The Universe, who is fascinated by that?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

4546 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1620855 1-Sep-2016 13:32

@Paul1977:

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".

And Paul you are right there - Occam's Razor come into play!!!

There are 3 possibilities of how the universe can come into existence.

1. From nothing to something - this is against the universal law of cause and effect and 0+0+0+0+0+0=?

2. Self created - by logic, is this possible? A mother gave birth to herself before she gave birth to you. I mean this is the law of nature

3. External course.

Paul1977

2844 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620858 1-Sep-2016 13:35

TwoSeven:

...so when we look towards the middle of the observable bit of the universe, we are looking back billions of years due to the distance and the time the light took to get here.

But I am at the middle of the observable universe. I'm being pedantic, but I assume you mean look towards the edge of the observable universe.

EDIT: My understanding is that, while the universe has no centre, everyone is firmly at the centre of their own observable universe (since they are the observer).

Paul1977

2844 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620866 1-Sep-2016 13:42

nakedmolerat:

@Paul1977:

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".

And Paul you are right there - Occam's Razor come into play!!!

There are 3 possibilities of how the universe can come into existence.

1. From nothing to something - this is against the universal law of cause and effect and 0+0+0+0+0+0=?

2. Self created - by logic, is this possible? A mother gave birth to herself before she gave birth to you. I mean this is the law of nature

3. External course.

I thought the scientific community was pretty much in agreement that (with our current understanding) it was impossible to know what there may or may not have been prior to a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

So if I understand what you mean by "External Course", that seems to be the only viable answer to me. Something caused the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what (yet?).

MikeB4

14459 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1620870 1-Sep-2016 13:52

Hammerer:
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.

I will take your word for that. I was merely musing the differences

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

There is no planet B

Fred99

8945 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620889 1-Sep-2016 14:36

MikeB4:

is E.T phoning us?

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/alien-life-or-noise-russian-telescope-detects-strong-signal-from-sun-like-star/

Apparently not.

MikeB4

14459 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1620899 1-Sep-2016 14:48

Fred99:

MikeB4:

is E.T phoning us?

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/alien-life-or-noise-russian-telescope-detects-strong-signal-from-sun-like-star/

Apparently not.

Maybe ET is phoning home

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

There is no planet B

Batman

Mad Scientist
21239 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1620901 1-Sep-2016 14:49

TwoSeven:

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?

Umm at the speed of light ... the same?

v=f.lambda v=c

You see, the photon is a quantum particle ... which means it confuses the hell out of everybody who tries to understand it

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

TwoSeven

1389 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620908 1-Sep-2016 15:16

Paul1977:
TwoSeven:

...so when we look towards the middle of the observable bit of the universe, we are looking back billions of years due to the distance and the time the light took to get here.

But I am at the middle of the observable universe. I'm being pedantic, but I assume you mean look towards the edge of the observable universe.

EDIT: My understanding is that, while the universe has no centre, everyone is firmly at the centre of their own observable universe (since they are the observer).

The edge of the observable universe, but in the direction of the centre of the entire universe.

Software Engineer

Paul1977

2844 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620912 1-Sep-2016 15:26

TwoSeven:
Paul1977:

TwoSeven:

...so when we look towards the middle of the observable bit of the universe, we are looking back billions of years due to the distance and the time the light took to get here.

But I am at the middle of the observable universe. I'm being pedantic, but I assume you mean look towards the edge of the observable universe.

EDIT: My understanding is that, while the universe has no centre, everyone is firmly at the centre of their own observable universe (since they are the observer).

The edge of the observable universe, but in the direction of the centre of the entire universe.

But does the universe have a centre?

TwoSeven

1389 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620913 1-Sep-2016 15:30

gzt:
TwoSeven: I am not sure how many people are familiar with the current version of einsteins field equation for general relativity, but the way I read it would be that for the big expansion (which some people call a bang) it implies that energy has a pressure which must push things outwards.

Not all forms of energy exist all of the time, and some forms of energy we guess is there by observing potential effects on things we can see. I am not sure I agree with the concep of dark matter, but dark energy is plausible although I am leaning to the idea of there being dark fields.

Also, time is relative to space, so I don't think there could have been a 'before the big bang' in the same way there is likely no after (since it is still happening).

New galaxy discovery: 99.99% dark matter.

Imo we will have an answer soon building on this discovery. 10-20 years..

I saw that article and don't really agree with it. Everything discovered these days is either dark matter or dark energy. Maybe if they build a better telescope they will figure out what it really is.

Software Engineer

Sidestep

716 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 1620928 1-Sep-2016 15:40

nakedmolerat:

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.

Interesting! So are you saying that Human Taxonomy as I was taught it is wrong?

That we - Sapiens Sapiens weren't related to Archaic humans (I was quite proud of my 1.1% neanderthal DNA), aren't of the genus Homo?

Or where do you think our understanding of the genetic tree goes wrong?

Fred99

8945 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620937 1-Sep-2016 15:55

MikeB4:

Fred99:

MikeB4:

is E.T phoning us?

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/alien-life-or-noise-russian-telescope-detects-strong-signal-from-sun-like-star/

Apparently not.

Maybe ET is phoning home

From Russia?

Probably a report on how the "take me to your leader" thing went.

"vegetarian, nice temperament, likes apples - convinces earthlings of bravery by posing for selfies with a dangerous half-naked ape on its back"

MikeAqua

5390 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620941 1-Sep-2016 16:04

nakedmolerat:

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

That make sense. We are omnivores like pigs and our species have co-evolved since we started farming them.

It's even possible humans and pigs have exchanged DNA via viruses.

Mike

Fred99

8945 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620942 1-Sep-2016 16:15

MikeAqua:

nakedmolerat:

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

That make sense. We are omnivores like pigs and our species have co-evolved since we started farming them.

It's even possible humans and pigs have exchanged DNA via viruses.

No - it doesn't make any sense at all. It's absolute rubbish - oops bad choice of words - make that "hogwash".

TwoSeven

1389 posts

Uber Geek

# 1620997 1-Sep-2016 17:51

Sidestep:
nakedmolerat:

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.

Interesting! So are you saying that Human Taxonomy as I was taught it is wrong?

That we - Sapiens Sapiens weren't related to Archaic humans (I was quite proud of my 1.1% neanderthal DNA), aren't of the genus Homo?

Or where do you think our understanding of the genetic tree goes wrong?

I might point out that we are pretty much all related to LUA (last universal ancestor), so yes, we are related to trees as as the old saying goes. It is now looking likely that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred, since they were not all that different from us, a slightly higher body temp and a higher requirement for animal protein I guess.

I think the best description of how evolution works that I have seen so far is in the to series genius narrated by Stephen Hawkins.

Software Engineer

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19