Evolution vs Creation and So Forth

[JohnAdams]

what caused the big bang?

Assuming there even was a Big Bang. There was an astronomer named Halton Arp author of Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, in which he basically proved that quasars are not many times farther away from us that galaxies, but are actually being emitted from the galaxies themselves, often in pairs, and that their extreme red shift must be due to some other phenomenon. He was dismissed from his position for even questioning the extreme distance and energy levels of quasars because it questions the big bang. He made several other predictions that were eventually confirmed by the Hubble Space Telescope.

 

[Defiant-Decay]

I can't believe you don't think we came from rhinos, the evidence is clearly in the spooky bones.

 

[Bill Bauer]

But you have to assume that it has been that long sing the beginning of the known universe.

That's not an unreasonable assumption, as the evidence from all of the sciences (e.g., earth sciences, astronomy, paleontology, biology, physics) points to it being true.

 

[HeavyMantra]

Not maybe. There are.

I didn't know that was proved beyond the point of doubt. It probably isn't

 

[JohnAdams]

That's not an unreasonable assumption, as the evidence from all of the sciences (e.g., earth sciences, astronomy, paleontology, biology, physics) points to it being true.

Ok then, how about this:

The constant for the fastest thing in the universe is C the speed of light.

They say the universe is about 14 billion years old. If the fastest anything can go is the speed of light, then the radius of the observable universe has to be less than or equal to 14 billion light years.

Diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion light years, and the radius is of that would be 46.5 billion light years.

That's more than 3 times as wide as it should be.

 

[Bill Bauer]

Ok then, how about this:

The constant for the fastest thing in the universe is C the speed of light.

They say the universe is about 14 billion years old. If the fastest anything can go is the speed of light, then the radius of the observable universe has to be less than or equal to 14 billion light years.

Diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion light years, and the radius is of that would be 46.5 billion light years.

That's more than 3 times as wide as it should be.

I looked it up and it looks like Big Bang isn't causing objects to Move out away from the point where it all began - Big Bang is creating new space.

In the example of the Universe, for instance, objects recede from you not because they are in motion, but because space is being created between you and the object. The Universe can create as much space as it likes, even so much that it appears that distant objects are travelling faster than c. So long as objects don't reach c relative to any local observer, to whom the expansion is negligible, this is perfectly okay with Einstein.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...r-than-15-billion-light-years-across-advanced

I had taken an introductory course in relativity from the department of Physics. I don't remember much, but I do remember that its nuts - hard to wrap one's mind around.

 

[JohnAdams]

I looked it up and it looks like Big Bang isn't causing objects to Move out away from the point where it all began - Big Bang is creating new space.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...r-than-15-billion-light-years-across-advanced

I had taken an introductory course in relativity from the department of Physics. I don't remember much, but I do remember that its nuts - hard to wrap one's mind around.

sounds more like an unscientific excuse for why the numbers don't work out.....

 

[Bill Bauer]

sounds more like an unscientific excuse for why the numbers don't work out.....

Most of modern physics is based on general relativity . This is the reason why this theory has been one of the most extensively tested theories in science. The theory has passed every single test. So there's that.

 

[JohnAdams]

Most of modern physics is based on general relativity . This is the reason why this theory has been one of the most extensively tested theories in science. The theory has passed every single test. So there's that.

So you think that gravitational wave experiment was legitimate?

 

[Bill Bauer]

So you think that gravitational wave experiment was legitimate?

I don't know much about that particular experiment. But I know that the experiment below Was legitimate:
https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html

For more about space-time warping, see the wonderful clip below

 

[Daniel Lion]

I looked it up and it looks like Big Bang isn't causing objects to Move out away from the point where it all began - Big Bang is creating new space.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ph...r-than-15-billion-light-years-across-advanced

I had taken an introductory course in relativity from the department of Physics. I don't remember much, but I do remember that its nuts - hard to wrap one's mind around.

Agreed, in university, art school, we had to take courses outside of fine arts towards our degree. The course on astronomy and physics blew my mind, I felt like a baby drooling sometimes... the concepts were really hard for me to grasp. I went on to read Stephen Hawkins and other books for lay people... I would have to read a paragraph three times often.

I never had this problem with philosophy. My mom, who's an epidemiologist, is very mathematically inclined and can smash through a saduko puzzle in minutes. I can sculpt a head, draw from my imagination, but will struggle with things that some people find easy. Tax returns... I can't freakin understand them... but I make so little money it's a non issue... but I do file every year. We are all wired differently.

By the way, Mr. Einstein, who is one of my heroes, was considered an idiot by his primary school teachers. He worked as a civil servant and submitted papers till he was finally noticed. He was also terribly worried about the atom bomb, rightfully so, and was generally a very kind and cool cat.

I am out of here, you guys should let this one go... or perhaps not, intellectual discourse is healthy. Best of luck my friends.

 

[JohnAdams]

I don't know much about that particular experiment. But I know that the experiment below Was legitimate:
https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html

For more about space-time warping, see the wonderful clip below

That's neat.

 

[JohnAdams]

I looked it up and it looks like Big Bang isn't causing objects to Move out away from the point where it all began - Big Bang is creating new space.

But if space/time is exactly that, 3d space, and time (4d), and that's expanding, then what is it expanding into? Whatever it is expanding into would also have to be space/time. Also, if space time is expanding, and we are part of that, then we would be expanding as well, and growing with it and there would be no perception of things getting farther or closer. Basically, our rulers would be growing with space, and the distances would seem the same.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

not coming from religiosity but i have to ask, what caused the big bang? what was before it? how can anything come from nothing? if we don't know the answers to these questions, how can science's view on life be taken as a fact? it's just a theory, and same as faith, it becomes a belief. yes, science is working hard to provide answers and proof but do you really think it can get there? to go where nothingness is/was, beyond space and time?

I don't know much science, but it's my understanding that spacetime came into existence as a result of the Big Bang, which would mean there was no spacetime before the Big Bang. So how did the Big Bang occur? There can be no cause since cause comes before effect and there is no "before" the Big Bang.

 

[JohnAdams]

I don't know much about that particular experiment. But I know that the experiment below Was legitimate:
https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html

For more about space-time warping, see the wonderful clip below

wouldn't the apple also be curved by space time?

 

[Bill Bauer]

But if space/time is exactly that, 3d space, and time (4d), and that's expanding, then what is it expanding into?

I will try to get to the bottom of this.

 

[Greg Sacramento]

I will try to get to the bottom of this.

I don't think that the human mind is capable of understanding of there not being an end to space.
There is or will be to an end to everything else as single or as a whole, but this defined end has a different meaning.

 

[Bill Bauer]

I don't think that the human mind is capable of understanding of there not being an end to space.
There is or will be to an end to everything else as single or as a whole, but this defined end has a different meaning.

Yes, we will likely not learn what the universe is expanding into. I was talking about the impact of the apple itself being warped. I think that a physicist ought to know the answer to that question...

 

[Greg Sacramento]

I was talking about the impact of the apple itself being warped.

Bill, I understood what you meant. The word endless to me has no meaning.
I though about change theories and how a few simple words or an impression from someone can change lives. This is above error, luck or anything that includes odds of something happening.

A wrong telephone call can slow down someone on their way to the store to be delayed by 5 seconds. From that an endless number of things can be a life changer from then on. For someone, this delay or a non delay could involve meeting the perfect woman or not. It's also possible that this delay or not could have meant hitting a red light or other endless happenings, but all of this is just life.

If someone mentioned to someone to go to a certain school, go to a certain place or to suggest doing anything and they decided to do so, their life could keep changing in an infinite number of ways. This is also just life.

When I use to day trade stocks, I focused a lot on who were who were the controllers of movement.

All of this is reversal thought and has nothing to do with odds and is the opposite of paranoid thinking. To me, it does not matter what came first, the chicken or the egg. I'm only interested in matter from human influence than can associate to physical and emotional change.

My T is very loud and sharp tonight and my mouth is on fire, but I need to continue to keep thinking.

 

[Bill Bauer]

I though about change theories and how a few simple words or an impression from someone can change lives.

For the first three years of college I had been planning to become a school teacher. One day I was walking down a hallway where the professors had their offices, and saw an ad for a course outside of one professor's door. I took the course, and the professor ended up mentioning my name to a graduate program director who had contacted me and convinced me to go to grad school. (Going to grad school had never occurred to me before I got a phone call from that graduate director.) My life has completely changed as a result of me being in that hallway that day and accidentally noticing the poster.

 

[JohnAdams]

Yes, we will likely not learn what the universe is expanding into. I was talking about the impact of the apple itself being warped. I think that a physicist ought to know the answer to that question...

"Into" denotes a 3d space. If 3d space is exaplanding into something then that something needs to be able to be measured with x y z cartesian coordinates as well as a time element because if its expanding into "it" then there is a time when it is not there and a time when it will be there.

 

[Mymlan]

I developed tinnitus because I walked into a tunnel, that I didn't even wanted to pass in the first place. I stupidly went after my friend, instead of listen to my gut feeling.

 

[JohnAdams]

I don't know much about that particular experiment. But I know that the experiment below Was legitimate:
https://www.space.com/einstein-relativity-1919-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago.html

For more about space-time warping, see the wonderful clip below

wouldn't the apple also be warped with space time?
I guess the answer is that space time and matter is subject to the warp but not the inertial vector. Right?
The answer has to be yes. For space time warping due to mass being the reason gravity seems to exist, the vector of inertia has to exist independent of that warping.
Long story short, space time warping due to mass has no effect on inertial vectors, if this is true.

 

[Bill Bauer]

"Into" denotes a 3d space. If 3d space is exaplanding into something then that something needs to be able to be measured with x y z cartesian coordinates as well as a time element because if its expanding into "it" then there is a time when it is not there and a time when it will be there.

One explanation that I've seen is the the universe is infinite and is stretching (the distances between points growing larger),

wouldn't the apple also be curved by space time?

That's the one that I will be looking into (and not the unknowable "what are we expanding into).

 

[Daniel Lion]

You guys are awesome...

Bill and John.........love the discourse and the respect.

Carry on, I am gonna read Dr. Seuss now with my little monsters.

 

[JohnAdams]

One explanation that I've seen is the the universe is infinite and is stretching (the distances between points growing larger),

Isnt that the classical model of the big bang being an explosion?

 

[GlennS]

I find it rather funny that John's posting style here is characterized by dropping one-liners into threads telling us we're wrong because he's just smarter than we are and here he is fighting tooth and nail against creationism. What's next, flat earth?

It's been known that amino acids can be created by natural processes and recreated in a controlled lab experiment. I first found out about this as a kid watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos decades ago. They've also been detected in comets. So the fundamental building blocks of DNA are just basic chemistry. The missing link is the creation of the first cell.

I watched a documentary recently on cable that does a pretty good job of explaining two ways in which DNA and cells could have evolved based on the makeup of the early earth. This includes pore or pockets in volcanic rock in tide pools and beside hydrothermal vents deep underwater. It's no surprise that life is so dependent on water, for instance. Water was the original "metabolism".

I know none of this stuff will convince John because he seems like quite a stubborn guy who latches onto a something and doesn't let go. If this thread is going to be nothing but trying to convince John he's wrong it will never end so I'm not going to keep trying to talk sense into him.

 

[JohnAdams]

I find it rather funny that John's posting style here is characterized by dropping one-liners into threads telling us we're wrong because he's just smarter than we are and here he is fighting tooth and nail against creationism. What's next, flat earth?

It's been known that amino acids can be created by natural processes and recreated in a controlled lab experiment. I first found out about this as a kid watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos decades ago. They've also been detected in comets. So the fundamental building blocks of DNA are just basic chemistry. The missing link is the creation of the first cell.

I watched a documentary recently on cable that does a pretty good job of explaining two ways in which DNA and cells could have evolved based on the makeup of the early earth. This includes pore or pockets in volcanic rock in tide pools and beside hydrothermal vents deep underwater. It's no surprise that life is so dependent on water, for instance. Water was the original "metabolism".

I know none of this stuff will convince John because he seems like quite a stubborn guy who latches onto a something and doesn't let go. If this thread is going to be nothing but trying to convince John he's wrong it will never end so I'm not going to keep trying to talk sense into him.

GlennS said, "and here he is fighting tooth and nail against creationism."
It seems more like a civilized discussion to me. Also, my position is creationism. I am not against it.
"I'm not going to keep trying to talk sense into him"
Thanks.

 

[GlennS]

Isnt that the classical model of the big bang being an explosion?

There's a show on cable called "How the Universe Works". I think the origin of life thing I talked about before may have been on it, but the big bang episode definitely was part of it. If you have any interest in cosmology you should watch it as there are probably hundreds of hours of content by now (it's been on TV for some time now and they do marathons). It covers the mental model of the big bang as far as hot it wasn't exactly an explosion per se.

 

[GlennS]

fighting tooth and nail against creationism.

There is no fight to be had. The case is closed. The fact so many people have a false model of the world and how it works is a tragedy (and our undoing as far as things like global warming) but not reflective of the weight of science in explaining these things.