I
itinerant1
Guest
Got it! I’ll check the library today. If they don’t have a copy I’ll order from Amazon and tell them to make it a rush because a bollide could hit at any time.
- Status
T
Thing
Guest
How are you able to watch thousands of bollides at the same time?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I personally don’t. But NASA, with the assistance of thousands of amateur astronomers, does. Here’s their Near Earth Asteroid Tracking website:
neat.jpl.nasa.gov/
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Bollides earth all the time, but the dust-sized ones burn up in the atmosphere. Occasionally one reaches the surface, and very occasionally one does some damage to humans or their structures. A civilization-threatening bollide is much rarer. Meteor Crater was formed 40,000 years ago (at least 30,000 years before Noah’s flood) by a 50 meter bollide, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Crater.Got it! I’ll check the library today. If they don’t have a copy I’ll order from Amazon and tell them to make it a rush because a bollide could hit at any time.
A more recent big impact was that which caused the Tungusaka explosion on June 30, 1908. The probable cause was an air-bursting bollide thirty meters in diameter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
StAnastasia
I
itinerant1
Guest
For those who like astronomy, you may be interested in this recent amazing discovery:
A Warm Jupiter: A Newfound Exoplanet Bears a Resemblance to the Solar System’s Own Worlds
A Warm Jupiter: A Newfound Exoplanet Bears a Resemblance to the Solar System’s Own Worlds
R
ricmat
Guest
When we actually “get there” for a close look, it may, or may not bear any resemblance to the solar system’s own worlds.
Those who like astronomy remember that not so long ago, Venus was thought to be the twin planet of earth, with only a slightly higher temperature. There was much speculation, perhaps even theories, regarding advanced civilizations on Venus.
But “once we got there” with a real spacecraft, it turned out to be nothing like earth.
There was also similar speculation regarding Mars. Remember the canals?
The headline above, and the media response to it shows pretty much what is wrong with Science today. A scientist can make a profound statement based on very little evidence - and no one has yet actually gotten there to check it out.
Every time we “get there” we are always “surprised” that the theories were wrong. Why don’t we learn from this?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
I can still recall Shoemaker Levy 9.
D
dfinkner
Guest
“How long was this point of mass in existence before it became the Big Bang?”
“Did the physical laws exist then?”
"Which laws developed first? "
Since you’re registered as a CHRISTIAN I’m going to take you to the BIBLE.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
KEY PHRASES: ‘In the beginning’ and ‘God created’.
You look at those phrases, and you don’t have to worry about those questions. The Big Bang is the ‘beginning’, therefore, all those things you’re asking about were created. In the beginning when God created is when all mass and physical laws came into existence. No more worrying about the “whens”.
For some of the other questions, I agree with one commentator who said, “go read some books”.
As with the philosophical stuff, it’s not an issue. The real issue is, there is a being out there and those 5 senses can’t sense it. What are you going to do about it?
Good news. It doesn’t want to kill you. As a matter of fact, it wants to get to know you personally. You know how bad it (he, actually) wants to get to know you? He wants to know you so bad that he spent thousands of years writing a letter to you. God is out there and He’s watching. Get to know Him, and the philosophy will fade away.
If you want to know more, feel free to contact me.
“Did the physical laws exist then?”
"Which laws developed first? "
Since you’re registered as a CHRISTIAN I’m going to take you to the BIBLE.
Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
KEY PHRASES: ‘In the beginning’ and ‘God created’.
You look at those phrases, and you don’t have to worry about those questions. The Big Bang is the ‘beginning’, therefore, all those things you’re asking about were created. In the beginning when God created is when all mass and physical laws came into existence. No more worrying about the “whens”.
For some of the other questions, I agree with one commentator who said, “go read some books”.
As with the philosophical stuff, it’s not an issue. The real issue is, there is a being out there and those 5 senses can’t sense it. What are you going to do about it?
Good news. It doesn’t want to kill you. As a matter of fact, it wants to get to know you personally. You know how bad it (he, actually) wants to get to know you? He wants to know you so bad that he spent thousands of years writing a letter to you. God is out there and He’s watching. Get to know Him, and the philosophy will fade away.
If you want to know more, feel free to contact me.
I
itinerant1
Guest
It is good not to read too much into that title or any initial reports of any discovery. The title basically claims that the similarity that is being drawn is based on COROT 9 b’s relatively moderate temperatures. Nothing more. When you read the temperature range estimates, which are highly provisional, you see that COROT 9 b is not much like Earth at all. But the title is catchy. However, the popular media may significantly hype the discovery just as they do with their tiresome hype about the “missing link”. Uncritical readers fall for it every time.
The French still have much to publish on their findings and then the subject will be open for ‘nays’ and ‘yeahs’ from zillions of scientists, amateur astronomers, and every other yahoo on the internet.
One thing about Earth that I don’t see being given much discussion is the uniqueness of our moon relative to Earth. There are several reasons why Earth’s moon has made it possible for life to develop on Earth. Without the particular effects the moon has on the Earth there would be no scientists to explore exoplanets. For instance, if our moon was just one third smaller than it is there would be no astronomers to look at it.
The unique factors with our Earth-moon system relates to the possibility of finding a planet capable of supporting life. I think such a planet would at least need a planet-moon ratio similar to Earth’s. That factor greatly reduces the chances of finding life-bearing planets.
But then again, maybe we will all get hit by one of those larger bollides before we learn much about COROT 9 b.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I disagree. We cannot equate the Big Bang with Creation itself as mentioned in Genesis. Pope Pius XII, in his enthusiasm for the Big Bang theory originally tended to equate the Big Bang with Creation. However, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, the originator of the theory advised Pope Pius XII that it is a mistake to think of the Big Bang as Creation. The Pope agreed.
To equate the Big Bang with Creation is tantamount to saying science can prove creatio ex nihilo. Creation is beyond the scope and competence of the natural sciences. Science can address the initial singularity but it can say nothing more, that is, science cannot say anything about what was “prior” to the initial singularity because there was nothing, or rather nothing to speak of, and science does not investigate nothingness. In other words science cannot prove that the Big Bang was Creation itself, because Creation is creatio ex nihilo and science does not treat of the ultimate origin of created things.
It’s a fine distinction being drawn, yet it is a critical one, one that is easily misunderstood. The Big Bang is very suggestive of Creation because it shows that matter has not always existed. The Big Bang theory did not appeal to a number of atheistic scientists who want to believe the universe always existed. Consequently, they are now spinning off useless theories about multi-verses or parallel universes, and matter constantly popping into existence out of nothing. And its absurd that these alternative theories can pass for theoretical physics when they are not science at all.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Why are these useless theories? How do you define a “useless theory”?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Learn what? That scientific knowledge is provisional? That’s been accepted by science for the last 500 years, at least.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Glad you asked. Theories about matter popping into and out of existence were not theories motivated by strictly scientific considerations but rather an attempt to conceive a universe which has no need for a Creator. Think of Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”. It’s message is that his universe has no place for a Creator. Whether his latest cosmological model is ultimately intelligible remains to be seen, but the motive is on the table. One PAS member said “A Brief History of Time” was not brief enough.
Hence, the universe itself replaces the Creator by being self-creating from nothing - nothing creates something, or matter just pops into existence. LOL
The logical and ontological absurdity of such a model bespeaks the mindset of scientists sitting behind desks playing God by creating universes to their own imaginations and fantasies.
Einstein spoke of the “dangerous game” with reality being played by the Copenhagen School of Physics. The fallacious interpretation of the quantum mechanics, the principle of indeterminacy, proffered by Heisenberg and Bohr is played out on the cosmic level with physicists imagining entire universes popping into and out of existence. This may sound reasonable to a physicist who denies causality, and as Bohr explained the logical implications of the principle, reality does not exist independent of the observer. Things only collapse into existence when being observed.
Thus these “useless” theories represent a flight from reality, a most “dangerous game.”
How do I define useless? Well, the theories are worse than useless, they are “dangerous”. But I will use Einstein’s explanation of a useless theory in regard to the possibility that other universes exist independently of our own. In 1920 Einstein explained the restriction placed, for example, on two-dimensional surface creatures living on a plane of indefinite extent. He said,
“Suppose that they have organs, instruments, and mental attitude adapted strictly to this two-dimensional existence. Than at most, they would be able to find out all the phenomena and the relationships that objectify themselves in this plane…Independent of this, there might be another cosmic plane with other phenomena and relationships, that is, a second analogous universe. There would be no means of constructing a connexion between these two worlds, or even of suspecting such a connexion…Thus we must reckon with finitude of our universe, and the question of regions beyond it can be discussed no further, for it leads only to imaginary possibilities for which science has not the slightest use.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Almost any theory could be condemned as useless. Plate tectonics was ridiculed for a long while until it came into gradual acceptance. Proposing or entertaining theories – even apparently outlandish ones – is a natural part of science. It is only useless when people adamantly insist on furthering theories that have been soundly or repeatedly falsified.
I
itinerant1
Guest
False comparison. Plate tectonics is based on causal factors in the real world, and attempts to explain the relevant factors. Theories based on the principle of indeterminacy deny causality, which in effect says physics is not about the real world, its just about the theorems.
If a geologist claimed that the lithosphere and asthenosphere just pop into and out of existence, or collapse into existence when being observed, he would be laughed out of the profession. But when physicists make that assertion about matter in general or entire universes we stand spell bound. There is something wrong with this picture.
The really great thing about Einstein is that he stayed connected to the real world. He never lost sight of the reality that his theories tried to explain.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, it’s not a false comparison.l But we can agree to disagree.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Agree to disagree? Oh how I dislike that phrase. You tossed in the towel too soon. How’s that for a cliche? I thought you would at least address Copenhagen denial of causality, which is the root of the problem.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
From what I am able to discern, the Big Bang Theories have three hypothetical beings or entities.
First, the dark energy field
Second, non-baryonic (dark matter)
Third, the inflation field
Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed.
Are some of these statements correct or incorrect?
Thanks
I have not done any physical or theoretical research but have read in these fields.
Also, if these questions are addressed, it would be helpful if one addresses whether they have actually done the physical or theoretical research.
I am hoping for information, not fights, disagreements, or agreements.
It is what I do not know that will give me light.
Again, thanks!
First, the dark energy field
Second, non-baryonic (dark matter)
Third, the inflation field
Also, from what I am able to discern, no evidence of these hypothetical beings have been observed.
Are some of these statements correct or incorrect?
Thanks
I have not done any physical or theoretical research but have read in these fields.
Also, if these questions are addressed, it would be helpful if one addresses whether they have actually done the physical or theoretical research.
I am hoping for information, not fights, disagreements, or agreements.
It is what I do not know that will give me light.
Again, thanks!
T
Thing
Guest
I am the same as you regarding fizicks etc. What I have gathered is that dark matter and dark energy are necessary additions to the equation in order for the universe to behave as we can see it behaving. What this dark stuff is is unkown but it must act in a certain way or else our universe would be behaving differently, as though it were not there.
C
ChadS
Guest
Ever since I first heard about dark matter I have been utterly confused by it. I can understand why it must exist, but the best trys at detecting it, even indirectly or obliquely, have failed. That leaves the best physicists stumped and perplexed and so you can imagine how a guy that had enough trouble with High School geometry must feel. But, then again there are physicists that are working on new models that don’t need dark matter to work. So I guess I’ll just sit back and see how this plays out.I am the same as you regarding fizicks etc. What I have gathered is that dark matter and dark energy are necessary additions to the equation in order for the universe to behave as we can see it behaving. What this dark stuff is is unkown but it must act in a certain way or else our universe would be behaving differently, as though it were not there.
ChadS
- Status