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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 59 (486)
11-26-2001 9:26 AM


It seems that some reading is in order this site is quite a good discussion of what the currently accepted theories are and the data that imply their veracity...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
Note that it says in part 2:
"For rho less than or equal to the critical density rho(crit), the Universe expands forever, while for rho greater than rho(crit), the Universe will eventually stop expanding and collapse. The value of rho(crit) for Ho = 65 km/sec/Mpc is 8E-30 = 8*10-30 gm/cc or 5 protons per cubic meter or 1.2E11 = 1.2E11 solar masses per cubic Megaparsec. The latter can be compared to the observed 1.75E8 = 1.75E8 solar luminosities per Mpc3, requiring a mass-to-light ratio of 700 in solar units to close the Universe. If the density is anywhere close to critical most of the matter must be too dark to be observed. Current density estimates suggest that the density is between 0.3 to 1 times the critical density, and this does require that most of the matter in the Universe is dark."
Which is probably where Shannons "1)The scientific community would have us believe that the universe is expanding and contracting." statement came from.
Then in part 4:
"The "inflationary scenario", developed by Starobinsky and by Guth, offers a solution to the flatness-oldness problem and the horizon problem. The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 1E-30 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles:
The space-time diagram above shows virtual particle-antiparticle pairs forming out of nothing and then annihilating back into nothing. For particles of mass m, one expects about one virtual particle in each cubical volume with sides given by the Compton wavelength of the particle, h/mc, where h is Planck's constant. Thus the expected density of the vacuum is rho = m4*c3/h3 which is rather large. For the largest elementary particle mass usually considered, the Planck mass M defined by 2*pi*G*M2 = h*c, this density is 2E91 gm/cc. Thus the vacuum energy density is at least 121 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive quantum estimate, so there must be a very effective suppression mechanism at work. If a small residual vacuum energy density exists now, it leads to a "cosmological constant" which is one proposed mechanism to relieve the tight squeeze between the Omega(0)=1 model age of the Universe, to = (2/3)/Ho = 10 Gyr, and the apparent age of the oldest globular clusters, 16+/-4 Gyr. The vacuum energy density can do this because it produces a "repulsive gravity" that causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate instead of decelerate, and this increases to for a given Ho.
The inflationary scenario proposes that the vacuum energy was very large during a brief period early in the history of the Universe. When the Universe is dominated by a vacuum energy density the scale factor grows exponentially, a(t) = exp(H(to-t)). The Hubble constant really is constant during this epoch so it doesn't need the "naught". If the inflationary epoch lasts long enough the exponential function gets very large. This makes a(t) very large, and thus makes the radius of curvature of the Universe very large. The diagram below shows our horizon superimposed on a very large radius sphere on top, or a smaller sphere on the bottom. Since we can only see as far as our horizon, for the inflationary case on top the large radius sphere looks almost flat to us.
This solves the flatness-oldness problem as long as the exponential growth during the inflationary epoch continues for at least 100 doublings. Inflation also solves the horizon problem, because the future lightcone of an event that happens before inflation is expanded to a huge region by the growth during inflation."
Which is why currently it is believed that not only is the universe expanding but its rate of expansion is increasing (hopefully) precluding a big crunch....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-27-2001]

joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 59 (490)
11-27-2001 9:52 AM


Hmmm...this site is complete and utter crud....
http://www.basham5.org/creation.htm
1)"The 2 worldviews:
a)Humanist, who says Man is God
b)Creationist, who says God is God."
umm.... shouldnt that be there is no God for humanist?
2)"First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy
c)No matter is created; all is conserved. You can neither create nor destroy matter.
d)Evolutionists say that 18-20 billions of years ago, all matter was condensed into a area no smaller than a period on this page (from Scientific American). It began to spin faster and faster, until it exploded, spewing out all matter into what has become our Universe. In fact, some speculate it came from nothing. Nothing produced something."
So matter cant be produced or destroyed huh? Thats not the case the energy generated by nuclear reactions can be calculated using the mass defect (starting mass - end mass) and the equation E = mc^2....
3)"Conservation of Angular Momentum
a)If an object is spinning, anything part of that object which leaves it will continue spinning in the same direction as the object.
b)If the Universe was created from the big bang, all objects resulting from that should be spinning in the same direction.
i)Venus and Uranus are spinning in the opposite direction as the other planets."
umm again no... the total angular momentum must remain constant UNLESS some work is done on the system (contraction under gravity for example)....
4)"The moon is moving away from the earth at a known rate. This means the moon used to be closer. The moon causes the tides on the earth, by its gravitational pull. The closer the moon is to the earth, the higher the tides. If you go back a million years, the moon would have been flooding the earth every day"
Oh so the moon is moving into a higher orbit over time is it one word.... BOLLOCKS.... Gravity exerts a pull as the equation F = GmM/R^2 not a push for the moon to move away from the earth something would need to exert a force on it, that is unless he believes Newton got it wrong.....
Another thing that is lacking in his account is the fact that the gravitational pull of the sun is also a cause of the tides, does he believe that we were that much closer to the sun?
I could continue but I think that its obvious that this fella doesnt know his arse from his elbow.....
so if this is the only reference to Jump theory I think we can safely forget it....
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-27-2001]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by God is Love, posted 11-28-2001 11:05 PM joz has not replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 59 (494)
11-29-2001 8:47 AM


So your entire argument for creationism is:
-If something has a beginning it must have a creator...
you dont see evolution as being a valid mechanism as:
-You dont want to think that you are related to other forms of life...
-you cannot see people sprouting wings, extra limbs or prehensile tails...
Well excuse me for pointing this out but all of this is quite shaky a priori reasoning with no evidence to back it up.
You say that nothing as complicated as the human body could have suddenly formed by chance, last time I checked evolution claimed no such thing (the key word here is suddenly)....
You claim that "if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, that's wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms.". Hmm, still trying to see the connection there between lack of observed planets capable of sustaining life and the "it had to click eventually" thing as you put it. On another note how do you know that there are no planets out there capable of sustaining life? As memory serves the current method of detecting planets is to observe a star to see if it "wobbles" due to a gravitational field, I may be wrong but so far this method can only locate gas giants (like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune none of which are suitable for life (as we know it at any rate)). However the lack of a proper detection mechanism for earth like planets does not preclude their existence.
As to your not observing evolution around you there are two reasons for this:
Firstly evolution is a mechanism that requires Thousands of years (I may err on the short side) to produce a major difference so not observing its effects in living creatures are hardly surprising...
Secondly why should man evolve? Evolution is IMHO a mechanism for adapting organisms to better suit their environment, man has evolved the most powerful brain and opposable thumbs (for tool making and use) that allow us to change our environment to suit our needs rather than be forced to adapt to better suit it. Why should we evolve to run faster, fly or better defend ourselves when we can produce machines to perform these functions (cars, planes and weapons).
And your objection to the big bang, tell me what, apart from everyday experience, tells you that everything that begins must have a creator? A beginning without a creator may never have been observed this doesnt mean it cannot happen (an absence of proof is not a disproof - there wasnt enough evidence to convict O J Simpson of murder but we all pretty much know he did it).
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-29-2001]
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-30-2001]

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024