Ye Religion Thread

[astral]

If the observable universe is 28 billion parsecs, or 93 billion Light Year in diameter, it would seem logical that the light occupies that "observable" distance. 

Plus as far as I remember "observable" means space-time IE 3 dimensions.

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

"seems logical" is because around you, objects seem to be in a 3 dimensional coordinate system, and they obey basic laws from Euclidian geometry (fastest way between two points is a straight line).  However space is changed by the matter around it, which affects time.  Basically -

Quotes should be around distance.  In my last reply, I noted how space itself is changed by matter/gravity, that is the crux of your dilemma.  The actual distance changes, because space itself expands.

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics.  Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution..... just saying

[reaper]

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics.  Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution..... just saying

The theories of relativity describe how time and space work in the universe, given the universe's fundamental forces.  They also result in an equivalence between mass and energy.
The stars moving away, space expanding and all that is governed by the theories.  There are some problems with their calculations though, like they observe X mass but see the "wrong" movement.  They chaulk this up to anti-matter like adding components to equations.   The theories also don't work when the fundamental forces are different or there is infinite density (like at the "start"); the theories describe this universe.


In any event, evolution is a process involving the lifeform's environment and the instructions coded by proteins.  The molecules are in the same universe which has the same fundamental forces.  The theory operates at a lower level that evolution is subject to.  In other words you don't have different fundamental forces and laws that explain behavior in them, because you are a complicated molecule, everything , everywhere, operates by these fundamental forces and their laws (in theory).

[fdrjk]

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

BIG BANG?   Ok then Mr Bing Bang, if the Universe is some 13-15 billions years old then how is the observable universe 93 billion Light years in diameter?

Yeah I'd like to see that evolution theory answer that one......

Good Luck!

I never knew that the age of something influenced it's diameter.

 

Also, that's only the observable universe. The actual diameter of the universe may be 1000000x more than that for all we know.

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics. 

I didn't know you were an expert on the variables on quantum mechanics. 

Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

I'm supposed to..? I was just posting the link to IOU's question of how we got here. Any other theory for the creation of life is just as plausible as something like the existence of god. Not to mention primates' DNA is about 99.9% similar to our own, while ancient Neanderthals' DNA was about 99.97% similar to ours. Just call me an idealist I guess...


Regards,

 

[quadz]

[Fader posted while I was typing this, covering the first part of my response, but I'll post anyway...]

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics.  Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution..... just saying

Er, I don't want to spoil the joke, but I'm pretty sure Fader posted the Big Bang link as a literal (and somewhat facetious) response to:

how did it all start and how did we get to this point 

if the Universe is some 13-15 billions years old then how is the observable universe 93 billion Light years in diameter?

Pretty nifty summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Understanding_the_expansion_of_Universe

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution.....

Not quite sure where you're going with this?

Presumably the same physical laws governing the early universe (mostly hydrogen and some helium), are the same laws governing the production of heavier elements in the fusion reactors of stars and the cataclysm of supernavae, are the same laws governing the formation of planets like Earth, are the same laws governing the chemical processes of RNA/DNA...?

[reaper]

I never knew that the age of something influenced it's diameter.

I guess astral was saying, if it takes light 93 billion years to get 93 billion light years away from earth, how would the universe not exist for at least 93billion years.

[Whirlingdervish]

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

BIG BANG?  Â Ok then Mr Bing Bang, if the Universe is some 13-15 billions years old then how is the observable universe 93 billion Light years in diameter?

Yeah I'd like to see that evolution theory answer that one......

Good Luck!

I never knew that the age of something influenced it's diameter.

 

well in this case it's close to the mark for what would be assumed when you think about the size of the universe without taking into account relativity and observed expansion.

The assumption that the universe could be at most 30 billion years in diameter would be reached by assuming that in a universe where nothing that has matter can travel faster than the speed of light, and the assumed shape of the universe is a globe expanding from a single point, the amount of time since the big bang could be used to make an approximation of the best case size for the universe (expansion at light speed from the physical location of the big bang)

like so:

15 billion years <-------------- * --------------> 15 billion years

The problem with this assumption is that the speed of light is a rate, which would have to be measured relative to a stationary point to have meaning in terms of measuring the universe.

We can't assume that any stationary point, even the center of the universe, is actually stationary due to the observed phenomenon (by the hubble telescope afaik) that the universe is expanding not just from that center point.

I would say that the best way to put it is that everything is moving away from everything else, instead of everything moving away from a single stationary and measurable point in the universe.

I'm pretty sure this is where the heat death theories of the end of the universe which are based on the laws of thermodynamics, wind up running into problems these days. If the universe is expanding like this at a certain rate it would mean that the maximum limit on entropy in the system increases indefinitely, eventually outpacing the increase in entropy in the system which would result in the universe moving further and further from the assumed heat death fate.

[quadz]

I would say that the best way to put it is that everything is moving away from everything else, instead of everything moving away from a single stationary and measurable point in the universe.

Indeed; Lawrence Krauss used a couple 2D slides to help illustrate the phenomenon of everything moving away from everything else, which I found helpful.

It starts at about 9:10, but this link should skip there directly:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&hd=1&t=550s

[astral]

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

BIG BANG?   Ok then Mr Bing Bang, if the Universe is some 13-15 billions years old then how is the observable universe 93 billion Light years in diameter?

Yeah I'd like to see that evolution theory answer that one......

Good Luck!

I never knew that the age of something influenced it's diameter.

 

The point was that age has obviously nothing to do with it, so our views and bounds of how evolution from the basic stand point of the universe is rather, well a big guess.

Also, that's only the observable universe. The actual diameter of the universe may be 1000000x more than that for all we know.

Or the universe could be infinitesimally small just the same, right?

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics. 

I didn't know you were an expert on the variables on quantum mechanics. 

  PLease noted where I stated or inferred that I was an expert, please.

Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

I'm supposed to..? I was just posting the link to IOU's question of how we got here. Any other theory for the creation of life is just as plausible as something like the existence of god. Not to mention primates' DNA is about 99.9% similar to our own, while ancient Neanderthals' DNA was about 99.97% similar to ours. Just call me an idealist I guess...


Regards,

 

no you don't have to it was called a response, to a reply of my reply......rotf....

[astral]

[Fader posted while I was typing this, covering the first part of my response, but I'll post anyway...]

Reaper I agree, but still the big bang theory isn't going to account for all this variables of quantum mechanics.  Hence the reason I was asking fader to prove how the big bang theory is proof of evolution.

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution..... just saying

Er, I don't want to spoil the joke, but I'm pretty sure Fader posted the Big Bang link as a literal (and somewhat facetious) response to:

how did it all start and how did we get to this point 

if the Universe is some 13-15 billions years old then how is the observable universe 93 billion Light years in diameter?

Pretty nifty summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Understanding_the_expansion_of_Universe

If the "expansion" of the universe isn't bound by laws of relativity then maybe neither is evolution.....

Not quite sure where you're going with this?

Presumably the same physical laws governing the early universe (mostly hydrogen and some helium), are the same laws governing the production of heavier elements in the fusion reactors of stars and the cataclysm of supernavae, are the same laws governing the formation of planets like Earth, are the same laws governing the chemical processes of RNA/DNA...?

quadz I didn't see that, but still the debate remains the same, 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 especially lifeforms that have science in one hand and religion in the other.


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.

My reasoning is that perception can lead one astray and does so every single day.

[fdrjk]

no you don't have to it was called a response, to a reply of my reply......rotf....

So that renders my explanation invalid?



Darn! :<

[reaper]

quadz I didn't see that, but still the debate remains the same, 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 especially lifeforms that have science in one hand and religion in the other.

No one knows for sure, but evidence exists for the big bang.  For example: they predicted cosmic background raditation, radiation that would be uniform, seen into the depth of space, starting from the properties of the basic elements forming with the situation they encountered. 

[quadz]

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.

I recognize the mindset.  Tubby veered in a similar direction months ago when engaged about his misapprehensions concerning the gene-centric mechanisms of inheritance.

In any case: It hardly matters whether the 'true' nature of the universe is different than the one we can observe.  (For instance, we could all be running as a simulation on some alien mainframe.)

In practical terms, we appear to all be participating in the shared experience of living in a universe governed by consistent laws.

As Dr. Krauss observed in the link posted earlier (about time 12:00) - "If we could just convince a lot of people of just that simple thing: that the universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not -- I think we'd overcome a lot of problems in this country; and I have to waste far too much time on that..."

In short: Don't be a Tubby.

[reaper]

If you're going to say you know what's going on for sure, you should first know what the universe is before you try to convince people what to believe,   In my opinion, there is only evidence of how wrong people like Stephen Hawkin are in their conclusions regarding god. 

Religion is like a framework on how to go through life, it was and is fundamental to the civilization.  People take the principles it teaches to do what they holy spirit tells them.  If you think problems are going to go away when people say they are ahteist, you'd be wrong, as well without religion they could probably never ask that question.  Religion actually makes things easier to come to peaceful conditions.

[quadz]

Religion actually makes things easier to come to peaceful conditions.

[citation needed]

[reaper]

Ask Jeffery for the citation.