|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the matter and energy come from? | |||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: You believe the first atoms were deuterium? Why not plain old single proton, no neutron, hydrogen?
quote: Are you arguing that the first atoms could not have 2 protons because the atoms would then be helium rather than hydrogen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
quote: Since you believe that gravity is "exactly" perfect right now, how much stornger would gravity have to be to produce the effect you describe here? As it is now, the very largest stars already burn themselves out in a few millions of years, while the smallest stars would take longer than 14 billion years to burn out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
John 10:10 writes: The quote was from John Gribbin's review ofIf you have a problem with his explanation of the "just right" properties this unbeliever explains are necessary for us to exist, you could look at this list of constants: Constants of Physics and Mathematics Okay, I looked. But I didn't see any support for the constants being "just right". I just saw a list of constants with an indication of the accuracy to which they had been measured.
quote:You would say that no matter what the value of constants happened to be, if you existed. Edited by NoNukes, : correct erroneous statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
John 10:10 writes: The quote was Scientists/physicists have looked at a number of these constants, and have determined that if they were different by just very small amounts, life as we know it on earth would not exist. Then you should not have any problem answering the question of how much "G" would have change to make it impossible for us to have a working sun. Yet you continue to evade questions of this type.
quote: Instead of making up answers for me, why don't you address the questions I have asked.
quote: I thought the point to this thread was for you to distinguish between a tailor made universe and an off the rack universe picked out of many universes. You don't really seem to care about that and so far haven't bothered to even make a case for your chosen answer. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix quote tags Edited by NoNukes, : tweak
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
John 10:10 writes:
The point of the thread when I entered into the discussion was to show the absurdity of the author's assertion that the laws of physics work only for an off-the-peg universe, and not for a Tailor-made universe. Get it? So get on with it. But as this is the science forum, what's expected are of you evidence based arguments. Sermons and incredulity don't cut it. Seriously, if you aren't going to respond to questions or arguments then you aren't worth the trouble.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Percy writes: 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.
Of course he's aware. That's why his posts contain just a wee bit of science (and usually bad science) in response to at least one point that you've raised. J10:10 isn't really interested in debate, but in sharing the Good News for all men. He can keep this up indefinitely. A real debate about 'just right' constants might be interesting, but J10 does not seem capable of holding up his end. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Huntard writes: John 10:10 writes:
I learned it from the internet (mostly this site), which apparently you didn't. Because no, the orbit doesn't come into play at all. I don't know where you learned science, but both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons. The earth's motion in its orbit does produce the seasons. The earth's axis does not change direction on a yearly basis. Instead we have winter in the northern hemisphere when the earth is in a certain portion of its orbit. The earth's orbit is nearly circular, and the earh's eccentricity plays essentially no role in determining the seasons. As has been pointed out the earth is at perihelion in early January.
J10:10 writes: As for %s, you got me. I meant greater in the smaller direction. Sigh. Of course that negates the actual point John 10:10 tried to make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
frako writes:
Sure tough Erth is more JUST right for FISH then man 70% of the world surface is watter guess he loves fish more then man. Then the earth is just right for life on land to evolve from sea life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
John 10:10 writes: I recognize I have to be very precise when saying things at this forum. Yes, I should have said fit instead of unfit. The bottom line is that that only place we know of in the entire universe that is fit for life as we know it is planet earth. You should have, but apparently you just cannot bring yourself to type what you really meant. The reasons you've been hounded to make a correct statement is that this "bottom line" undercuts your overall argument. You argue that our universe has the perfect fundamental constants for sustaining life as we know it despite the fact that all but an incredibly tiny portion of said universe is hostile to life. Further, we haven't advanced one iota towards the idea advanced in your original post, namely that the mullti-verse explanation for a fine-tuned universe is silly compared to a single, tailor made universe. If you've got a point to make other than expressions of your own incredulity, I sure wish you'd get to it. There is plenty of discussion of this stuff on the internet. Perhaps Hugh Ross' book Fine-Tuning the Case for Fine-Tuning: a Cosmic Breakthrough might give you some better material than you've used here. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
J10:10 writes: 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? Mars has seasons, so the just right orbit stuff is nonsense. The size and eccentricity of Mars' orbit are not the same as those of earth's orbit. Interplanetary Seasons | Science Mission Directorate
quote: Further, the just right sun stuff is also more stupid rhethoric. Surely you are not saying that an orbit around a type of star different from sol cannot produce seasons. The fact that the earth orbits the sun is a given. Are you trying to say that solar systems are rare in this universe? Finally, you don't even mention the earth's tilt. Stripped of the just rights that aren't just right, your statement at best says that we have seasons as the earth orbits the sun. Big whoop. I'm willing to believe that you actually knew that the earth's tilt was responsible, and I've posted to that effect in this thread. But let's not pretend that you actually stated that in your original post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
frako writes: Is it even possible for any of the physical laws to be any different. Excellent question. Nobody knows. We don't even know how many of the fundamental constants are independent. Perhaps a universe like ours are inevitable given the mass of a proton.
quote: Well, the definition of planet includes an orbit, so in some sense your statement is a tautology. Also, we detect planets due to interaction with their stars (transits and gravity induced motion of the star) we're going to detect masses orbiting stars. We cannot easily find rogue wandering rocks outside of our solar system. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you? If you don't, then I will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Forgive my ignorance. I always thought that the singularity was essentially everything in one place at one time. I don't really understand time during or "before" the singularity. You put "before" in quotes as if you understand that there is no real before. What does "before" mean? It seems you are saying, "Yeah, there was no before, but what really happened before???
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024