Ye Religion Thread

[astral]

Now where I was going with my discussion:

The wave particle duality of matter, in essence, matter is aware of being observed.  Thereby changing characteristics accordingly.

Back in the 1800's  Thomas Young discovered the dual wave-particle nature of light.  I was suggesting that the observable universe might have such abilities as well. 

Your original question was how could we observe light 93 million trillion light years away, and estimate the age of the universe so that light wouldn't have the time to travel that far.  Whether light is a particle or wave doesn't change that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, and we determine the traveled distance from its frequency.  Given the vastness of space, and fundamental forces, I would guess it's a particle that behaves as a wave of energy.  But hey that's just a guess : ).  Checking the age versus distance is not straightforward because the space-time itself is expanding.

An observation itself changing state at a quantom level is not related to observing the photons, their frequency and origin.  Quantom level is really small, like parts of an atom, not detection method for distance.

How can it not be related to "observation", if that is how we perceive the events in discussion? 

And as I stated originally I was for the possibility that the universe could expand at a rate greater than that of light, hence the paradox of 13.5 billion year life, compared to 93 billion light year stage.

[reaper]

How can it not be related to "observation", if that is how we perceive the events in discussion? 

And as I stated originally I was for the possibility that the universe could expand at a rate greater than that of light, hence the paradox of 13.5 billion year life, compared to 93 billion light year stage.

Because the observation changing state is at a quantom level, basically the opposite of something traveling from 93billion light years away, and calculating its distance on frequency.  One is a macro level and one is micro and they aren't related.

[QwazyWabbit]

Because the observation changing state is at a quantom level, basically the opposite of something traveling from 93billion light years away, and calculating its distance on frequency.

Observation of photons on one hand and observation of matter on another are not correlated with respect to the uncertainty principle. The observation of matter requires the observation of photons impinging on and emitting from it, observation of photons doesn't require interaction with matter except the matter of the observer and his equipment.
 

One is a macro level and one is micro and they aren't related.

O S A R! Quantum mechanics holds true for all matter and all energy for all time everywhere in the universe. Gravitational red shift, recessional red shift and photon emission and absorption are all quantum mechanical effects of space-time and are intimately related.

[reaper]

But they didn't have quantom mechanics when you could make those predictions about distances.  I don't see how observing the light and quantom mechanics matter.  From the way I see it, it's like the doppler effect, and you just take a measurement, so doesn't matter what effect you have on the particles, you can detect the frequency regardless.

[quadz]

I was trying to have a legitimate discussion but thanks

OK.   

The wave particle duality of matter, in essence, matter is aware of being observed.  Thereby changing characteristics accordingly.

Back in the 1800's  Thomas Young discovered the dual wave-particle nature of light.  I was suggesting that the observable universe might have such abilities as well. 

Granted, quantum behavior is really weird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser

Incidentally, you may be interested in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, in which Feynman explains it's possible to account for all the quantum behavior of light while treating it only as a particle, not as a wave.

In any case:

who says the universe ever had to expand, maybe it has been and always will be this size for this particular universe, fact is no one has a real clue about the origins or life of the cosmos

My point about relativity and expansion, was that who says the fundamentals of the "observable" universe are bound to humans ideals and beliefs.  Fact is that what we see might be a reflection of the "reality" we humans create continually while being alive, nothing more and nothing less.  We might be "fooling" ourselves into thinking this is what the universe is(!), while in reality the universe isn't that way at all.

How is this different from saying: Who says an airfoil ever has to produce lift? Fact is, the lift produced might be a reflection of the "reality" we humans create continually while being alive.

[Sgt. Dick]

I think all the DEEP discussion makes people lean more towards the Bible, I know after reading all of this I said - JESUS CHRIST 

[|iR|Focalor]

Speaking of moon rocks, I was watching something on the science channel the other day which stated that a majority of scientists believe that the moon was formed by floating debris all coalescing by means of gravity. I can't understand how they allow themselves to believe this. The moon is perfectly round and covered with craters, obvious evidence of meteor impacts. I have limited knowledge of things scientific, but I do know that rocks are not known to compact together and form solid spherical shapes like a liquid. The presence of these craters indicates that there was probably a meteor shower at one time. It seems to me a reasonable explanation that these meteors also struck the earth, possibly impacting so deep and with so much force that it would've released massive amounts of magma from the center of the earth which also would've released deadly poisonous fumes killing all oxygen breathing organisms, the likely explanation as to what happened to the dinosaurs. One thing I can't wrap my head around is that they believe based on soil samples taken from the moon that volcanic activity once took place on the moon. They have seen no evidence of life ever being on the moon, and obviously there is no atmosphere or oxygen on the moon. I was under the impression that volcanoes spewed molten burning rock, but how can anything burn without a presence of oxygen? The sun itself burns so hot that no oxygen could exist around it. So like I've been saying all along, scientists obviously aren't as knowledgeable as they think. Obviously there are separate elements existing outside of this planet which do not obey the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc as we currently understand them. Perhaps these "bent rules of physics" at one time came into play on our own planet. This is why I believe that scientists are headed in the right direction, but are probably way off on more than a couple of their theories.

[quadz]

Speaking of moon rocks, I was watching something on the science channel the other day which stated that a majority of scientists believe that the moon was formed by floating debris all coalescing by means of gravity. I can't understand how they allow themselves to believe this. The moon is perfectly round and covered with craters, obvious evidence of meteor impacts. I have limited knowledge of things scientific, but I do know that rocks are not known to compact together and form solid spherical shapes like a liquid.

Lecture 1 addresses this question:

The Universe 1 - Neil deGrasse Tyson - On Being Round

I was under the impression that volcanoes spewed molten burning rock, but how can anything burn without a presence of oxygen? The sun itself burns so hot that no oxygen could exist around it.

Oxygen atoms have no trouble existing inside a star.  Indeed, after a star has fused most of its hydrogen into helium, it then begins fusing helium into oxygen and carbon.

(Here's a nicely done interactive animation of the process: http://library.thinkquest.org/25763/supernova.htm )

As for magma - if it's already molten, it doesn't need to 'burn'... it's just hot, and will eventually cool.

(Some related info about why the earth's core is still hot: http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html )

So like I've been saying all along, scientists obviously aren't as knowledgeable as they think.

   By analogy, this would seem kind of like me--who doesn't follow sports, but has walked past the occasional TV with a football game on it--making a series of well-meaning but patently incorrect statements about the game followed by my concluding the pro players obviously don't know what they're doing.

(Or possibly your post was intended to be satirical, and I've taken it literally?)

[astral]

I was trying to have a legitimate discussion but thanks

OK.   

The wave particle duality of matter, in essence, matter is aware of being observed.  Thereby changing characteristics accordingly.

Back in the 1800's  Thomas Young discovered the dual wave-particle nature of light.  I was suggesting that the observable universe might have such abilities as well. 

Granted, quantum behavior is really weird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser

Incidentally, you may be interested in Richard Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, in which Feynman explains it's possible to account for all the quantum behavior of light while treating it only as a particle, not as a wave.

In any case:

who says the universe ever had to expand, maybe it has been and always will be this size for this particular universe, fact is no one has a real clue about the origins or life of the cosmos

My point about relativity and expansion, was that who says the fundamentals of the "observable" universe are bound to humans ideals and beliefs.  Fact is that what we see might be a reflection of the "reality" we humans create continually while being alive, nothing more and nothing less.  We might be "fooling" ourselves into thinking this is what the universe is(!), while in reality the universe isn't that way at all.

How is this different from saying: Who says an airfoil ever has to produce lift? Fact is, the lift produced might be a reflection of the "reality" we humans create continually while being alive.

Thanks for the links I'll look over them in a bit.

I appreciate the example of the airfoil, I see what you are trying to propose. 

As for the quantum nature of things, bizarre is the word I tend to use to describe the mechanism.  Let me read up and I'll get back....

[|iR|Focalor]

No, it wasn't satirical. Apparently I'm fucking idiot and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why a bunch of rocks floating around the earth would clump together in a separate sphere of lesser mass and gravity rather than clumping onto the earth which has more mass and gravity.

No wonder we're discussing this in the "religion" thread. My "opinion" is that they might not be 100% correct in their calculations. My "opinion" is that maybe just because A=A on earth doesn't necessarily mean that A=A everywhere else (or that A has always equated to A on earth). Our periodic table is more than likely just a minuscule fraction of the total elements in existence throughout the universe. There could be other forces at work which we don't currently have the ability to understand or detect. I do not have any more faith in the limited postulations of scientists than I do in the prophecies and histories proposed by religious fanatics.

[reaper]

No, it wasn't satirical. Apparently I'm fucking idiot and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why a bunch of rocks floating around the earth would clump together in a separate sphere of lesser mass and gravity rather than clumping onto the earth which has more mass and gravity.

The explanation is that they orbit the earth.  There is a gravitational pull of the rocks toward the earth, but the rocks had enough velocity that they didn't crash toward the earth or break free of the orbit (which is why we can see them).  There is no resistance, so they stay in motion like in newton's laws.

Here's a nice little example.

Wikipedia:
"
If the cannon fires its ball with a low initial velocity, the trajectory of the ball curves downward and hits the ground (A). As the firing velocity is increased, the cannonball hits the ground farther (B) away from the cannon, because while the ball is still falling towards the ground, the ground is increasingly curving away from it (see first point, above). All these motions are actually "orbits" in a technical sense — they are describing a portion of an elliptical path around the center of gravity — but the orbits are interrupted by striking the Earth.

If the cannonball is fired with sufficient velocity, the ground curves away from the ball at least as much as the ball falls — so the ball never strikes the ground. It is now in what could be called a non-interrupted, or circumnavigating, orbit. For any specific combination of height above the center of gravity and mass of the planet, there is one specific firing velocity (unaffected by the mass of the ball, which is assumed to be very small relative to the Earth's mass) that produces a circular orbit, as shown in (C).


"

[quadz]

No, it wasn't satirical. Apparently I'm fucking idiot and there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why a bunch of rocks floating around the earth would clump together in a separate sphere of lesser mass and gravity rather than clumping onto the earth which has more mass and gravity.

You're clearly thinking and formulating creative hypotheses.

It just happens a lot of work has been done in these areas.  So it shouldn't be surprising when the questions you're raising have already been subject to deep analysis.

No wonder we're discussing this in the "religion" thread. My "opinion" is that they might not be 100% correct in their calculations.

Nobody doing real work in cosmology could ever reasonably make the mistake of thinking any of their theories were 100% correct.

Successful theories represent (a) the best fit for the evidence so far; and (b) the best ability to predict future observations.

Column "b" is of key importance, and is also a crucial differentiator between science and religion.

My "opinion" is that maybe just because A=A on earth doesn't necessarily mean that A=A everywhere else (or that A has always equated to A on earth).

Right.  But it turns out that's a testable hypothesis.

When we look through large telescopes we're seeing the universe as it was billions of years ago.

And so we're actually able to test theories by using the theory to predict what we should expect to see before we look.

A celebrated example being the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite, as well as more recently the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

Spend a moment to consider the implications of this:

Before we even built the satellite, the Big Bang theory was used to make numerous predictions.  Like: If the Big Bang really happened 14 billion years ago, then if we were able to measure the cosmic background radiation today, the theory implies the remnants of the Big Bang after 14 billion years, should look like this:

^{Data from COBE showed a perfect fit between the black body curve predicted by big bang theory and that observed in the microwave background.}

We launch the satellite, and its observational measurements agree precisely with what was already predicted by the theory.

And while this is one spectacular example, the predictive ability of a good theory is the hallmark of science.  If a theory's predictions fail, the theory must be modified or discarded!

Our periodic table is more than likely just a minuscule fraction of the total elements in existence throughout the universe.

The trouble with this statement is that it appears to be unconnected to the reasons why heavier elements are unstable.

It's kind of like when someone says, I don't believe -459º Fahrenheit is the coldest temperature. Somewhere in the universe it is probably -1000 degrees!

(Hint: temperature is a measurement of how much atoms are jiggling.  Absolute zero is the point where all jiggling has ceased.) 

There could be other forces at work which we don't currently have the ability to understand or detect.

Absolutely!

Indeed, theoretical physicists spend their careers working at the boundaries of human knowledge.  They are grappling with our vast ignorance about the universe on a daily basis.

A related quote from Neil de Grasse Tyson about some massive cosmological unknowns:

Consider all we’ve learned about the size, age, and contents of the universe—from its fiery birth in the big bang through fourteen billion years of expansion that has followed. Even better, consider the powerful laws of physics we’ve discovered that account for it all.

Kind of makes you stand with pride for being human. But before you stand too tall, consider that, at the moment, we can account for only fifteen percent of all the gravity we’ve ever measured in the universe. We’re simply clueless about what’s causing the rest. Not only that, if you add up all the matter and energy in the universe, it comes to just four percent of all that drives cosmic expansion. So we’re clueless about that one, too, with no idea about what occupies the remaining ninety-six percent of the universe.

We call these invisible entities “dark matter” and “dark energy.”

What are they? Maybe they’re exotic, never-before-seen forms of matter and energy. Or maybe they reveal a hidden flaw in our understanding of how the universe works. But really, the two terms are placeholders for our abject ignorance. We could just as easily have labeled them “Bert” and “Ernie” or “Without-a-Clue A” and “Without-a-Clue B.”

So we are left in a curious situation. What we know of the universe, we know well. Yet a larger cosmic truth lies undiscovered before us—a humbling, yet thrilling, prospect for the scientist—driven not only by the search for answers but by the love of questions themselves.

I should like to proclaim: That, sir, is the honesty of proper science!

I do not have any more faith in the limited postulations of scientists than I do in the prophecies and histories proposed by religious fanatics.

That's fine.  One side is asking you to have faith; the other side is saying: here are the observations, here's the idea to explain the phenomena, here are the predictions for what we should find in nature if the idea is correct, let's go measure how accurate this idea is!

This diagram actually leaves out important steps on the Science side--like the importance of the predictive power of a good theory; but the difference between the two systems should be apparent anyway:

Gnome sane?

[reaper]

chaulk me up on the relgiion side!

[quadz]

chaulk me up on the relgiion side!

By a coincidence borne of what I can only presume to have been Divine Providence, the following appeared in my email inbox a few minutes ago:

"Consider the ignorance of the average fundamentalist. Then realize that
by definition fully half of them must be even dumber than that."


AMEN   

[reaper]

Let us turn to the wise teachings from the Quran:

“…Lo! Those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from him. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought!” [Quran 22:73]

Maybe the wise prophecies don't follow the scientific method, but look how many hundreds of years ago, through all the teachings, the teachings are ever so true, and can save us from precarious situations.   The wise words from the humans through their connection to god has created a practical guide through life's various conditions, something science will never do.