How big are the stars?

quote:

---

But arkathon, surely you must realize that God is not a material particle? What does singularities have to do with human religion? Just because science doesn't say God every 5 minutes, doesn't make it anti-religious. It just says "I'm not touching that with a 10 foot nanotube." and leaves that stuff to the theists.

---

If they don't want to touch God at all, fine. I guess you never noticed among your ranks some relish baring their fangs. Yes I know He isn't a particle. He's a spirit. More exactly, the Great Spirit of Love that created all things. Have you seen any love in your micro or tele scopes? Do you think it does not exist?
Thanks for the jokes. Did you hear about the atheist walking in the woods who came on a grizzly? He said, God, get me out of this. God answered, why, you don't even believe in me? The atheist pleaded, well at least make the bear a believer? God said OK. The Grizzly bowed his head in a moment of prayer of thanks for the food he was about to receive.

Whew! What weirdness!

quote:

---

You can start your side of the rational discussion any time now.

---

OK then, as long as you don't mind a one sided discussion.
By the way, could there be black holes in your little well packed zero speck? You know, if only it was as big as a samsonite suitcase I may have fell for it.

That's fine. I was pretty sure I was talking to myself anyway. If you just want to talk about your fairy tales, that's fine. But then maybe you could take it to the "Faith and Belief" topics instead of polluting the subject of cosmology? Thanks. No, but there were almost certainly tiny ones right after the initial inflation. Before that there's not really any matter to speak of in the universe, just energy.

[quote]If you just want to talk about your fairy tales, that's fine/quote
Everyone knows we're here to talk about yours. So there was no black holes on the head of the pin, but little baby ones very shortly after the blow. And it wasn't just well packed stuff, it was squished energy? When did it have the little black hole babies, about the time it grew to the size of the energizer bunny? No no need to go to the faith and fairy tales section here. This you really think is serious stuff!

What are you even talking about?What would be the point, exactly, of discussing cosmology with somebody who refuses to take it seriously?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-07-2004]

Let me tell you a story about Einstein.When he had finished his equations governing relativity, he realized that they had the consequence of implying that the universe was not eternal and "steady", as was thought, but rather had expanded from some inital condition.This, to Einstein, seemed ridiculous. He tried a number of things to reconcile his equations with a non-expanding universe, including the addition of an "anti-gravity" force. But eventually he realized that the steady state universe was simply wrong. An expanding universe was confirmed by observation, as it turned out. Later he would refer to his attempts to alter his equations as the biggest mistake of his life.The moral of this story is that, like you, Einstein thought an expanding universe was ridiculous. But the reason Eistein is so much smarter than you is because he realized that his own sense of what was ridiculous was a shitty indicator of what was actually real in the universe.(Oh, and my apologies for the many egregious errors I may have made in regards to the history of cosmology.)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-07-2004]

Crash, I think this is a creationist ploy to make us all go insane.. It is pointless trying to debate Ark, He must be or simply is a ingnoramus of sorts. I bet he asks you how big the speck is again. LOL![This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-07-2004]

So given what we do know about the current state of the universe, it's age and the physics involved, what do you say were the conditions at the beginning or times before we can easily and simply extrapolate to?Please, be sure to explain at least the major features of the present universe by showing how your intial conditions of the universe would produce those.You should at least account for the current measured age, the over all motion of the galaxies and the percentages of hydrogen and helium in the universe. The more complex details you can leave out for now.

quote:

---

Crashfrog: But the reason Eistein is so much smarter than you is because he realized that his own sense of what was ridiculous was a shitty indicator of what was actually real in the universe.

---

Don't think so. From what I've read Einstein very much felt he intuitively knew how the universe should work, and based his theories on his views of what would and would not be ridiculous (after all, he didn't do empirical experiments but rather thought experiments). In other words, Einstein felt his own sense of what was and was not ridiculous was a GOOD indicator of what was actually real in the universe. It wasn't until observational evidence showed him to be wrong on some point that he rejected his own "sense of ridiculousness", on that particular point.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]

Is it possible that we're operating under two different ideas about what Einstein would find "ridiculous"?By ridiculous I meant "contrary to everyday experience." Most people (especially Arkathon, I suspect) would find the idea that an object actually contracts in the direction of travel proportionally to speed ridiculous, because it's contrary to experience. If Einstein found it so, he certainly didn't let that stop him.I think there's a difference between what Einstein would have found ridiculous and what he would have found to be logical consquences of theory. So I maintain my story is essentially correct. Einstein didn't let his everyday experiences determine the way things operated in the universe.

And I stand by my statement: that Einstein felt his own sense of what was and was not ridiculous was a GOOD indicator of what was actually real in the universe. As one example, Einstein (with the help of a couple of others) thought up the EPR thought experiment to show just how ridiculous "spooky action at a distance" was (his term, showing how silly he considered it). Turns out he was wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to do here is get Arkathon to realize that just because he finds inflationary models of the universe counterintuitive to his own experiences, that's a pretty crappy reason to disbelieve them, especially in the face of so much evidence that suggests those models are accurate.Maybe Einstein was a bad example? But as you said he would accept ridiculous outcomes if they were supported by observation. I guess that's what I'm trying to get Arkathon to do.

quote:

---

I guess what I'm trying to do here is get Arkathon to realize that just because he finds inflationary models of the universe counterintuitive to his own experiences, that's a pretty crappy reason to disbelieve them, especially in the face of so much evidence that suggests those models are accurate.

​

Maybe Einstein was a bad example? But as you said he would accept ridiculous outcomes if they were supported by observation. I guess that's what I'm trying to get Arkathon to do.

---

It seems the problem is that he hasn't had a proper basic education in math, mechanics, chemistry and modern physics. It's a bit hard to jump straight into recent research and start to talk about singularities and antimatter and such if you don't even know the simple fundations.

quote:

---

Everyone knows we're here to talk about yours. So there was no black holes on the head of the pin, but little baby ones very shortly after the blow. And it wasn't just well packed stuff, it was squished energy? When did it have the little black hole babies, about the time it grew to the size of the energizer bunny? No no need to go to the faith and fairy tales section here. This you really think is serious stuff!

---

Do you know what a point is? How much volume does a point have? As long as the collection of matter is a point, there will be no holes at all.Then say you expand it from a point to a sphere. A sphere has volume, no matter how small it is. Hence, now you also have gaps in it. It can be the size of a pinhead, a (spherical ) briefcase, the sun, or whatever. Doesn't matter. It has a volume that is not zero.In a point, no matter how much things you stuff into it, it does not have any volume. Can you imagine something without volume? And I don't mean really small, I mean a point in space to which you can not apply the concept of volume at all.And you seem to want to discredit LOADS of research. You don't even understand it, so why are you so eager to put it down as fairy tales? You've seen the benefits on it around you. Computers obviously work, so we know the current concept of electricity is sound. Medicine works, airplanes works, spacecrafts works, mobile phones works... Are you saying the people who developed these hasn't got a clue about what they are doing?