The Universe, who is fascinated by that?

Forums › Off topic › The Universe, who is fascinated by that?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 19

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#1620502 1-Sep-2016 00:53

nakedmolerat:

@Brendan:

Contrary to what some have been told, you can INDEED get something from nothing. It's even been experimentally proven.

:-)

Can you please provide the said 'scientific evidence'.

Yes, I could. But I discovered something: when you type into Google "quantum vacuum", you get all the answers anyone could desire. I suggest you do that YOURSELF. You'll want that Vacuum Energy entry on Wikipedia specifically.

:-)

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1620503 1-Sep-2016 00:58

There is much that we don't know. I'm sure science is wrong about a lot of it. But it is definitely right about some of it, and more is being discovered all the time. Science poses questions and tries to answer them. Religion just says have faith. I don't find that very satisfying so I prefer to place my belief in science. I don't have any special knowledge and I don't know where the truth lies, but as a matter of faith, science makes more sense to me than religion does.

As science struggles with the big questions having to do with the nature of reality, it sometimes seems to come close to some kind of concept of God. I don't have any problem with that. I just don't think religion does a better job of it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1620508 1-Sep-2016 05:37

Rikkitic:

There is much that we don't know. I'm sure science is wrong about a lot of it. But it is definitely right about some of it, and more is being discovered all the time. Science poses questions and tries to answer them. Religion just says have faith. I don't find that very satisfying so I prefer to place my belief in science. I don't have any special knowledge and I don't know where the truth lies, but as a matter of faith, science makes more sense to me than religion does.

As science struggles with the big questions having to do with the nature of reality, it sometimes seems to come close to some kind of concept of God. I don't have any problem with that. I just don't think religion does a better job of it.

For me religion starts with the rigid premise of the existence of a God and around that premise all things are made to fit. If they cannot fit the God model then they are wrong and excluded.

Science starts at the premise of good grief I have no idea but let's find out. Some science does have preconceptions and that often clouds thinking but generally ideas progress and advances in knowledge are made.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1620538 1-Sep-2016 07:06

@Brendan:

Yes, I could. But I discovered something: when you type into Google "quantum vacuum", you get all the answers anyone could desire. I suggest you do that YOURSELF. You'll want that Vacuum Energy entry on Wikipedia specifically.

:-)

Thanks Brendan - but no. I don't have to Google that, as I am well aware of it. I am just waiting for someone to mention it.

In the beginning - scientists thought of this quantum vacuum as an empty space or simply an empty void. Over time, this idea has changed and science have accepted that the vacuum state contains particles that pop into and out of existence and it also appears to contain 'fleeting' electromagnetic waves. In short - it is not really nothingness. Are you familiar with works from Prof Lawrence Krauss - he denies theism but yet at the same time he himself could not clarify or explain this theory in a logical manner.

I put logic (mathematics), my ability to judge and Occam's Razor before I just blindly accept anything I read and hear.

I highly recommend:

1. Probing the Quantum Vacuum: Perturbative Effective Action Approach in Quantum Electrodynamics and its Application - Walter Dittrich, Holger Gies

2. Observing Mechanical Dissipation in the Quantum Vacuum: An experimental challenge - Astrid Lambrecht

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1620540 1-Sep-2016 07:20

@joker97:
nakedmolerat:

If you can give an observable evidence, with regards to Darwinian Evolution, not adaptation, not speciation, but change of kinds - I am sure you can claim the next Nobel prize :-)

Look i said I'm stubborn, i take no sides, what about the lung fish? Anyway i find it hard to rock up to a chimp and give him a hug and say hey how's great gran? But as i don't have to do it to fishes and crocodiles, the lung fish fascinates me. Chimp not so much.

What about the lung fish? Put it this way - until today, no one has proof change of kinds. I agree with adaptation and speciation - as this is something observable. Change of kinds? No.

As I have said earlier - most people who believe in evolution theory, they themselves do not understand the theory. The current chimps are not our supposed ancestor. The theory states that we "share" a common ancestor. In short - the chimp and us "may" have the same ancestor! So no need to hug them :-) Maybe they should hug us for looking after them. Phew!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1620611 1-Sep-2016 08:23

nakedmolerat:

@Fred99:

Einstein did pretty well then - considering that most of his theories weren't based on observation at all, and at the time he formulated them he knew there was no way to confirm them by observation.

Sorry - I don't really know how many theories he has came out with. His theory of general relativity starts with observing the speed of light in the vacuum and it follows the universal law of cause and effect. Just like Einstein and his mate, Kurt Freidrich Godel - they both believe in grand design.

I presume you're meaning special relativity - not general. Theories "start" with observation. I said "based on". Special relativity perhaps "based on" or postulated because lack of observation of something else postulated because it seemed to fit observations - but not observed because it wasn't there.

Einstein did not believe in a "personal God". Godel did. "Grand design" can have many meanings. There's no evidence whatsoever that if there is a god - that it's influenced anything in the universe since "creation", whatever that means.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1620618 1-Sep-2016 08:33

nakedmolerat:

@Brendan:

Yes, I could. But I discovered something: when you type into Google "quantum vacuum", you get all the answers anyone could desire. I suggest you do that YOURSELF. You'll want that Vacuum Energy entry on Wikipedia specifically.

:-)

Thanks Brendan - but no. I don't have to Google that, as I am well aware of it. I am just waiting for someone to mention it.

I mentioned it, in a round about kind of way, a couple of pages back when I mentioned the zero-energy universe.

Your response / rebuttal included:

"If I take an empty box - leave there for 10 years, will there be a universe inside it?"

I hope you don't expect to be taken seriously after making a comment like that.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#1620659 1-Sep-2016 09:31

joker97:

Fred99:

TwoSeven:

Photons dont travel in a straight line, they have a wavelength, so red light which has a smaller wavelength will get somewhere faster than green light that must travel futher. So we can see things are moving away because of the red-shift that occurs as light travels over a large distance.

Oh no - please do a little study, get that right - and try again.

Oh dear yes how did I miss that - TwoSeven make sure you study from the right sources, not people like Pete Evans for example.

Speed = distance over time which is the same as wavelength divided by period is it not?

A photon may travel between two distant points in a straight line so long as it is not affected by gravity, but they do have a wavelength, so I would ask what is the actual distance a photon of different wavelengths would travel?

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1620720 1-Sep-2016 10:14

nakedmolerat:

And don't get me started on evolution theory. I accept the second part of the theory (ie adaptation), but do we really share a common ancestor with the monkeys? Most believe that evolution theory is all about monkey evolving into the human being - this is an incorrect understanding.

I don't think "Most believe that evolution theory is all about monkey evolving into the human being"
I'm pretty sure most accept we "share a common ancestor with the monkeys?".. 'cause genetics.

It's pretty cool that a code of base pairs - adenine and thymine, guanine and cytosine – can be tweaked to produce me, a worm, a whale.
It's hard to deny evolution when those tweaks can be traced backwards through time.

The chickens roaming in my yard are little dinosaurs. Tweak a gene or two and they'll grow scales instead of feathers, teeth instead of a beak.

My kids signed me up for Nat Geo's Genographic Project as a birthday present.
I like that I can trace my ancestor's migrations across the globe, and that the picture presented there meshes with the genetic testing I've just had done for a certain process in a specific part of my personal DNA.

Is the process guided? A Grand Design, God, Aliens, universal forces that we just don't know about yet?
Yep, sure. There certainly seems to be a set of rules.
And as you said, we're trying to find out what those rules are by observation – as we play the game. To make it more complicated we find that the act of observing changes the outcome.

Joke's on us - There might be a universe inside your box. The only way to find out would be to look. And that would change everything, kill the cat so to speak.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1620804 1-Sep-2016 11:54

MikeB4:

For me religion starts with the rigid premise of the existence of a God and around that premise all things are made to fit. If they cannot fit the God model then they are wrong and excluded.

Science starts at the premise of good grief I have no idea but let's find out. Some science does have preconceptions and that often clouds thinking but generally ideas progress and advances in knowledge are made.

The underlying question is "Can *everything* eventually be explained"? This can't be proved true or false, so we must make some kind of irrational decision on this question. A scientist answers "Yes". A religionist says "No". If there is some tiny part of the universe/multiverse/whatever that can *never* be explained (e.g. the Big Bang singularity), then there's room for a supernatural, ineffable being to exist.

So religion starts where science stops. When a scientist gets to "Here's something I don't understand", he then says "Let's figure it out". A religionist says "It's a miracle... no more figuring out needed".

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3818

#1620819 1-Sep-2016 12:18

A good scientist knows they we never explain everything, and in fact their work will generate more question than answers.

The best that can be hoped for are discreet theories that approximately explain particular things, and hopefully those theories can be joined up in useful ways.

For example tide models are imperfect.

There are many small influences they don't allow for. But they are good enough to use for predicting the times and heights of tides with sufficient accuracy for many practical purposes.

Mike

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Hammerer

2480 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 802

Lifetime subscriber

#1620829 1-Sep-2016 12:30

frankv:

MikeB4:

For me religion starts with the rigid premise of the existence of a God and around that premise all things are made to fit. If they cannot fit the God model then they are wrong and excluded.

Science starts at the premise of good grief I have no idea but let's find out. Some science does have preconceptions and that often clouds thinking but generally ideas progress and advances in knowledge are made.

The underlying question is "Can *everything* eventually be explained"? This can't be proved true or false, so we must make some kind of irrational decision on this question. A scientist answers "Yes". A religionist says "No". If there is some tiny part of the universe/multiverse/whatever that can *never* be explained (e.g. the Big Bang singularity), then there's room for a supernatural, ineffable being to exist.

So religion starts where science stops. When a scientist gets to "Here's something I don't understand", he then says "Let's figure it out". A religionist says "It's a miracle... no more figuring out needed".

You are both creating strawmen.

If you were right then how could there be so many "religionist" scientists and scientific "religionists"?

If a "scientist" becomes a "religionist", it is difficult to believe that they will throw out all they have learnt as now "wrong and excluded". In reality, people don't go to the extremes because they can hold onto conflicting and even irreconcilable differences at the same time.

Also, I don't know anybody who might be called a "religionist" that fits either of these extreme categorisations.

To posit such rigidity and irrationality as marking the boundary between science and religion seems rather a convenient way to for you to buttress your own rigid and irrational views.

As to the question of explaining everything, rationality does not become irrationality just because there is no known answer or method to get an answer. Both your "religionist" and "scientist" can make a rational decision without agreeing and without being right.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19064 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16304

Lifetime subscriber

#1620851 1-Sep-2016 13:12

Religion and science both start from the same point, an attempt to create something out of nothing (that cat again). In The Beginning, there was ignorance. The sun shines, lightning crashes, trees grow, monsters want to eat you. The human brain being what it is, people try to make sense of these things. They start from a state of ignorance, when nothing makes sense. Then someone tells a story about a super-being who created everything at the beginning of time. People can understand that. They make things too. The super-being is just a larger version of them. Now the world makes a little more sense than it did before, and isn’t quite as frightening. Things have a reason.

People are inquisitive and they like to try things out. Eventually someone discovers how to assemble a spear. Someone else realises that fire can be their friend. From these small beginnings other things are built. Like religion, science starts from nothing. First there is ignorance, then come ideas. Both are ways of trying to explain why things are the way they are.

The thing about religion is that it seems to stop after the initial idea. Once the belief is established, it becomes dogma and nothing is allowed to question it. Science keeps going. Questions get answered, new ones arise. Knowledge accumulates.

The thing about science is it is taking us to the stars. Religion seems to still be sitting around the campfire telling the same super-being story. If we ever do find the ultimate answer, which may or may not be 42, it will be science, not religion, that reveals it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1620852 1-Sep-2016 13:23

Sidestep:...

I don't think "Most believe that evolution theory is all about monkey evolving into the human being"
I'm pretty sure most accept we "share a common ancestor with the monkeys?".. 'cause genetics.

It's pretty cool that a code of base pairs - adenine and thymine, guanine and cytosine – can be tweaked to produce me, a worm, a whale.
It's hard to deny evolution when those tweaks can be traced backwards through time....

Right - you are trying to explain what I do for living. Sorry but no :-)

As someone have mentioned earlier - our genetic make up is closer to pig than monkeys.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#1620854 1-Sep-2016 13:27

I'm clearly not as well versed as many of you on many of the things you are discussing. I like to think I have something of an understanding of many of the concepts, but not the intricacies.

One thing I have trouble visualizing is the idea that the universe has no centre, or that everywhere is the centre. You think of the Big Bang as an explosion, and so I want to visualise a "ground zero".

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 19