Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 357 (604719)
02-14-2011 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by frako
02-12-2011 7:26 PM


Re: huh??
quote:
after the big bang the first atoms presumably hydrogen where made 1 proton 1 neutron and one electron
You believe the first atoms were deuterium? Why not plain old single proton, no neutron, hydrogen?
quote:
why well because if you add a proton its no longer hydrogen if you add a neutron its unstable and you just cant add an electron.
Are you arguing that the first atoms could not have 2 protons because the atoms would then be helium rather than hydrogen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by frako, posted 02-12-2011 7:26 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by frako, posted 02-14-2011 2:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 357 (604929)
02-16-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by John 10:10
02-15-2011 7:39 PM


Re: A "just right" universe! is this universe.
quote:
the force of gravity were stronger than it is in our universe, but all other properties remained the same, stars would have to burn more fiercely to hold themselves up against the pull of gravity. They would use up their fuel more quickly and burn out in a few million years, not allowing time for life forms like us to evolve.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by John 10:10, posted 02-15-2011 7:39 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 357 (605056)
02-16-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by John 10:10
02-16-2011 1:02 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
John 10:10 writes:
The quote was from John Gribbin's review of
If 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:
Either way you want to roll the dice, our Tailor-made universe/galaxy/solar system is unique with "just right" constants necessary for there to be life on earth as we know it.
You would say that no matter what the value of constants happened to be, if you existed.
Edited by NoNukes, : correct erroneous statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by John 10:10, posted 02-16-2011 1:02 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by John 10:10, posted 02-17-2011 10:16 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 357 (605168)
02-17-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by John 10:10
02-17-2011 10:16 AM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
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:
Your answer would say if the constants were different, then maybe life would be different. So what?
Instead of making up answers for me, why don't you address the questions I have asked.
quote:
This is a cop out! All it does is ignore the fact that we do live in a wonderfully designed universe with wonderfully designed constants that allows life as we know it to exist.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by John 10:10, posted 02-17-2011 10:16 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 02-17-2011 4:46 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 357 (605223)
02-17-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
02-17-2011 4:46 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 02-17-2011 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 357 (606067)
02-23-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Percy
02-23-2011 3:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Percy, posted 02-23-2011 3:41 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 357 (606087)
02-23-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Huntard
02-23-2011 5:54 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
Huntard writes:
John 10:10 writes:
I don't know where you learned science, but both orbit around the sun and tilt combined produce the earth's seasons.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Huntard, posted 02-23-2011 5:54 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Huntard, posted 02-23-2011 6:28 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 357 (606088)
02-23-2011 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by frako
02-23-2011 4:05 PM


Re: A "just right" universe is our universe.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by frako, posted 02-23-2011 4:05 PM frako has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 357 (606822)
02-28-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by John 10:10
02-26-2011 6:33 PM


Fit vs. Unfit
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by John 10:10, posted 02-26-2011 6:33 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by John 10:10, posted 03-01-2011 1:22 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 307 of 357 (607088)
03-01-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by John 10:10
03-01-2011 9:55 PM


Orbital Obtuseness.
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:
Every planet in the solar system has seasons. Most have four like the Earth -- called Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall -- but that's where the similarities end. Extraterrestrial seasons are hardly noticeable on some planets (Venus), mindbogglingly extreme on others (Uranus) and in some cases simply impossible to define (Mercury).
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.

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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 357 (607127)
03-02-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by frako
03-02-2011 6:26 AM


Orbiting planets
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:
Thirdly every palanet we find has an orbit around its star.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by frako, posted 03-02-2011 6:26 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by frako, posted 03-02-2011 4:44 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 357 (641289)
11-18-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Larni
11-18-2011 10:30 AM


Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you?
If you don't, then I will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 10:30 AM Larni has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 333 of 357 (641623)
11-20-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Phat
11-20-2011 5:40 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Phat, posted 11-20-2011 5:40 PM Phat 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