|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How big are the stars? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I didn't ask, as I know you are a mere mortal, who's never even been off your planet. I asked only how big they think the little speck that the bang started from was. quote:Of course the evidence is inconclusive. Basically they don't much know that much about hardly anything at all. quote:Closer together, maybe. speck sized, no. quote:PRECISELY!!! So if you extrapolate beyond the 6000 yrs when it started, you get utter nonsense! quote:Bingo! See, I'm not making this stuff up! They are! quote:No problem, if it will suit your sensibilities, I'll call it an edgeless speck. The edgeless glory hole. quote:Voila! So tiny it could fit in a frog's eyeball! quote:So, proof positive, that even the best minds on the planet, not accounting for the actual creation timeframe, are basically so far out God is 100% accurate in saying it is "foolishness" to Him. Thank you! You really helped get that crystal clear! quote:You said yourself it was at one time the size of an atom, a pea, and an orange. So, according to you, I could describe it any size at all, and it would be perfecto. By the way where do you think the sub atomic sized edgeless glory speck came from? You say it didn't come from nothing, did some speckmeister conjure it up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I get a feeling you are trying to set me up here? Not at all. You used a term that I didn't understand because I don't know what it means. All I'm asking is what it means. It's a pretty simple question. You do know what words mean when you use them, right?
Do you know of any kind of parents that have children so different, that you would call them another kind? Not really - without a definition of "kind", I don't know how different they would have to be to call them a new "kind". I can try, though:
quote: Here's an example of a single-cell organism evolving the trait of colonality, which is a step in-between protozoan and metazoan life. The offspring are so different they key out in a different family than their ancestors. A family is a taxonomic category one step above genus (two steps above species) so that's a pretty drastic change. Is that enough to call them a different "kind"? I don't know, since I still don't know what a "kind" is.
Why are you so desperate for a precise hairsplit definition? How can I give you examples of new kinds if I don't know what it takes to qualify as a "kind" in the first place?
What if 'kind' in Genesis was more of a reference to what man would generally perceive as a kind? What on Earth would "man's perception" have to do with the biological sciences?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sylas Member (Idle past 5260 days) Posts: 766 From: Newcastle, Australia Joined: |
arkathon writes: Sylas writes:
I didn't ask, as I know you are a mere mortal, who's never even been off your planet. I asked only how big they think the little speck that the bang started from was. It is pretty much impossible to give a size to the whole universe And I gave the answer. The answer is that the whole idea of a "speck" is wrong. They don't think in terms of a speck, but a space or region within a larger whole. I'm sure that won't stop you asking the question again, which is funny in a sad kind of way. We all start out ignorant and with much to learn. As we learn, honest ignorance gradually gives way; but deliberate stupidity is invincible. If you ever manage to understand the models you claim to criticise, you'll stop asking questions about things which the model does not use, like asking for the size of a speck. The notion of "size" refers not to a speck, or particle, but to a region of space. It refers to the region of space from which everything we can see derives. Furthermore, as has been explained, there is no well defined size for that region in general. The size depends on the time of asking. If space was not expanding, and things were simply moving in a Newtonian space, then the region from which photons we now see could have come over 13 billion years would be a sphere 13 billion light years in radius. But in relativity, distance and space get a bit more tricky. The effect of the expansion of space is that the region from which those photons might have come is much smaller. Even more strange is that as you approach the singularity, the size of this subspace shrinks without limit. There is a time when it was the size of a basketball, and the size of a pea, and the size of an atom. Because of space expansion, even two photons separated by that small distance don't have enough time to meet which other after travelling through space for 13 billion years. Unfortunately, our current physics breaks down as we approach the singularity; so before we reach infinite density and infintesimal size we enter the unknown. For folks who want to understand what cosmology proposes (rather than endlessly repeating strawmen of their own miscomprehension no matter how often or carefully corrected) I recommend Professor Ned Wright's cosmology tutorials, as probably the best explanation for a novice who does not want to deal with a lot of maths but is willing to try and get a qualitative feel for the relativistic physics involved. Enter at page 1 of the tutorial. Page 3 has spacetime diagrams which show the convergence of world lines which correspond to small sizes of the now-visible universe.
arkathon writes: Sylas writes:
Of course the evidence is inconclusive. Basically they don't much know that much about hardly anything at all. I have a personal philosophical preference for finite; but there is no empirical basis for that. Recent observations of the rate of expansion of the universe has been a powerful boost to the infinite universe idea --... although the evidence is inconclusive One of the other comical yet tragic aspects of the studied ignorance of creationism is an apparent inability to distinguish between acknowledging that there are many things which are unknown, and declaring that we know nothing at all. We don't know whether the universe is finite or infinite. But we do know a lot of other things about the universe, and continue to learn more as we look into the matter. By "we", of course, I mean people who are willing to learn.
arkathon writes: Sylas writes:
Closer together, maybe. speck sized, no. Extrapolated backwards, the simplest empirical consequence is that matter in the universe used to be all closer together. This holds true, whether we consider the universe to be finite or infinite. If you want to actually understand modern cosmology, which is an essential prerequisite to making any kind of meaningful criticism of the model, you'll need to get your head around two things. One is that the region corresponding to the now-visible universe, in big bang cosmology, is expanding. Not that things are merely moving further apart, but that space itself is expanding. These are different concepts. The expansion is of a kind that, extrapolated into the past, it reduces without bound. That is, it gets as small as you like as you approach the break down in existing physics. The other thing you'll need to grasp is that you have given no argument at all against this, other than personal incredulity, and that this is not going to fly with people who actually know about cosmology. Personal incredulity is not an argument. You are welcome to your intuitions, but for substantive engagement with science you need to learn how to distinguish between answers to questions about what modern cosmology proposes, and what your own intuitions might be. You were asking what "they" think -- "they" being cosmologists. What "they" think is that region of space containing all the now-visible universe used to be tiny; effectively as small as you like. "They" do, however, recognize that they can't get back to zero sizes, because current physics breaks down shortly before reaching such conditions.
arkathon writes: Sylas writes:
PRECISELY!!! So if you extrapolate beyond the 6000 yrs when it started, you get utter nonsense! The density of matter and energy increases without bound as we extrapolate back in time. The breathtaking stupidty of this response leaves me floored. No mate; extending back 6000 years is trivial. There are no problems whatsoever with that kind of time scale. Just looking at our own galaxy is looking back over 30,000 years, and that is gravitationally bound so all the stuff about expansion of space is irrelevant over such short times. The place where physics breaks apart is 13.7 billion years, not 6000 years. [snip assorted inanity] arkathon writes: Sylas writes:
You said yourself it was at one time the size of an atom, a pea, and an orange. So, according to you, I could describe it any size at all, and it would be perfecto. By the way where do you think the sub atomic sized edgeless glory speck came from? You say it didn't come from nothing, did some speckmeister conjure it up? But to describe it as proposing a speck of a given size is misleading, and to describe it as something from nothing is wrong. I did answer that in fact. I said we don't know. I said that big bang cosmology does not propose something from nothing. It rather acknowledges a point at which we just don't know what is going on. By all means, squeeze God into the continually reducing gaps where we don't yet know the answers. In my opinion, associating God with those aspects of the world which we don't yet understand is the classic God of the gaps, and reduces to an uninspiring deism. I have more respect for traditional Christian theology, which recognizes God equally in all processes; even those we do understand. Cheers -- Sylas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm sure Arkathon isn't paying attention, but I wanted you to know that I am. By all means, keep going with this. I'm learning a lot and I wanted you to know that I appreciate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
I found Sylas last post very interesting as well, and the Volcano analogies fantastic points. Too bad it is pearls before swine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4060 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Reject it as nonsense if you like. I wish I understood what you said well enough to do so. Crashfrog nominated it for a post of the month, but I couldn't picture anything you said, nor understand in the least how the universe could be infinite or many times larger than 13.7 billion light years. My thought would be that if the universe was 15 billion years old, then it could only be a maximum of 30 billion light years across (things going 15 billion years at light speed in each direction). I did understand you said this is wrong, and someone once tried to explain to me why we should only see things 15 billion light years away rather than 30 billion, but I didn't understand them, either. So, I personally (though I realize you weren't talking to me) don't reject it as nonsense, because I couldn't understand you at all. Sigh... but I wish I did. Some day, maybe.
But to describe it as proposing a speck of a given size is misleading, and to describe it as something from nothing is wrong. This part I understood, though, and that's practical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Sylas, I wanted to join in the thanks which everyone is throwing in your direction. I've got a better understanding now after reading your posts than I've managed to glean in years of reading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:A region of space, as you said that at one time was the size of an orange, or a speck! And in this orange without edges, (where are an oranges edges anyhow?) was, you honestly feel, contained absolutely everything in the universe! quote:Yes, and the time which I am dealing with here, is when it was one heck of a speck. quote:Thank you! Now please remember you said this! quote:I love it! You see this word 'singularity' to me means 'insanity'. No wonder your whole trip breaks down as you say, when you aproach 'insanity'! quote:There is nothing to correct in saying your bang theory claims a universe smaller than a pea at one time! I got you repeatedly right here on this thread on that. There is no doubt -your theory goes far beyond reason, and the time available in our time bank to use, and your results are insane! quote:I looked at your link, and got as far as the first sentence, where I must correct it! Just because we are not the middle planet in the solar system, or are not in the middle of the Milky Way, does not mean we are not the center! We are in the perfect place, where God made us, not too close to the sun, a nice moon for tides, and etc. ad infinitum. Also The central HQ for the universe and home of God Himself, New Jerusalem will be landing here soon. So we're it! quote:I didn't say nothing! In comparison to all that is unseen, and unknown, I said, "hardly anything". It is a good sign, actually that you admit not knowing everything. quote:Learning can be good. But you are not learning the universe was orange sized, at one time, you are only learning that it may have been, if there were no God, and no creation. (6000 some years ago) quote:OK so let that be a warning to extrapolators - if you go beyond the time of creation backwards you get real crazy! quote:I don't need to get near 'break down' levels! We don't need to, there is a God! quote:OK I think it was crash who educated me on the zero thing.So now, I'm back to a speck, cause you think the zero is just a little too far. We all need to draw a line somewhere! quote:So for us who believe in creation, then, physics will not break down! Only for you who take it beyond where it can go. quote:Once again, it's a good thing to admit you really don't know what you are talking about, when you get out beyond God's creation, and timeframe. quote:It's not me trying to squeeze Him into an orange! I don't need to squeeze Him anywhere, as all I'm trying to do is acknowledge the amazing creation, of the creator. quote:I must admit, I don't know what you are talking about here. I think I see Him in everything. Apparently you see Him somewhere I am missing. I don't see Him in your orange, beacause that never existed. I do see Him in all creation that has existed for over 6000 yrs now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4375 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
is an idiot. Go back to playing with your Legos. It is patently obvious you do not comprehend anything of a technical nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
(where are an oranges edges anyhow?) The surface is it's edge - the "edge" between inside and outside the orange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I suspect it is not what I do not comprehend that pricks you, but what I make obvious you do not comprehend! Call names if you like, it only lets me know I'm affecting you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:So your big bang, at it's orange size, basically had no peel. Thank you. I must be a little careful though, wasn't it you that berided me for calling the bang beginning a speck? Then proceeded to make it sound like I was very ignorant for not realizing it was a zero, nothing, etc? I'll need a second opinion, before I can comfortably deduce your micro universe in your orange had no peel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Not believing in the speck, and not comprehending it are different. You guys are the ones who need to do a little yourselves. I comprehend that your comprehension of our universe is that it started as a little speck. You can't deny it. When your speck was the size of a pearl, it is amazing what you think popped out of it's gates! Can you imagine how many billions of galaxies were in there? And in all these galaxies, maybe trillions of planets, many with a lot of volcanoes! Amazing how many trillions of volcanoes, in addition to the stars, etc. you think can fit in a pearl. Comprehend?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
Arkathon's avatar says it all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Thank you! I am sure you will have to agree that a human being, even dressed for fun, is a lot smarter than a kangaroo!!!!!! No contest!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024