Author
|
Topic: Big Bang - Big Dud
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 84 of 287 (101250)
04-20-2004 3:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by rineholdr 04-20-2004 1:51 PM
|
|
As I remember it, the atom bomb at Hiroshima used up about a gram of matter and poofed it off as energy. 1 gram x (30,000,000,000 cm/sec)^2 = 9 x 10^20 ergs = 3.3 x 10^7 horsepower-hours. So yup, you have "more energy", since it's not in the form of matter anymore.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 81 by rineholdr, posted 04-20-2004 1:51 PM | | rineholdr has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 85 by rineholdr, posted 04-20-2004 3:32 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: explosion
animals don't have a spiritual nature like humans
We know this how, exactly? Both the assertion that humans have one of them thangs, and that animals don't...
Unless we're all just empty human beings.
What does that mean? All the people I know have complex emotions, care about at least a few of their neighbors....like other social animals, but more "intelligent" or at least better communicators. What's wrong with that? Back to the topic: "Big Bang" was a term coined by Sir Fred Hoyle to be derisive of the theory - it was in contradiction to his, now disproved, theory of a "steady-state" universe with matter constantly popping into being. Don't get hung up on "explosions" or "bangs" as analogies, 'cause they're not very good ones. Read Sylas's stuff - linked above - instead.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 119 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-26-2005 1:00 AM | | daaaaaBEAR has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
So evolution's true? do you really believe that?
Let's say that I'm quite sure, based on several lines of evidence, that my ancestors a couple of hundred thousan years ago were sorta apish looking critters in Africa. I could be shown to be wrong on that - they might have been in Asia instead - but that's not where current evidence points.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 125 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-26-2005 11:24 AM | | daaaaaBEAR has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
I would like to know how the "unfolding" of the universe caused the Earth's placement to be so exact that if it was farther or closer away from the sun, we would freeze or burn up respectively.
There's about 9,000,000,000 years of stars forming and dying between the "unfolding" and the beginning of our solar system - it's only been here for the last one-third of the time since the BB. Most likely, chance put our planet where it now is, and then, with liquid water and some other amenities, life arose. But as Crash mentions, we're not at one precise distance from the Sun. It's very odd to me how that notion, and even the claim that Earth has the most nearly circular orbit in the solar system, are commom from creationist/ID sources. Any freshman astronomy text or two minutes with Google prove both wrong.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
There's a likelihood that that 13.7 billion years nothing "expanded" into everything that is today.
Certainly there is that possibility. But if it didn't happen like that, why to we have the cosmic background radiation all around us, helping contribute to the static on the televisions of those poor folk still on rabbit ears? Why are distant galaxies all receding from us, the more distant ones more quickly? You're perfectly welcome to posit some creator to start it all, if that's what floats your boat. But in my view, such a thing is just one more level of complexity to explain in an already complex universe - and a level with no physical evidence for itself.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Why are YOU unique from everyone else? Evolution and the Big Bang cannot answer these questions.
I'll bet the BB can't even address that one question, but have you considered just how many base pairs are in your or my (or Crash's) genome? We just about have to be unique with as many possibilities for recombination as we have. There's only 6.3 billion of us on this planet, after all. AbE: I'll get back on topic now, NN. This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-28-2005 16:39 AM
This message is a reply to: | | Message 141 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-28-2005 4:30 PM | | daaaaaBEAR has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
What happens after you die?
Your book has that one right - we return to dust.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 155 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-29-2005 2:19 AM | | daaaaaBEAR has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: back to the big bang
The main reason why I see the Big Bang as a dud is because there's no scientific law that allows something to come from nothing. There was "no scientific law" to allow an electron (or a baseball...) to have the properties of a wave (wavelength, frequency, ability to be diffracted) until eighty years ago, either, but they always did and still do. Just because you or I are ignorant of the things physicists are working on means not that they don't exist. And of course the Casimir Effect still works without the metal plates - it's just a helluva lot harder to measure it that way.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: back to the big bang
What are you talking about?
Virtual particle pairs are forming and annihilating whether the plates are there or not. The plates just provide the means to detect the effect.
|