#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
Yes, Chris, I do have to agree with you on Occam's razor...it does tend
to fall apart with Quantum mechanics, and the very large macro scales. Well, as unusual (and I suppose irrational) as it sounds, I can 'maintain' my Cosmology sanity by those methods and 'averted imagination' that I have already described.......BTW, if anyone has a newer, better idea of the conditions/regions/events- prior to BB, I am open for any new, better ideas....feel free to describe them!! (They might even sound better than mine)! Feel free to use 'strings', quantum whatevers, Chaos theory, etc. as my mind is fully open to this subject. I'd really rather hear of someone elses rational proposal, then have mine 'torn apart'. :-) Clear Skies, Tom W. Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:26:04 -0400, bwhiting wrote: The 'outside' that I am mentally visualing.... You may as well mentally visualize purple-toed unicorns (a favorite of Brian Tung g) because they have the same possibility of existence. It does seem very likely that if there is an "outside" to the Universe, it has a very different meaning than say, "outside" your house. In fact, current science states that we can never know about these distant regions anyway. It does not state that at all. It states that there are regions of the Universe beyond our ability to see, or ever receive information from. But there is nothing that precludes our developing a deep understanding of the nature and formation of the Universe, and therefore knowing with near complete certainty what parts we can't see are like. And I think Occam's razor is valid for anything, anytime, although it is generally reserved for real scientific questions. Occam's razor falls apart if you don't have the knowledge to determine what constitutes simple, possible solutions. At the small end of things, quantum mechanics is a good example. Someone who doesn't understand the basis of the peculiar, non-intuitive behavior of things at that scale will fail completely if he tries to use Occam's razor. It seems that the same problem exists for the Universe at a large scale. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
Well Brian, I think the "First Cause" is kind of a...given, isn't it?
(Except to a possible atheist, but not us normal folk). I, and many others of the Faith...perhaps not all, but most, it is also a 'given' as to what you say about the Supreme Being, Creator, God, Ultimate Truth, whichever term you like....to me, those First Cause things are kind of already "Carved in Granite", are they not? In fact, they are not even (for most) questionable or debatable...one either accepts or rejects the "First Cause", and generally, no amount of debate will change any minds anyway..... End of discussion of "First Cause". The debateable, and therefore interesting aspects, are the Second Cause...the How? and by what Process? cause. I don't say this meaning to 'skip over' the First Cause....I just already figure it as a 'given, carved in granite'; and therefore, now let's move on to the actual process involved...and there is where science comes into play; the How, and by what process. This is more interesting to me, because it may, or may not, be carved in granite- there is some 'maneuvering room' and learning room here. [Religion, philosophy, answers the Who and Why? Science answers the questions How, and by what process?] The two should never stray from their own questions, or try to answer the other guys' questions, as BIG trouble ensues when you try to cross over those lines.......just ask Galileo and Pope Urban! Clear Skies, Tom W. Brian Sturges wrote: Tom, my statement was only directed toward the question of First Cause, and was not intended to invaladate the entire practice of science! I'm well aware that we use scientific principles in an effort to learn how things work. However, God has always existed and nothing could come into being without Him. These qeustions can never "eventually" be answered as long as we continue to skip over some essential foundations of reality. Also, describing how some physical processes work can never be as important as learning the truth about the Creator, which is why it is so important to see the value in understanding the significance in our gaps of understanding about the universe. Brian bwhiting wrote in message ... Brian, I've already tried that, but unfortunately the Holy Bible is not of much help, as it only answers the questions Who? and Why?.....not How? and By what process? (Which are in the realm of science to answer). Just reading that...."God created the heavens and earth" does not give any insight to.....the process involved...it only gives you the Who? (and a little insight as to the Why?) Which the Bible is supposed to do. Science wants the answers, and is only capable of answering, the How, and By what process? questions. (Which are just as important to us as the who and why questions.) All the Bible does is confirm the Big Bang...."Let there be light" and of course, with the BB, we already KNOW that all there was, was light and energy for the first 200,000 years or so, ABB. But again, no mention of How? and By what process?.....the scientific questions. Perhaps that's why we have a brain....He give us the means to figure it all out....those other questions...for ourselves. Just as we have done as to the process, of Man's entry into the world, some 3-5 million years ago in Africa, we think...or at the very least, Africa is the leading candidate. So while we understand (and assume) that the Creator is capable of 'anything', we would like to know the How and by what process He/was used. That's all...not asking for much, here. :-) But unfortunately, the Bible falls short of definitively answering these particular questions. (Some people might 'read into the Bible' answers to these questions, but if you are truly honest with yourself....those answers (for the How and by what process?) are not actually addressed in the Holy Bible.) We have to look for science to eventually answer these questions. Clear Skies, Tom Whiting |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who
'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB, to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation; or maybe a better word is...scenerio. I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out. (Chris, were are you?) ;-) Clear skies, Tom W. Al Hall wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:51:11 -0400, bwhiting wrote: The Perfect Void vaccuum is 'sucking' out the known visible Universe at a faster and faster rate as we are surrounded by it....its also the "what" that we (our Universe) are expanding into. Thus, there is no need to invoke a 'dark energy'...anti-gravity stuff, scenerio. Remember Occam's Razor? FWIW, Clear Skies, Tom W. Hi Tom, Whether a vacuum sucks or not, I think one bit of your hypothesis deserves restating because it's elegantly simple: If matter was created at the point of the Big Bang in an infinite space containing nothing why wouldn't it's expansion to fill that infinite void account for the continuing expansion of the known universe without the need to postulate "dark energy"? Al Hall |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:06:50 -0400, bwhiting wrote:
Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who 'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB, to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation; or maybe a better word is...scenerio. I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out. (Chris, were are you?) ;-) Who, me? Well, most of the well accepted variants of the Big Bang are pretty similar at their core, and from my perspective, are neither implausible nor unpleasing. I don't have any problem grasping the idea that a universe can expand without having an "outside" to expand into. I also don't have any problem grasping the idea that time is a construct of the Universe in the same way space is, and that there doesn't have to be a "before." Frankly, I don't think I could come up with something more pleasing or generally elegant than the existing theories. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
Chris, I'm not talking about the time OF the BB, or the time
AFTER BB, I'm talking about the.......existing scenerio (as I hate to use the words 'time before' because as we all know, our current time began at the BB)..... Before the BB. [The scenerio in existence, or 'scenerio in effect' as it were, before the BB.] All hypothetical, and imaginary, of course. Tom W. Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:06:50 -0400, bwhiting wrote: Yes Al, thank you....I agree; and I am still waiting for those who 'berated' my mental (and perhaps somewhat imaginary) picture of the....whatevers (scenerio?)....before BB, to come up with a more pleasing and plausible..... explanation; or maybe a better word is...scenerio. I guess they are 'afraid' to stick their necks out. (Chris, were are you?) ;-) Who, me? Well, most of the well accepted variants of the Big Bang are pretty similar at their core, and from my perspective, are neither implausible nor unpleasing. I don't have any problem grasping the idea that a universe can expand without having an "outside" to expand into. I also don't have any problem grasping the idea that time is a construct of the Universe in the same way space is, and that there doesn't have to be a "before." Frankly, I don't think I could come up with something more pleasing or generally elegant than the existing theories. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:19:39 GMT, Chris L Peterson
wrote: On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:48:53 -0700, Al Hall wrote: If matter was created at the point of the Big Bang in an infinite space containing nothing... Which is not what the Big Bang theories suppose. why wouldn't it's expansion to fill that infinite void account for the continuing expansion of the known universe without the need to postulate "dark energy"? The rate of expansion is increasing. Dark energy is the mechanism used to explain the increasing rate, not the expansion itself. Hi Chris, And thanks for bearing with us. Here's another question: I'm in a spaceship and decide to blow up a balloon and release it into space. The balloon expands in the vacuum of space and bursts. Do the gas molecules that were in the balloon accelerate or decelerate over time? Al |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmology insanity
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:18:22 -0700, Al Hall wrote:
I'm in a spaceship and decide to blow up a balloon and release it into space. The balloon expands in the vacuum of space and bursts. Do the gas molecules that were in the balloon accelerate or decelerate over time? As I understand things, gravity overcomes expansion in regions where the mass density is high enough- galaxies and galaxy clusters. So in the scenario you suggest, I would expect the gas molecules to decelerate due to their mutual gravitational attraction, and due to the fact that you performed this experiment in a region not undergoing local expansion. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |
Planck's Cosmology | Innes Johnson | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 30th 03 04:08 PM |
Steinhardt-Turok cosmology | Trakar | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 9th 03 08:47 PM |