins of history.

You see, from your worldview, there is no punishment for evil. There is just the same ol' nothingness upon death irregardless of your behaviour in this life.

How sad.

I thank God that the truth of His world view, is that the Hitlers, the Stalins etc. of history are being justly punished for their evil.

The truth is that Hitler was an avid and devout christian, and a die hard creationist. This is why the accusations made by eurocollectivists that social darwinism eventually led to the holocaust don't hold water. The truth is that social darwinism is a theory about how societies evolve, and the collectivists were afraid that this would ultimately lead people to support the idea of a meritocracy, and so conveniently blamed them for WWII. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people involved in the planning of the Third Reich were social darwinists, and a great number, if not all, were creationists.

As a Taoist, my faith doesn't call for, or perhaps allow, the existance of an omniscient sentient, just living forces in natural progression. If this seems like fringe wackoness to the Xtians, I would offer that my chosen faith has a following comparable to that of Christianity, Islam, Buhddhism and Hinduism. Just saying, not a fringe belief, but also not atheism.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Actually, I've read all that science and been through it and generally believe it to be wrong. It's not a matter of conviction, just the whole thing is a bunch of mathematical posturing to support the preconceived notion of the nature of the universe and its creation.

That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system

Quote:
The Big Bang *IS* intelligent design. It's creationism in scientific form. The whole point of big bang theory is to turn the universe into a religious event.

It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental. If some group said evolution is proof of God does that suddenly make evolution a belief system?

Quote:
The problem is that is not supported by the facts. Not even remotely. The distribution of matter does not support any extant big bang model of progression, nor could it, and the hypothetical particle creation that the entire theory hinges on is blatantly against the laws of quantum mechanics and isn't even remotely possible.

No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment. There is no evidence whatsoever to prove your black hole theory. None.

If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.

Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.

Quote:
The idea of some sort of big bang coming from a black hole is possible, but there's no conclusive evidence that this is what took place and a strong collection of evidence that it's not.

You’re flying in the face of a well established and supported theory, DT, you need more than just rhetoric to support your point.

Quote:
Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.

For crying out loud DT, this is not the level of argument I expect from you. By the same reasoning I could say that since the universe exists, and god created the universe that's definite proof that god exists.

Quote:
Fourth. The behavior of a black hole shows the random low level emission of particles and energies consistant with a storm of orbiting material which occassionally could cause an interaction which could cause an aleteration in tangetial velocity, allowing small amounts of material to escape. The material is probably like all systems less likely to be near the edge, and the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light, so these emissions are small, but measureable.

As matter is 'sucked' into the blackhole it orbits around before passing through the Event Horizon, producing just the effects you mention.

As for escape velocities above the speed of light, well normal matter can't travel faster than c. A blackhole is black because beyond the Event Horizon nothing can escape without traveling faster than c, and nothing with a finite rest mass can travel faster than c. The radio/x-rays and matter emmissions always come from the accretion disk, outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is less than c.

Light still travels in a straight line inside a blackhole though, it's just space-time is curved in on itself so that light traveling in a straight line always ends up back at the singularity.

Quote:
Next, light is effected by gravity, which means that its speed, even in a vaccuum, is not constant. The nature of the vast expanse of the universe and its forces cannot easily be replicated experimentally, but there's enough there to suggest that travelling across the universe would have some impact on light.

DT, I don't want to be overly patronising, but this may come across that way.
If you had something to say on Biological Chemistry, for instance I'd trust you but this statement shows a distinct lack of understanding in the field of theoretical physics and Relativity.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Gravity does not slow down light.
Gravity slows down time. Time is not constant, c is. c, to an outside observer in a different reference frame would APPEAR to be travelling slower, because time, in comparison to the observers reference frame, is passing more slowly.
*IF* the observer was in a fixed spatial position within the beam of lights reference frame then the beam of light would pass that observer at c.
Light does not slow down due to gravity. Light is not bent by gravity, space-time is warped, light always travels in a straight line.

The fact that time is not a constant has been proven experimentally.

Quote:
The whole nature of concepts such as speed, distance, and space, are nothing more than relative to the extant quantity of spacial fabric crossed, which is what allows some items to be conceivably capable of moving as what appears to be faster than light to us, but that most probably occurs because of an absense of space.

Not exactly. Special Relativity says you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. This has never been disproven.
General Relativity says that an object *can* move between two points, A and B, faster than a beam of light could following a flat plane of space-time.

Quote:
The so called 'doppler shift' that we view is quite possibly not a 'doppler shift' at all, but the biofringent distortion if that's the right term, cause by looking through space. Light may lose energy travelling through space, causing a redshift, and there's not really a reason to think that this isn't so. The universe logically should be expanding, because as a black hole, it is sucking material in from whatever is outside. But that said, there in not really any strong evidence to support the idea that that is what we are seeing when we look out into space, and there's an abundance of evidence indicating strongly that this is not so.

That doesn't explain blue shifts.

Quote:
The facts as I understand them to be, indicate that the universe is substantially larger than the portion that we see

That's true, but that also supports the big bang theory and relativity, since space-time can expand at a rate greater than c (since nothing is really moving under special relativity) while light is limited to c on a flat space-time plane. Therefore space-time is expanding away from us faster than light is moving towards us, meaning it can never reach the Earth.

Quote:
In contrast, the 'accept science' of big bang *is* intelligent design, creationism, an treated by science as a religion, in spite of flaws so major that they threaten the entire idea.

I don't think you understand the theory solidly enough to make that assertion.

EDIT:
I think you may be talking about Kerr-Newman (rotating) black holes. These don't prohibit the existence of a Schwarzschild black hole (the plain vanilla single event horizon black hole) in fact a Kerr black hole will eventually become a Schwarzschild black hole.
Now in rotating black holes it is true that the singularity is ring shapped, not a point like in Schwarzschild black holes, but this ring singularity is no less of a singularity, it has zero thickness, despite having a non zero radius.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:37 AM

dreamtrove:

You should look into philosophy a bit, "I can envision" and "I can't envision" are very, very weak arguments and have been used to "prove" god, "disprove" god, "prove" free will, "prove" determinism, "prove" compatiblism, "prove" the existiance of souls, prove … well you get the idea, I hope.

Science as we know it was originally philosophy (and by a strict definition still is) but it has the distinction of not using that kind of argument but instead using the scientific method in an attempt to achieve better and better approximations of reality.

The idea of god is one that exists outside of all of that, sort of. If a god evolved like people than that god doesn’t even meet most peoples definitions of god, that is the type of god that would fall victim to your envisioning a set of circumstances.

-

If god is instead a force of nature then it is as easy or difficult to envision as the warping of space by mass or the speed of light being constant.

If god is a statistical phenomena of grouping than the circumstances necessary for it are the same as the ones that make the sequence 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 appear in random number sequences (which it does.)

If god is the creator of the universe than that idea seems just as delusional as the idea that the big bang simply happened. That has always seemed the supreme joke to me, god aside the only thing as absurd as the idea that there was an uncaused event (be it god or the big bang or something else) is the idea that there wasn’t (and thus an infinite sequence.)

If god is a being which really can defy the laws of physics (seems absurd to me to begin with, why create the laws if you’re going to break them?) than it seems just as absurd as the idea that you can have a dream where there is a force of gravity but you can fly.

I can go on, but the point is simply that the idea of there being a god is absurd in some renditions of god, but few I have seen are any less absurd than things we take for granted. Also in the first three hardly seem delusional to me, at least no more so than the warping of space, math as a whole (which I support as one of the most useful things in history), and the start of the universe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not, I'm not sure he would be the *worst* christian whoever lived.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
I believe you are correct, Chris, and in a later post I softened that statement with some clarification.

Yeah, I saw that actually.

Sometimes I read through all posts before I respond, but others I respond as I read to avoid forgetting what I want to respond to.

I was doing the second then, and am in fact doing it now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
god aside the only thing as absurd as the idea that there was an uncaused event (be it god or the big bang or something else) is the idea that there wasn’t (and thus an infinite sequence.)

The idea that the big crunch (the end of this universe) could cause the big bang (the start of this universe) isn't so weird because between the two time and cause and effect do not exist.

Quote:
warping of space

Space isn't warped, space-time is. It's a subtle but vital distinction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Frankly Steven Hawking among all of the worlds leading physicist subscribe to singularities and mostly to the big bang.

In one of his books Steven Hawking said he was researching a theory that said the big bang never happened, are you saying he gave up on (or disproved) that theory?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:52 AM

Steven Hawking is an advocate of Big Bang theory. I can look in to creationism, doesn't mean I'm a creationist.

Quote:
Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ (Underlining added)

I think I know the theory your talking about, but I'm going to have to look it up, bare with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:06 AM

To Spinland

I agree with most things you have said before, now that you have clarified them, but I think you are being a little bit too harsh with the following:

Quote:
Yep, that's pretty much it. If you can't accept that, well, tough rocks. It's reality, and as I said before, reality bites sometimes.

...

Meaningless drivel referencing a "god" which doesn't exist.Please, continue to believe in your make-believe god if it comforts you

God is hardly disproven, and even when I didn't believe in god I didn't think people should say things like that. I don't think people should be so derogetory about the opposition on things that are truely unknow, and god remains one of them.

Quote:
but I reserve the right to hold you and your imaginary playmate in contempt

This however I have no problem with at all. I personally would have said, "Your god," but that is an unimportant disinction when the one saying it doesn't believe in the god.

Quote:
--and to do so with impunity, since there's no such thing as any divine retribution for my failure to kiss your god's divine ass.

And to this my response is to go for it. If I am right, and the god I believe in does exist, acting like that will earn you more divine respect than kissing ass out of fear or hellfire (or fear in general.) If I am wrong that still earns you more of my respect because you believe what you believe out of conviction, not fear or greed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Space isn't warped, space-time is. It's a subtle but vital distinction.

I actually know that, which makes me feel all the stupider for not having that reflected in what I wrote.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Steven Hawking is an advocate of Big Bang theory. I can look in to creationism, doesn't mean I'm a creationist.

My wording seems to be worse than normal, or perhaps it was always bad and I didn't notice.

I thought he was trying to prove the theory he was looking into. You seem to know more about this than I do so I'll take your word on it.

-

You seeming to know more reminds me, I've been trying to figure something out.

I've been told there is no such thing as absolute speed (save that of light in a vacuum.) If something is not accelerating it is at rest from its frame of reference and moving from another, but neither is more correct.

However I have also been told that as something accelerates towards the speed of light it gains mass. If that is true couldn't one simply measure the mass of, say, a hydrogen proton, in a non accelerating object and from that determine whether it is moving faster or slower than another non-accelerating object that has had a similar measurement? (By seeing which has more mass, of course.)

If that is not true why isn't it?
If that is true wouldn't that mean there is such a thing as absolute speed?

-

There's so much to respond to in this thread. Finally done for now though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
And to this my response is to go for it. If I am right, and the god I believe in does exist, acting like that will earn you more divine respect than kissing ass out of fear or hellfire (or fear in general.) If I am wrong that still earns you more of my respect because you believe what you believe out of conviction, not fear or greed.

One of the most enlightened responses I've read on this subject. I don't hold to the Christian god of the Bible, because I believe that god would be what the bible says what god is supposed to be.

It's hard to explain. The Christian god is infinitely forgiving and compassionate, yet murders the first born of Egypt? Small children, babies, innocents in the true sense of the word. That I don't get. It's an act that is all together too human.

Quote:
I actually know that, which makes me feel all the stupider for not having that reflected in what I wrote.

Didn't mean to make you feel stupid...
It's a point that people often stumble on, which makes their understanding of the ideas completely screwed, which is possibly where my misunderstanding came from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
I've been told there is no such thing as absolute speed (save that of light in a vacuum.) If something is not accelerating it is at rest from its frame of reference and moving from another, but neither is more correct.

True, sort of, I'll get back to it.

Quote:
However I have also been told that as something accelerates towards the speed of light it gains mass.

This is true. It is given by M/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), or the resultant mass is equal to the rest mass divided by the squareroot of one minus the velocity squared times the speed of light in a vacuum squared.
If you had an object of 1kg traveling at a speed of 0.95c the relatevistic mass would be:
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - (0.95*c)²/(1*c)²)
(Solving for c)
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - 0.95²)
M = 1 / sqrt(0.0975)
M = 1 / 0.3122...
M = ~3.2kg

Quote:
If that is true couldn't one simply measure the mass of, say, a hydrogen proton, in a non accelerating object and from that determine whether it is moving faster or slower than another non-accelerating object that has had a similar measurement? (By seeing which has more mass, of course.)

No. Within it's own reference frame the hydrogen particle will have gained no mass, it gains mass in respect to the outside universe. In order to measure an objects mass it *must* be at rest within your reference frame, ergo you'll never see a discrepency between two hydrogen particles, as you can only measure rest mass.

Quote:
If that is true wouldn't that mean there is such a thing as absolute speed?

Yes and no. As a particle with finite rest mass reaches c it's energy/mass coefficient reaches infinity. Thus a photon (beam of light) can reach c because it has a rest mass of zero. An object with a finite rest mass (above 0) would reach the point of infinte energy/mass coefficient at a lower speed, thus not being able to reach c.

Now even under relativity it is theoretically possible to exceed c, but you need a negative rest mass. That is, for instance, you need a bag of sugar that weighs -1kg. One type of particle that has been theorised to have a negative rest mass is a tachyon (Greek for swift) though there's no direct evidence of their existence (I heard something awhile back about a type of radiation being encountered in the upper atmosphere which is consistent with Tachyons) they would theoretically not be capable of speeds slower than c.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:52 AM

VERASAMUELS

>the simple fact that one plus one does equal two<

Not in non-Eclidean geometry .

But to enter the wider debate;

What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Vera

Devout Keeper of Jayne's Lunchbox

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by VeraSamuels:
What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Various religions and books (Stranger in a Strange Land for example) are based on that very thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:09 PM

Quote:
Not in non-Eclidean geometry

Just thinking. Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as Astemeyer correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts, the theoretical shape described by Siddus must therefore be a poly-dri-doc-deca-wee-hedron-a-hexa-sexa-hedro-adicon-a-di-bi-
dolly-he-deca-dodron.
Everything else is popycock. Isn't that so?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:52 PM

SPINLAND

Thanks for again being the voice of reason, Christhecynic. I fear I'm unable to respond to the troll who started this thread without my own baggage coming through. I shall work harder to ignore his posts and reserve any comments I have for responding to the rest of you as they occur to me.

Cheers!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 2:03 PM

I always thought that 1 + 1 = 2 because the defintion of two was "1 + 1" then you merely have to assume or prove that 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 which intitively seems to be the defintion of =.

I mean one is the only number that exists in reality anyway, take one person, add another person, you now have one group, add another person and you have ... one group.

But it would be nice to distinguish these different forms of one, so we give them names the first group, one person and one person, written 1 + 1 people, is called a (which means one) group of two, or 2 people.

All of this is too many words, so we just make our symbols, and all math I have thus far been introduced to stems from addition and the idea of identities. So I always thought 2 was defined as 1 + 1.

Of course "always" is a lie, I was told in high school that because some group was more or less masochistic they took only two axioms where sane people took three. That forced them to rigorously prove various things, 1 + 1 = 2 being one of those things.

I was also told that the person who proved it burned out, and after writing out the long paper proving it he produced little else of the caliber he consistantly had before.

I should point out that many of the things I was told were not true, these may be among them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:09 PM

Doug,

True, some ID is flying spaghetti monster. For another, I just said that big bang was ID. I mean it too. But then all of this is creationism, just not christian creationism.

But Intelligent Design has a more insidious role to play. It is part of the neocon's plan to throw the '08 election to Hillary, who is really one of their own. All that needs to happen is for the republian nominee to get up and say "I believe in intelligent design and will make its teaching federal law in place of evolution" and I guarantee you that the repulicans will lose.

Doug,

You're also not for real. Someone put you up to this. I've known christians, many of them, fundamentalists, and you in no way resemble them. I think you're probably doing it as a prank, you certainly don't really believe everything you post. You probably don't believe anything you post.

Quote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh no, if you're not a christian maybe you're defending nazis here. I think that Hilter was a Christian is a well established fact, just like that he had the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, though he was, if I recall correctly, a Lutheran. I think as a rhetorical device, your response failed miserably. A better response would have been "He was also a vegetarian, what of it?"

Quote:
That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system.

Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.

Quote:
It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.

Quote:

No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment.

That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.

Quote:
If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.

I think I just gave you half a dozen things.

Quote:
Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.

Of course, and we know how and why this happens, because particles are the result of the interaction of energy strands. Even if the statisically unlike event that all strands everywhere crossed at the same point in space in time, which is unlikely on the order of one in infinity, the laws of quantum mechanics would still prevent the event from creating the universe particle. It's pseudo-mysticism at best, and a clumsy cover for rewritten chrsitianity at worst.

Quote:
Quote:

Third. Since we live in a black hole, we can examine one from the inside and see the nature of its matter distribution, which is most definitely not a singularity.

For crying out loud DT, this is not the level of argument I expect from you. By the same reasoning I could say that since the universe exists, and god created the universe that's definite proof that god exists.

Now you're just being absurd and offensive because you have no answers to any of the problems I suggested with the theory, and all of these points have been raised by scientists before, so I'm not making them up. The fact that the universe is a black hole, and exhibits certain characteristics is directly connected logically to the observation of any other black hole. I assume you know that the universe is a black hole since you seem big on the math, I would assume you already did the math and found that to be the case. You're argument that god created the universe and that he does exist is based on nothing and related to nothing. There is no basis for comparison here.

Quote:
As for escape velocities above the speed of light, well normal matter can't travel faster than c. A blackhole is black because beyond the Event Horizon nothing can escape without traveling faster than c, and nothing with a finite rest mass can travel faster than c. The radio/x-rays and matter emmissions always come from the accretion disk, outside of the event horizon where the escape velocity is less than c.

Yeah, it's safe to assume I know all this already, I did study this stuff.

Quote:
Light still travels in a straight line inside a blackhole though, it's just space-time is curved in on itself so that light traveling in a straight line always ends up back at the singularity.

This is out of context. The theory that gravity is a straight line and space is curved is not a special case for black holes, it applies everywhere, which means it applies to the universe as a whole, which is a collection of orbiting objects, so there is nothing here that supports the idea of a straight collapse to the center, and in fact support the continued orbit idea.

Quote:

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Gravity does not slow down light.

This is not a relevant point to the other argument, and the effect may be minimal, but this statement is still not true. If light obeys gravity, bends towards it, which it does, then nothing prevents it from bending back toward the thing directly behind it. Point of fact, light leaving dense stars does so far slower, not just a little bit, than light leaving smaller stars, thus showing the slowing of light by gravity, as it relates to the universe. You can say "oh, space is bent" but thaen the fact that space is bent is an omnipresent factor, and the bend of an entire universe of space is going to have more unpredictable effects.

I didn't gainsay your "speed of light is a constant" because I wanted to support this "light slows" idea, which I think is probably rubbish, but because I wasn't going to let you get away with blatant generalizations which weren't technically true.

Quote:
That doesn't explain blue shifts.

Neither does big bang. Some thing in the universe move, as a group of objects in orbit, that stands to reason. I'd reckon some might do so rather quickly compared to others, since we are in an orbiting arm, and not a complete circle.

Quote:

Not exactly. Special Relativity says you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. This has never been disproven.
General Relativity says that an object *can* move between two points, A and B, faster than a beam of light could following a flat plane of space-time.

Yeah. I wasn't disputing this, I was just saying, however, space can be warped. If there is no space in between point A and point B it can move rather quickly. Dual wave forms show this behavior. Since space is measured in strands, if one strand exists at point A and also at point B than it is the same strand, there are no strands in between itself and itself and the movement is instant, and this has been experimentally proven to be so.

Quote:

That's true, but that also supports the big bang theory and relativity, since space-time can expand at a rate greater than c (since nothing is really moving under special relativity) while light is limited to c on a flat space-time plane. Therefore space-time is expanding away from us faster than light is moving towards us, meaning it can never reach the Earth.

This is plausible, sure, and obviously I read this theory many times before I read anything different, and sure, it used to ring true. But in all honesty, with no agenda or motive for saying so, I simply do not believe, based on the scientific evidence, that this is what we are seeing. There is a general red drift as you look out into space, which indicates that light travelling through that space is drifting redwards. Rather conclusively so. There's not a lot of reason to assume that this drift is caused by some theoretical fact rather than being a natural quality of light. Also, bear in mind, such is the distribution of matter in the universe that all light may have been absorbed and re-emitted many times before reaching us.

Here's another possible explanation for redshifting, but not my only one: If a photon can have any energy, which it can, what if an orbital energy can absorb an enery of 1, but it can also take something extremely close, like 1.0000001, but not something less, like .9999999, then when it re-emits a photon, the new photon is 1, and thus the light has been redshifted .0000001.

Just saying there are many other ways that this could happen then that everything is fleeing us at tremendous speed or that space in between is expanding.

I'm not patronized by it because I think I understand the science here very well. You've posted nothing here that I didn't learn in my first astrophysics class, and after a few more and a lot of reading on my own I came to the conclusion that the accepted theories really help employ scientists and support preconceived notions, but don't solidly match the facts.

I grant that as a black hole, the current space we live in started at some point, and has been expanding as it gathers space, but it is neither the entirety of what is, nor can we judge its size or age by this data we are reading because one is not connected to the other. It's not just the next step, it's a tremendous leap of faith, which is unwarranted by the data we have. Chances are we're looking at something far more mundane here. The age of the universe, even the black hole we live in, may be drastically older than we think, could be on the order fo trillions of years, it could also be drastically larger. The theory conveniently ties it all together, but I think it does so in a misguided fashion because it's trying to arrive at a preconceived destination, and like the old geo-centric model of the solar system, it just needs endless patches to prevent it from totally falling apart, but still there are clearly countless things it fails to explain, which I already enumerated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:19 PM

Chris,

but why go there? The thing is, I don't know the answers, I'm just constantly stabbing in the direction, comparing the possibilities. To take an absurd notion to be true because someone wants it to be true is to lose all sense of perspective and to blind you from ever knowing the truth.

I'm not bent on no God, just as I'm not bent on no big bang, but neither idea seems to have strong enough supporting it to make it even probable, let alone definite. Furthermore, closer examination may lead one to think the initial idea was suspect, so why bother. More effort can be spend on unknowns far more plausible and proveable.

I'm not arguing an infinite sequence, only that the objective analysis seems to indicate to me that the universe is far older and larger than the theory allows, and that the theory doesn't like that because that means that there are an awful lot of unknowns.

My theory has a lot of stuff it can never explain, like i must deal with the 'whatever's outside' of this black hole universe. Well, I'm pretty sure that what I have now is more concere than the big bang, I have no philosophical need for this 'outside' but my theory does seems to indicate one, and so I have to assume that it exists. I have no problem with it existing, only that I can't possibly tell what it is. I assume it to be universe like in nature, but maybe it's endless plasma goop, or the henderson's kitchen table, I don't really know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:30 PM

TANSTAAFL28

Evolution is scientific theory that happens to fit the available facts. Until another scientific theory comes along and replaces it, it's the best we have.

People who peddle ID are mistaking philosophy for science. Beliefs aren't facts. Beliefs are the wishful thinking that people comfort themselves with when they don't like the facts.

"You can't take the sky from me..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 3:33 PM

Citizen,

Thanks for the back up on the nazi christian thing, I wish I had some resources to send you on debunking the big bang et al., I have to assemble some. The problem is that most of what is behind the big bang is theoretical mathematics, and most of what shoots it down is scientific observation, and I'm not just shooting my mouth off here. I think if you look into the flaws, your faith will be shaken. I'm not sure what point that has, unless you are interested in the truth. That said, I have to disagree with you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Why not, I'm not sure he would be the *worst* christian whoever lived.

Yes, he was. I thought about this for a couple minutes first, and I thought of a lot of crusaders, the various leaders of the crusaders, and was it Richard the Lionheart who led the genocide crusade that depopulated Israel? Killed 10 million arabs and jews or something? Maybe it was another king. So, yeah, sure, possible, but if all Hitler had done was the holocaust, he might have been bested, but alas there was also the polish genocide, the serbian genocide, the gypsies, the russians, the lithuanians, not to mention a war with casualties of up to 60 million. He was undoubtedly the worst, in sheer numbers. I don't know if he actually ate children like Patassé was it? So sure, there's competition for the title, but I'm going to go with bodycount here.

Actually, I have to reconsider for a second. I just remembered king ferdinand of spain. 4 million europeans and untold numbers of indians, and the destruction of all that ancient knowledge, civilizations, etc. Hmm. Fuhrer still probably number one, but there's a top ten here somewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:27 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.

As for "Intelligent Design"--

"Intelligent Design is not science - not even BAD science - but it is bad religion. After all, any religion that has to lie about what it is in order to sneak into the building needs to take a long hard look at some of its own tenets regarding morality and integrity...

...I believe that eventually our science will be good enough that we can explain to God how we think He did it, and He'll say "Great job! You get an A! It would have been an A+, but you left 'Dark Energy' in place as a fudge factor. Now here's a nebula full of hydrogen. Show Me what you can build."

Until then, however, I'm not going to use the book of Genesis as a template for a scientific theory. The answers may be in The Book, but we're expected to show our work. That's the only way that we can enjoy the fruits of DOING the work." -- Howard Taylor

For the record, Mr. Taylor is a devout Mormon, and also a hard science fiction writer. Check out his Webcomic "Schlock Mercenary" for some good clean fun.

"I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma." -- George R.R. Martin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:32 PM

AERIN

Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding! I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution). I was also taught that the speed of light in a vacuum is absolutely constant. I don’t understand Dreamtrove’s arguments and they run counter to what I know, but I can’t dismiss them out of hand based on the overall quality of Dreamtrove’s posts.

I nominate Hitler for the prestigious award of “Worst Christian in History”. Any seconds?

Rocketjock – Doug’s lack of a FF history has been noted by others on the thread. Nice quote!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:46 PM

AERIN

Quote:
Originally posted by dougp59:

There is a misconception that all ID theorist are creationistst. They are not. If you were to ask some of the leading ID theorists if they were creationists, a suprising number would say no.
Many retain old earth, old heavens viewpoint.

This is the crux of my concern. Intelligent Design is sold as a theory distinct from Creationism, but if this were really true every ID theorist would say he’s not a Creationist. Instead of replacing Creationism with a new scientific theory, Intelligent Design just lumps religion in with philosophy to sneak them both into the science classroom. I would guess the majority of ID theorists are Creationists, with a few Deists and Agnostics thrown in for variety. I think the definitions below would distinguish between religious fundamentalists trying to debunk science, and scientists who believe in god. Of course, I suspect that’s the complete opposite of the ID agenda.

Creationism – the universe was created by God, as defined by belief in religious texts; some variation in the details (age of the universe, etc.), but absolutely contrary to evolution; a religion

Intelligent Design – entity/entities played some part in creation, as concluded by reason rather than adherence to religious texts; covers a lot of possibilities, but largely coexists with evolution (entity/entities set up evolution, subtly guide it, etc.); a philosophy

Irreducibly complex systems don’t disprove evolution any more than not having every single transitional fossil. Again, rather than proof of ID, it's percieved problems with evolution. At best, they may show the theory needs some minor tweeks. Here’s how I think of it:

Under creationism, my laptop would have popped into existence with no previous forms. No punch cards, no rooms filled with tapes, no desktop computers. Just my Inspiron 6000. Under intelligent design, many changes were attempted at each step of the modification, and customers created a natural selection, but the designers only tried those changes they thought would be an improvement. Because the designers showed some degree of intelligence, we went from the Difference Calculator to my Inspiron in less than 200 years. Computers could have developed via random changes, with designers trying all ideas regardless of merit, followed by the same customer-based selection, but then my laptop would be on pre-order for something like the next 10 billion years. Complexity is not evidence of intelligent design, even if you can’t imagine how it came about. However, if pigs develop wings in the next 100 years I will definitely convert to your camp.

If you want to know what I do for a living, read my other posts. Maybe you’ll learn some thing about this thing we call Firefly…

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2006 12:03 AM

Quote:
Orignally posted by Dreamtrove:
Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.

Dreamtrove, my comment was not based on your not accepting the theory; it was based on the fact that you said it was because you saw it all as mathematical posturing.
To be honest this tired old argument that gets dragged up every time someone disagrees with you for more than two posts is annoying and somewhat insulting. It's not just me you level this at either, it's seemingly anyone who disagrees with you, so either I'm to believe everyone on this site is constantly lying to beat your perfect argument, or that your as fallible as the rest of us, and tend to back up your arguments with personal attacks, and accusations that your opponent is lying.

Quote:
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.

Your theory isn't all that different to creationism over eons either, DT, so I'm not at all sure how you can refute the theory on this count.
But please continue to paint me as someone who says yay Jesus and jumps on the bandwagon of this crazy non scientific creationism, that happens to be supported by prominent physicists, who are also obviously crazy creationist nuts.

Quote:
That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.

It doesn't necessarily have to have spontaneously come into being. There's lots of ways that the original singularity could of come into being, this statement shows a fundemental misunderstanding, wilfully or un-wilfully, of the big bang theory.

Quote:
I think I just gave you half a dozen things.

I'm asking for evidence Dreamtrove, not your say so.

Quote:
Now you're just being absurd and offensive because you have no answers to any of the problems I suggested with the theory, and all of these points have been raised by scientists before, so I'm not making them up.

No you’re stating a theory as fact that not only is there scant information on but you've shown me nothing to back it up yourself. So okay here's the answer to your original point, we know black holes aren't like our universe because our universe is not inside a black hole. That statement is every bit as valid as yours.

Quote:
I assume you know that the universe is a black hole since you seem big on the math, I would assume you already did the math and found that to be the case.

Neither the Schwarzschild or Kerr geometrics support that.

But thanks for proving how low an opinion you have of me. If any mathematics I had done or seen supported you I'd of said so.

Quote:
You're argument that god created the universe and that he does exist is based on nothing and related to nothing.

Right okay I'm doing the twisting and outright lying, and then you go ahead and not only put words in my mouth but start telling me what my position is as well. Thanks.
My argument is nothing of the sort. That’s what you want my argument to be because then it's easier to rubbish, which is why I expect you'll be sticking vehemently to this assertion.

Quote:
The theory that gravity is a straight line and space is curved is not a special case for black holes, it applies everywhere, which means it applies to the universe as a whole, which is a collection of orbiting objects, so there is nothing here that supports the idea of a straight collapse to the center, and in fact support the continued orbit idea.

That's not the theory. Space is not curved. Space-Time is curved. Since the general curvature of space-time is the same every where it is fine to view it as flat within any local frame, accept when there is the presence of a gravitational field. The space-time curvature found within a black hole is NOT the same as the curvature found in the rest of the universe.

Quote:
This is not a relevant point to the other argument, and the effect may be minimal

Dreamtrove, you said light is slowed down by gravity, if light isn't slowed down by gravity then it has a big impact on this point.

Quote:
If light obeys gravity, bends towards it, which it does

Which it does not. Space-Time is curved due to Gravity; light always travels in a straight line. If space-time is curved then a straight line will appear bent to an observer outside the local space-time curvature.

Quote:
Point of fact, light leaving dense stars does so far slower, not just a little bit, than light leaving smaller stars, thus showing the slowing of light by gravity, as it relates to the universe.

No it doesn't time is passing more slowly for the beam of light compared to the rest of the universe so that it appears to travel more slowly from our outside subjective reference frame. This is a basic point of Relativity. The only way light can be slowed by gravity is if Relativity is wrong, so are you now also saying you have a better theory than Relativity?

Quote:
I didn't gainsay your "speed of light is a constant" because I wanted to support this "light slows" idea, which I think is probably rubbish, but because I wasn't going to let you get away with blatant generalizations which weren't technically true.

No I'm supporting the idea that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant because it's one of the founding precepts of Relativity. Relativity is the best model of the physical properties we have at the moment, and aspects of it have been proven experimentally.

Quote:
Neither does big bang. Some thing in the universe move, as a group of objects in orbit, that stands to reason. I'd reckon some might do so rather quickly compared to others, since we are in an orbiting arm, and not a complete circle.

Actually it does because it's possible for galaxies to be moving toward each other as well as away in an expanding universe.

Quote:
Yeah. I wasn't disputing this, I was just saying, however, space can be warped. If there is no space in between point A and point B it can move rather quickly. Dual wave forms show this behavior. Since space is measured in strands, if one strand exists at point A and also at point B than it is the same strand, there are no strands in between itself and itself and the movement is instant, and this has been experimentally proven to be so.

Space isn't warped space-time is warped. They aren't the same thing.

Furthermore you kind of were disputing it; you said that matter inside the event horizon that is matter in your internal whirlpool (at least that’s how it sounded since you were using matter ejections to support your black hole model), could be ejected. There is only two ways this could happen either Special Relativity is wrong, normal matter can travel faster than the speed of light, or the matter being ejected has a negative rest mass, which means it wouldn’t of fallen into the black hole in the first place.

Quote:
There is a general red drift as you look out into space, which indicates that light travelling through that space is drifting redwards. Rather conclusively so.

I never disputed that.

Quote:
There's not a lot of reason to assume that this drift is caused by some theoretical fact rather than being a natural quality of light.

The Doppler shift IS a natural property of light. Light has wave like properties, and the Doppler shift is something that DOES happen to waves if the emitter is moving.

Quote:
I grant that as a black hole, the current space we live in started at some point, and has been expanding as it gathers space, but it is neither the entirety of what is, nor can we judge its size or age by this data we are reading because one is not connected to the other.

You’re stating your theory as fact again. Black holes, even Kerr rotating ones, still have singularities at their centre, not lots and lots of matter circling a central point.

There's no Geometric that supports your idea, and no amount of accusing me of lying and wilfully changing/ignoring your perfect evidence, nor reiterating your unsupported theory are going to change that.

So I await your accusations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2006 3:32 PM

Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.

But, speaking of time, I work in excess of 80 hours a week, and I really don't have time for this. I gave you the items which shake the theory, there is a ton already written on the subject by people who can do the material better justice than I can.

Ojectively, Citizen, I judge everything from an ultra-pragmatic position. I look at the data, and apply common sense. Clearly I have no scientific degrees and am no kind of professional, but I did go through all that accepted science, and the accepted science is mathematical posturing, it's a model which explains behavior, and that in itself does little to support the idea that the underlying assumptions are correct. I reviewed the data and the competing theories, and have no axe to grind, and nothing to gain, and no absolute answers to give, but I have a serious hunch that the accepted science is wrong, in the way that Mr. Monk walks into a murder scene and has a hunch that the Captain's conclusions are flawed.

The theories are not my own, I said I assembled all this of stuff I read, and these are the individual pieces which strike me as being in the direction of correct, and I was applying them to oppose certain absurdities in the accepted theory. A singularity is everybit as absurd as infinity, as is an infinite mass particle. It's like God. If you have theories which explain what we see and don't require this sort of divine intervention and made up fantasyland stuff, then they are worth taking a look at.

Finally, I posted this stuff because I thought you and others might be interested in what some scientists outside of the mainstream but not over in looneyland like space wizard are saying, and the thought that maybe interested people could look into it. It benefits me zero to win this argument, so I'm not arguing.

If anything were worth arguing for me on this board right now, it would be to see if Fletch can present me with a system that provides for the needs of the people that he thinks need providing for without creating a giant web of government control.

So, Fletch,

I hope you see my connection on the govt. control. Socialism is govt. control, and it's cooperative in nature, and so sure, it could work, but it's always going to be far easier to drive in the wrong direction as a well ordered system is, than a more independent and individualistic one would be, should something untoward happen. Equality, social safety net, correct me if I'm wrong, but the things you think a govt. should provide, healthcare, housing for the homeless, welfare for the poor, whatever it be - can you see that this demands a government power structure which then in turn threatens those civil liberties we both cherish?

It happens all the time here in New York. The democrats propose a new social program to help poor people, which they do all the time, and faster than you can say 'beaurocracy' that same program is being used by the same people to interfere in those people's lives on a drastic level, from telling them what type of education (liberal slanted) they're children must have and sending them to counseling, to taking their children away and making them wards of the state and forcing them onto medication, - and all of this for behavior which might seem relatively innocuous, and would not lift an eyebrow if a wealthier person did it (ie. we're not talking about child abuse here, but joining religious groups, going out to a bar or even restaurant, leaving the kids with an aunt for a night, - and my personal favorite - not fastening a seven year old in the back seat into a child restraint device (not free to the family) - a crime which resulted in all of the kids being taken away (the child in question was not injured in spite of the absense of the device)) And that last was just one story from my mom's former co-worker, who was the one who did the deed. So, as you can see, I'm very used to any kind of program like that which is govt. run coming with an absurd amount of govt. control attached.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2006 3:48 PM

Okay Dreamtrove, I don't want to have a 'falling out' with you. I will only reply to one thing, and then I will drop it. I promise.

Quote:
Space is space time, to say that space time is an entity really confuses the issue, space and time are both derived from the fabric, but in different ways, it is the space quality that was being addressed, to say that space and time are the same thing is to not understand time.

Space-Time IS the fabric of space. Under Relativity Space is four, not three, dimensional, with the fourth dimension being time. It is wholly correct to talk of Space-Time, and not Space. It is, under relativity, Space-Time that is warped, not space. There is no misunderstanding of time there.

No properly worded description of Relativity will say 'Space is warped' it will always refer to 'Space-Time'.

But as I promised I'll leave it there.

If I can ask a question though, and feel free to ignore me, some of your assertions seem to suggest you think Relativity is wrong, while others suggest that you think it is right. Where do you stand on Relativity, I won't argue the point, I'd just like to know?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 13, 2006 4:49 PM

Citizen,

Thanks. I think that time is more complex, or perhaps simpler, but what i meant was strands fluctuate from A to B creating frequency and wavelength, in so doing they create space. In so doing they also create time, but time and space build on that initial fluctuation in different ways. It's like languages come about by the interaction of humans, and societies also come about by the interations of the same humans, but that's not the same as saying languages and societies are the same thing. That was my only point, not arguing that time is entirely separate from space, but it is also not entirely the same. The semantic point I thought was nitpicky when you posted it elsewhere, so I ignored it, which was this: if someone is talking about the spacial properties of space-time, it's perfectly fine to say space, because this is a language issue, not a science one, and everyone understands what they mean.

Next,

Relativity is essentially correct. Correct is not an absolute though. I believe the truth is an unreachable ideal, and in that sense, everything will always be "wrong" in that it will fail to explain everything that could conceiveably be derived from it. I consider something to be essentially "right" if it is closer to the truth then what came before, and that no one will ever have a need to 'undo' it in order to get closer to the truth.

Newton isn't wrong. It's right, because it explains the way things work, and no explaination requires that physics would be better off without newton. But in cosmology, Newton is not *as right* as Einstein.

Relativity is a mathematical model, it never predended to be anything more, and as a mathematical model it is more applicable to cosmology than is Newton. I argue with some of the assertions and derivations because they are inconsistant with other laws, but I don't argue the theory of "this is generally how things interact, according to these formulas."

Where Relativity breaks down is when it approaches quantum mechanics. Einstein was very well aware of this, and was not able to find a way to reconcile the problem. In his later years he became quite bitter about it, and argued that quantum mechanics must be absolutely wrong, because if it weren't, Relativity could not be absolutely right.

But there are no absolutes, and Quantum Mechanics is far from absolutely wrong, in fact it is right, because it explains the interactions of things on a very small scale to a much greater degree than anything which came before, in the same way that Relativity explained things on a very large scale, and no one in science would benefit from undoing quatum mechanics.

So the problem which presents itself is when forces of cosmology have to operate on a very small scale, and then they break down, and quantum mechanics becomes more the guiding model. It's roughly analagous to when Newton is applied on a somewhat large scale, say one such as the Solar system, where it can be generally correct, but the more you need to involve elements of the cosmos, even planets, Newton needs to give way to Einstein in order to get accurate results.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Y'know, I hope I'm not the only one to check Dougp59's profile; this guy's first log-on was the same day he started this thread. He has no footprints on the site except for this one thread. This guy ain't no browncoat, he's just a fanatic with an axe to grind. I wonder how many other unrelated websites he's posted his link on.

But it's so much more fun to ignore that and continue the thread. That's why I say, give him the benefit of the doubt, not because I think he is a Browncoat, but rather because bringing up trolling will get us sidetracked.

Of course we are sidetracked, but in a different way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Aerin:
Chris, Dreamtrove, Citizen – you guys have made this a really interesting thread, even though the astrophysics is way beyond my understanding!

Thanks.

Quote:
I always thought the Big Bang sounded suspiciously like modified-Creationism, but everything I’ve read, seen, or been taught suggested it’s well accepted in the scientific community (rather like evolution).

The thing is, the important thing is, that it is not. The similarity has led some (a Pope included) to believe it to be a vindication of Genisis' "Let there be light" but it is hardly creationism.

It is no more creationism than the belief that the big bang was caused by a "big crunch" is Hindu.

-

I don't know where to stand on it, it is over my head, but I do know it is firmly science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:35 AM