Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 108 of 357 (545087)
01-31-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by MatterWave
01-31-2010 5:43 PM


MatterWave writes:
Why? What does religious belief have to do with any of this????
Why are you dragging the existence of a supernatural entity which is not falsifiable into this?
I can drag anything that i think makes sense.
Actually, here in the science forums the way it works is you can "drag in anything" which is on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation. If you have scientific evidence and argumentation for God creating matter and energy then this is the right thread for you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by MatterWave, posted 01-31-2010 5:43 PM MatterWave has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM Percy has replied
 Message 116 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 111 of 357 (545110)
02-01-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by MatterWave
02-01-2010 2:30 AM


Hi MatterWave,
I actually had a simpler point than you were making of it. If you want to argue that God is the creator of matter and energy in a science forum then that's fine as long as you support your arguments with scientific evidence.
But if you instead want to argue philosophical issues about what it's possible to really know, then since that issue can be raised in literally any thread we normally restrict discussion of such viewpoints to threads in the Is It Science? forum. Discussion of Max Planck's views on this topic in particular belong there.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by MatterWave, posted 02-01-2010 2:30 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 357 (545333)
02-03-2010 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 5:49 AM


Hi Sasuke,
I can't see much relationship between your response and what I said, so I'll just comment on this:
Sasuke writes:
Science opperates mostly on two assumptions. 1. Uniformity of place and time. 2. Mans limited understanding of the universe.
I don't know what you mean by #1, and #2 is just tentativity, but modern science also includes evidence from the natural world gained by observation and experimentation, replicability, and peer review. Bald assertions and revelations have no place in science.
My only point in my last couple posts is that here in the science forums we discuss ideas supported by scientific evidence and argument. There are other non-science forums here at EvC for those who wish to discuss ideas that extend beyond the realm of science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:49 AM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 128 of 357 (545483)
02-03-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Sasuke
02-03-2010 5:11 PM


Hi Sasuke,
If you'd like to discuss the nature of science, please take it to one of the threads in the Is It Science? forum.
This thread is hosting a scientific discussion about where matter and energy came from. Regardless of the validity or any lack thereof of your own personal ideas about the nature of science, they are not the topic of this thread.
My replies were not an attempt to engage either you or MatterWave in a discussion of the nature of science. I originally responded to MatterWave claiming that he could "drag in anything that I think makes sense." That is definitely not true here in the science forums. You can only drag in things that are on-topic and for which you have scientific evidence and argumentation.
This is not a message to which anyone should respond. It's just a continuation of my attempts to coax discussion back to the topic. If this appeal doesn't work I'll cease participation as Percy and intervene as Admin.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Sasuke, posted 02-03-2010 5:11 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 158 of 357 (545748)
02-05-2010 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rahvin
02-04-2010 4:59 PM


Re: Gravity
Rahvin writes:
I'm sorry if i sound like I'm nitpicking. Well, not really - I am nitpicking. But that's because in science topics you have to be extremely accurate in what you say.
When you say, "Matter is not bound energy," that doesn't sound like nitpicking to me. Given that Sasuke's primary question is whether "energy = matter," it seems like the most important point you could make.
When Sasuke was presented the equation for kinetic energy he responded as if it were a revelation that one could quantify such concepts, and I think this means that he's approaching the topic from an intuitive perspective uninformed by even high school physics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 4:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Sasuke, posted 02-05-2010 2:55 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 167 of 357 (545958)
02-06-2010 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Sasuke
02-06-2010 5:48 PM


Quantum mechanics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Sasuke, posted 02-06-2010 5:48 PM Sasuke has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 357 (605291)
02-18-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
02-18-2011 11:23 AM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
John 10:10 writes:
It is hubris to not believe God created the universe so that He could give breath to people who live on the earth.
So it is hubris if someone doesn't share your religious beliefs? Tell me, when the devout Hindu tells you it is hubris to not believe the universe is eternal and has always existed, what do you say? And when the devout Moslem tells you it is hubris to believe that God could have a son, what do you say?
Maybe since this is a science thread we should just focus on the evidence. The evidence we have in hand allows no firm conclusions, but there are probably a few things we could say with a fair degree of confidence. First, if the laws of the universe were different then life as we know it would not exist. Maybe there would be life, maybe not, it would depend on how the laws differed, but it wouldn't be the same as life as we know it.
But if the question is whether there could be life in a universe with different laws, one could speculate based on how much one could work out about the physics of these alternate laws, but the complexity probably rules out anything conclusive.
And if the question is whether life could arise on other planets, the answer is that we don't have evidence for life anywhere but Earth, but we see nothing that rules it out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 02-18-2011 11:23 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 357 (605689)
02-21-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by John 10:10
02-21-2011 3:22 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
John 10:10 writes:
Since you said that 99.999% of the universe would kill us instantly if we tried to live out there somewhere, it seems obvious that a Divine Tailor has made the 0.001% called earth just right (I believe the % is much much higher than that)...
You believe that much, much more than .001% of the universe is suitable for life? Did you know that the volume of our solar system out to the Oort cloud is 2.7 1038 cubic miles? And that the total volume of habitable area in the solar system is within 3 miles of the Earth's surface, which is 6.03 108 cubic miles. That means that this is the percentage of the nearby universe suitable for life:
.000000000000000000000000000001%
Care to try again?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by John 10:10, posted 02-21-2011 3:22 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 262 of 357 (606054)
02-23-2011 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by John 10:10
02-23-2011 2:16 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
John 10:10 writes:
The earth is in the "just right" eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons.
Did you know that in the northern hemisphere winter occurs when the Earth is closest to the sun, and that summer occurs when it is furthest?
Did you know that the seasons are actually due to the Earth's tilt and not the path of its orbit?
Apparently not.
The earth has enough "just right" ingredients necessary for man's existance,...
Did you know that you're apparently perpetually unable to recognize one of the primary arguments people are making, despite constant repetition, that if the Earth were different, if its orbit were larger or smaller, if it's mass were larger or smaller, if the moon were closer or further, that life would be different? That just like the ground shapes the puddle, conditions on the Earth, whatever they were at the outset, would shape the life it engendered.
Apparently not.
...then God gives us wisdom to know the difference between the good ingredients and the bad ones.
Are you aware this thread is in one of the science forums and that you're supposed to be arguing science, not religion?
Apparently not.
The 0.001% was Catholic Scientist's math number, not mine. As I said, my % would have been much much higher.
Are you aware that a "much higher" value would be even more wrong than the 0.001% value?
Apparently not.
Are you aware that the likelihood is minuscule that while wrong in almost every detail you're right on the larger picture?
Apparently not.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by John 10:10, posted 02-23-2011 2:16 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 5:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 278 of 357 (606363)
02-25-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by John 10:10
02-24-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
John 10:10 writes:
Try learning how both orbit & tilt combined produce the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere.
6(h). Earth-Sun Geometry
Not only was your original claim that the Earth's orbit produces the seasons incorrect, not only is your second attempt that "both orbit & tilt combined produce the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere" incorrect, but even the link you cited contradicts you:
Your link writes:
An elliptical orbit causes the Earth's distance from the Sun to vary over a year. Yet, this phenomenon is not responsible for the Earth’s seasons!
...
Note that the angle of the Earth's axis in relation to the ecliptic plane and the North Star on these four dates remains unchanged. Yet, the relative position of the Earth's axis to the Sun does change during this cycle. This circumstance is responsible for the annual changes in the height of the Sun above the horizon. It also causes the seasons, by controlling the intensity and duration of sunlight received by locations on the Earth.
...
Note how the position of the North Pole on the Earth's surface does not change. However, its position relative to the Sun does change and this shift is responsible for the seasons.
You can see that your link states in three different places in three different ways how the Earth's tilt is responsible for the seasons. If you're trying to make sense about why this should be so, consider that (as your link also states) that the amount of sunlight arriving on the Earth varies by only about 6% during the year due to changes in distance, but the length of the day and the angle of the sun vary far more dramatically and hence have a much larger impact, and this is the result of tilt. In the summer the length of the day becomes much longer, 24 hours long as you approach the poles. The sun is not only in the sky for a longer period, but it is higher in the sky and beats more directly downward. And of course the reverse is true in winter, with the days becoming shorter and eventually disappearing altogether as you approach the poles, and the sun sits very low in the sky and only strikes obliquely.
John 10:10 writes:
I corrected my error concering % of the universe that is unfit for life as we know it, but some did not catch this. I meant much much larger in the smaller direction; i.e., the % of the universe that is unfit for life as we know it is much much smaller than 0.001%.
I see. So when you say larger you actually mean smaller. So since you still have this backwards, should we also assume that when you say "unfit" you actually mean "fit"?
Some believe a Divine Tailor was very inefficient in designing a universe with so much matter & energy waste in it as they interpret waste. But when one does not learn the why, one will always be lost in trying to figure out the how, or in demanding that we who know our Divine Tailor provide acceptable proof to those who have no desire to know the truth.
Stop pretending to speak for your Divine Tailor. You have no more idea of his ways than you do of the seasons or math or fitness for life. Congratulations for composing an entire post without making one correct statement. You're obviously an acolyte of Buzsaw in the way you make errors and then have to spend the rest of a thread trying to explain them away. Can you explain to me again how you've decided in your mind that you can be wrong in all the details while being right in your conclusions?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix error noticed by Huntard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by John 10:10, posted 02-24-2011 4:31 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Huntard, posted 02-25-2011 8:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 286 by John 10:10, posted 02-26-2011 6:33 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 288 of 357 (606597)
02-26-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by John 10:10
02-26-2011 6:33 PM


Re: Both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons
John 10:10 writes:
I may not know as much about science as you know, but I do know the Divine Tailor is the author of the details you seem to be so knowledgable about. For Him I do speak.
So the Divine Tailor doesn't know as much science as me, either? Wow! Who woulda' thought!
Look, John, if the Divine Tailor is giving you wrong information about some things, how do you know he's giving you correct information about anything?
The question is rhetorical. This is a science thread. Could you please stick to the science?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by John 10:10, posted 02-26-2011 6:33 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 298 of 357 (607033)
03-01-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by John 10:10
03-01-2011 1:22 PM


Re: We live in a Tailor-made universe
John 10:10 writes:
How do laws of physics as we know them somehow lend themselves to an off-the-peg universe, rather than to a unique Tailor-made universe?
Hopefully the answers you received mentioned that we have insufficient evidence to choose between these two possibilities. The evidence we have does not allow us to exclude either one.
I'm wondering if you haven't misunderstand what people have been trying to tell you. They aren't saying the evidence indicates many universes. They're simply pointing out that it's one of the possibilities consistent with the evidence we have at this time and that it would be wrong to exclude it. Legitimate arguments can be mustered for either alternative, and there's no evidence at this time indicating either one is wrong.
But if we were being parochial when we thought there was only one planet, and then only one solar system, and then only one galaxy, and then only one universe, are we perhaps still being parocahial in thinking that there may be only one multiverse?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 1:22 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 4:08 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 305 of 357 (607072)
03-01-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by John 10:10
03-01-2011 4:08 PM


Re: We live in a Tailor-made universe
John 10:10 writes:
This paticular reviewer/author seems to exclude a Tailor-made universe in favor of an off-the-peg universe based on the laws of physics as we know it. This I reject as I hope you do.
I reject what has been falsified. If "this particular reviewer/author" argued that the laws of physics say conclusively that there's a multiverse, then he's wrong. But I don't think he's saying that. I think he's explaining why he thinks current theory makes that the most likely possibility.
On another issue that I have been greatly critized for, I would ask those who believe "tilt only causes the earth's seasons in the northern hemisphere," show us how this is true if the earth did not also orbit around the sun?
You're not only putting words in people's mouths, you're trying to pretend you made a reasonable argument when you didn't. You did not claim that the Earth's orbit causes its tilt to change orientation with respect to the sun. What you actually said in Message 258 was this:
John 10:10 in Message 258 writes:
The earth is in the "just right" eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons.
And of course people have been responding to the argument you actually made, not the one you're pretending you made.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 4:08 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 9:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 308 of 357 (607113)
03-02-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by John 10:10
03-01-2011 9:55 PM


Re: We live in a Tailor-made universe
John 10:10 writes:
The specific words of this reviewer/author were "the best interpretation of the laws of physics as we understand them is that we live in an off-the-peg universe." Maybe you think they were not excluding a Tailor-made universe, but they certainly were by not offering ANY reasons why the laws of physics should work differently depending on whether our universe is Tailor-made or off-the-peg.
Just for reference, John Gribbin's review of Brian Greene's book The Hidden Reality can be found here: Welcome to the Multiverse
You are correct, Gribbin was not excluding a tailor-made universe, but whether there's such a thing as the multiverse is not a settled issue within science. The laws of physics permit a multiverse - there's nothing in the laws of physics to rule out a multiverse, and in fact a multiverse falls out of the solutions to the equations of string theory. As Sherlock Holmes said (yes, I know, he's fictional, but no one's perfect), "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." The multiverse has certainly not been eliminated as impossible, and so it remains a possibility.
But we don't yet even know whether string theory is correct. The Large Hadron Collider in Europe is conducting experiments that if they fall one way would rule out many forms of string theory, and if they fall another way leave the door open to string theory, but it seems likely that it could be a good long time before we know for sure whether string theory is an accurate representation of reality. So in the meantime if you prefer to reject the possibility of the multiverse then there's nothing in physics at this time to say you're wrong, but neither can you claim that rejecting it is correct. We don't yet know either way.
Yes, I said "The earth is in the just right eliptical orbit around the sun that enables us to have seasons. Did you and others miss the word "enables?" Show us how the earth would have seasons if it did not orbit (eliptical or not) around a just right sun at a just right distance?
It's difficult to know how to answer this.
Should I just note that you're following in the footsteps of Buzsaw in making incorrect statements that you then spend the rest of the thread trying to explain how they were actually correct?
Or since the important part of what you said was about "the just right elliptical orbit," should I simply point out that all orbits, elliptical or otherwise at any distance, enable tilt to produce seasons, and so there is nothing special about Earth's elliptical orbit for producing seasons?
Or maybe I should ask what should have been asked in the first place: Is there something special about the seasons that makes them *essential* for life?
Or should I point out the advantages of just admitting error and moving on?
I'll let you decide which answer is best.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 9:55 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024