|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9024 total) |
| (40 visitors)
|
Ryan Merkle | |
Total: 882,867 Year: 513/14,102 Month: 513/294 Week: 0/269 Day: 0/45 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 8465 Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
Precisely. We say that these things are constant because everywhere and everywhen we look in the universe it appears to be using those constants. Its not as if we write down laws and the universe snaps into shape to fit those laws. If the constants were different then we would see things like type Ia supernovae brightening and fading at different rates, stars putting out strange spectra, stars exploding for no apparent reason, stars not exploding when they should, and variances in the speed of light as we speed through space and time. We don't see any of that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 33120 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Plus we have the evidence of Science being self correcting and searching for places where it is wrong while the Biblical Christianity is factually wrong and has a history of not ever correcting factual errors and even denying the obvious factual errors exist.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 254 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1773 Joined: |
quote: Sounds like you feel the author of the book of Hebrews is saying Jesus was God? You said this from a later post. quote: Here are the fist 2 chapters of Hebrews. quote: It does seem to be making a point that Jesus is God and not an angel. The Synoptic Gospels say Jesus did not know the time when the prophecies would be fulfilled (only God knows). Matthew 24:34-39 quote: The eternal son will not know when the father will send him? Hebrews 13:8 was mentioned by you. quote: He did not know the time when prophecies would happen I suppose. Jesus being ordered by the father to come to earth again isn't so absurd. The idea of him actually being a split personality/entity of God (which the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke never claimed but Hebrews did) himself and NOT knowing what God will do seems very odd. Do you think Martin Luther was correct in challenging the Roman Catholic council of Carthage (397 AD) which made Hebrews part of the Bible? (The Council of Trent, in 1546, affirmed the inspiration of the Bible of Jerome with its 27 New Testament books that Catholics and Protestants, in turn, now consider sacred) I feel like you might be looking at works of man and attributing them to God. The Bible is: The Word ABOUT God. Not: The Word OF God. (edit https://en.wikipedia.org/...pment_of_the_New_Testament_canon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome https://www.google.com/search?q=hebrews+martin+luther&oq=... ) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1773 Joined: |
quote: Paul Steinhardt said that most physicists would bet against Dark Energy tearing the universe apart (though it seems set on doing just that). He said that the Dark Energy could decay into something else. That would make it a field and not a force (or constant) since a force that comes through a particle is then a "field". Alan Guth said that there was a inflaton particle associated with the early rapid expansion and seemed to be saying that the early inflation was perhaps the same Dark Energy force (or "field") but acting on a particle. The late 1990s discovery of Dark Energy caused the Cosmos book (written by Carl Sagan in 1988 who died in 1996) to have an asterisk note (in a past humus edition) which said that Dark Energy falsifies the idea of a universe that might collapse in on itself. The DVD series by Sagan didn't know of Dark Energy but he presented the possibility of a universe that keeps on expanding against the other (defunct?) possibility of a universe that stops expanding and then is pulled back to a singularity by the force of gravity. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined:
|
quote: Expanding on what jar said, the Big Bang Theory states that 13.7 billion years ago the universe was very hot and the size of a pea and mostly composed of particles. It then explains how we got the universe we have today from that pea-sized soup. What proceeded that is unknown (maybe it was apple sized for five million years prior, then stadium sized for a trillion years, etc.) and the Big Bang Theory makes no statements on the origin of the universe. quote: "Laws of Physics" is a very pre-1800s way of viewing physics. Modern physics postulates that the world is composed of various "objects" (e.g. fields, spacetime) and derives the consequences of these postulates, which match current experiments. Laws tended to be absolute statements about observed behaviour. Modern Quantum Field Theory for instance couldn't be broken down into "Laws", there'd be infinitely many if you tried. In this sense Modern Physics is more like biology, i.e. entities and their behaviour.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 10 days) Posts: 2087 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yes, as a layman on physics that's my take on it, too. While the Laws change; the behaviour (workings) of the Universe hasn't at all. We just learn more about how the Universe works. That's why any sane modern scientist would be reluctant to call a discovery a Law.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member Posts: 1164 From: Ireland Joined:
|
I was a bit unclear in the previous post.
I meant that we don't use "Laws" as it's an outmoded way of viewing physics, i.e. absolute dictums on observed quantities, e.g. "Momentum is conserved". In modern physics we simply describe conjectured basic objects and have complex mathematical models describe how they behave. "Laws" like "Momentum is conserved" then fall out as a consequence of their behaviour rather than being the basis of physics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021