Originally posted by sonhouseYes, but a christian believes this is the only planet with life and use that assumption in arguments. My point was that even if this WAS the only planet with life it really isn't special that we are here because if it was, by some freak cosmological occurence, the only place in the universe capable of evolving life then it was 100% guaranteed that this planet would be inhabited by life first.
The chance that life does NOT exist elsewhere, even in the solar system, is essentially zero. Life will find a way, as the guy said in Jurassic Park. Jeff Goldblum. Life is not particularly special. Somewhat rare maybe but certainly not special, considering life exists miles underground, in clouds above the troposphere, in bubbling near boiling springs, in ...[text shortened]... anet continuously and from radioactives so liquid water is a given for a number of those worlds.
Originally posted by sonhouseWhy does it matter whether galaxies are moving apart due to an explosive effect or not? It seems to me you would have a relativistic effect because of the motion, not because of what caused the motion. And how is space being pumped in or generated between galaxies... where is this extra space coming from if not from the expansion itself?
As far as I know there are no relativistic effects because the galaxies that are separating are not moving relative to each other but space is being 'pumped' into the region in between the galaxies, kind of like if they were on two conveyor belts moving in opposite directions with the galaxies sitting on the belts. They are not moving in a relativistic sens ...[text shortened]... s simply flying apart through some explosive effect. THAT would put them on a relativistic path.
Space is not a substance... space is simply the lack of substance. So even though it appears objects are moving along a curved pathway because of the effect (or fabric) of space/time, this does not mean space itself is curved. It can't be, because there is nothing there to curve or bend. If objects caused the surrounding space to curve it implies the space occupied by those objects has been displaced, but that's not possible. You can displace water in a bottle by dropping marbles in the water, but if you drop marbles into a vacuum nothing happens... the marbles don't push the same volume of nothing somewhere else or compress the space surrounding the marbles, they simply occupy the empty space
Originally posted by lemon limeIf the motion is due to space itself expanding then the light leaving one object will initially be travelling through space as if the object were stationary. Only over time as space stretches does the light get stretched and redshifted.
It seems to me you would have a relativistic effect because of the motion, not because of what caused the motion.
If the motion is of the objects themselves and not space, then the doppler effect applies immediately the light is emitted and the resulting wave travels through space without change.
Of course relativity complicates this whole thing quite a lot.
Originally posted by lemon limeActually in this thread, we refer to space as the dimensional structure ie the distances between objects regardless of how much substance is in the intervening 'space'.
Space is not a substance... space is simply the lack of substance.
So even though it appears objects are moving along a curved pathway because of the effect (or fabric) of space/time, this does not mean space itself is curved.
Wherever we said 'space' you can put 'fabric of space/time'.
Note: the term 'space/time' refers to three spacial dimensions and one of time and not 'space' as in 'the absence of things'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI like to add to that:
Actually in this thread, we refer to space as the dimensional structure ie the distances between objects regardless of how much substance is in the intervening 'space'.
[b]So even though it appears objects are moving along a curved pathway because of the effect (or fabric) of space/time, this does not mean space itself is curved.
Wherever we said ...[text shortened]... efers to three spacial dimensions and one of time and not 'space' as in 'the absence of things'.[/b]
It is a massive common misconception that the vacuum of space is 'nothing' or 'nothingness' because it is actually 'something' and is no less of a 'something' than matter!
'something' doesn't have to consist of particles nor have to be 'solid' to be 'something'.
I have noted from comments in many science documentaries on TV that it is not only laypeople that make this big error but, shamefully, many scientists including physicists!
I groan in despair very time I hear some scientist make this big error on TV and thus propagate and reinforce this misconception to the whole population. The horizon documentaries about cosmology are one of the main offenders here not only with propagating this misconception but many other related misconceptions with all their crap they speak about “nothing” and “nothingness” and “how can something came from nothing?” -someone should explain to them basic logic and philosophy. Whenever you hear some science documentary talking about “nothing” and “nothingness” and “how can something came from nothing?", you can bet it is all just a load of totally flawed gobbledygook nonsense and is just philosophical trash and must be dismissed as such.
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks sonhouse!!! These boys are brutal.
I think that is not quite true. I understand the expansion to be clocking several times the speed of light as we speak and getting faster because of the accelerated expansion that began 6 billion years ago or thereabouts.
I attended a talk at Bell labs given by Alan Guth and was able to ask him a question after his talk, using the figures he gave out, I ...[text shortened]... dy and to learn from our observations they no longer can see.
How is THAT for a long view🙂
Originally posted by sonhouseMaybe the accelerated expansion began 6 thousand years ago or thereabouts.
I think that is not quite true. I understand the expansion to be clocking several times the speed of light as we speak and getting faster because of the accelerated expansion that began 6 billion years ago or thereabouts.
I attended a talk at Bell labs given by Alan Guth and was able to ask him a question after his talk, using the figures he gave out, I ...[text shortened]... dy and to learn from our observations they no longer can see.
How is THAT for a long view🙂
The Instructor
Originally posted by joe beyserThe 0.8 comes from special relativity. I suggest reading a bit about the mathematical formulation of it (special relativity only requires elementary calculus knowledge, it gets tricky when you go to general relativity).
My original point was that the visible universe is not expanding at the speed of light or even half. I never thought the em waves would not reach the objects. Just not visible. Now how did you arrive at .8 times the speed of light.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
I VERY MUCH SO am a fan of ''' threads which stick to ''' only one , i.e. interesting ''' (hopefully, I READ INTERNET THREADS , THEREFORE I AM.). You stopped reading since I diviated from the subject , good , then I still have a tiny tiny tiny hope that the desicion four million years ago. About since that is (guessing) when the monkey stopped spending lots of time in trees and started walking. That this new thing called walking, was a desicion which other species (like homo sapiens scientists , who like to study , something they call EVOLUTION of species) would normally classify as one which probably was successful. Obviously since that walking later on led to running (of course, very very simple). Walking is not very effective when you want to kill something. Running is. Then you can be more effective in killing other species. Then you can eat them. And if a male see another male who only can walk and not can run , then you can run run run . And kill him!! MM. Killing feels great, don't you think so as well. Much better than SEX. Perhaps even greater than FOOD but on that last part I have a hard time deciding.....
.
.
My point beeing . Running is evolutionary very good.
.
.
OK> pausing.
OK> now, starting again from scratch
.
.
I HAVE taken a cource in quantum physics and therefore know things that others who don't have done the same. I took that course because I HAD TO. It was hard and boring and we had to learn and apply hard and boring math. THATS perhaps someone's cup of tea. Not my idea of 'having a good time'.
.
.
(Just wanted to make that clear. GREAT, LETS MOVE ON).
.
.
I thougt the thread would discuss this. ''' The Big Bang Theory Wrong? ''' Perhaps it would be a good thing to start a thread about it? I mean really. Perhaps a new one. Well see, perhaps I will start a thread with that subject.
.
.
That (not yet existing) thread would be about discussing the possibillity that the 90^%-ish quantum physics that beleve that the Big Bang Theory is right , that those people have some , that could perhaps be , knowledge , about , the RIGHTNESS of their theory.
.
.
🙂 🙂 🙂 , That the 10^%-ish quantum physics that beleve BELEVE you know, the thing people do when they think something is wrong. Correction. BELEVE. Is wrong.
.
.
🙂 🙂 🙂 , That in fact , a singularity , everything compressed in , 🙂 🙂 🙂 , zero-ish space , 🙂 🙂 🙂 , in fact is a little little little strange? - The Big Bang normally say that this is what happend. - Everything compressed into nothing-ish. - Then the 10^%-ish other part of those people , those who makes a living making theories about this , ask the 90^%-ish who say this , what this nothingness is.
.
.
I mean in quantum physics we have gravity and then when you kick the football instead of it falling down it falls the opposite direction ( since obvously ) there suddenly is not 3 dimensions but many more dimensions WHY WE HAD TO learn new and VERY HARD TO EXPLAIN math? - do I have to answer that?
.
((((((((((
.
3 dimensions as in the makro world , not counting time since we now live in a post Einsteinian Physics world. I mean, there was this thing that there came a new math. Were two lines drawn next to each other, if they are paralell, will never meat, not even after infinity-ish meters (in physics you use meters, then every one is happy). .... If you think that is strange>>> Try to stand on a sphere, a round thing, like a ball (perhaps calling that ball Tellus, Earth, the name do not matter). And draw the lines. A non quantum world has 3 dimensions. makro is latin and the english world translating makro is BIG ). quantum is small , very very very very small . so to say. In that small world you have more dimensions. Then footballs fall up when you kick them, not down wich you normally expect , yes there is a joke hidden in this , I did not intend that joke. Will move on.
.
))))))))))).
.
.
That would be my new thread titled : 'The Big Bang Theory Wrong'?
.
.
Personly I tend to agree more with the 10^%-ish Quantum Physics Sciantists (Physicists perhaps, my main language is not english). But then again. I beleve. I am a layman.
.
.
OK. Questions on that ?
Originally posted by humyI wasn't equating space with nothingness. The existence of space is dependent on mass, but in a state of nothingness nothing exists... there is no mass, hence no space. When asked "What is nothingness?" many people assume the answer is space, but this simply isn't true. Nothingness is the absence of anything, including empty space. This may seem counter-intuitive, but if we stick to a strict definition of what space actually is it becomes easier to understand.
I like to add to that:
It is a massive common misconception that the vacuum of space is 'nothing' or 'nothingness' because it is actually 'something' and is no less of a 'something' than matter!
'something' doesn't have to consist of particles nor have to be 'solid' to be 'something'.
I have noted from comments in many science documentaries on TV that it i ...[text shortened]... ally flawed gobbledygook nonsense and is just philosophical trash and must be dismissed as such.
I think the majority of misunderstood ideas and concepts can largely be blamed on poor communication skills. Most ideas and concepts are easily understood by laymen if they are explained properly. The real obstacle to understanding is the believability factor...
Well I'll be a monkeys uncle, it happened again! I googled the words believability factor and found out it's an established terminology! I wasn't expecting to see anything, but there it was. Nearly everytime I think I've come up with a new idea (or terminology) it turns out it's not new at all. 😕
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Originally posted by lemon limeGrizzled!! Are you sure, why do you think so?
...I think the majority of misunderstood ideas and concepts can largely be blamed on poor communication skills. Most ideas and concepts are easily understood by laymen if they are explained properly.
There could be tons of reasons, I mean you simplify for the sake of simplification. (I've heard former president George W Bush's cummunicating skills, was kind of excellent, this is also a simplification of course). What are you suggesting... Ignorance;Lack of eagerness to research an area; Stupidity; The loud mouth syndrome; The will of always speaking what you come of with within 5 seconds instead of 15 minutes or 15 days...... You know. Lot's of reasons. Therefore I want to know if you could please be so kind. To explain this more. Can you? Best regards in advance! // Bikingviking.