Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How big are the stars?
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 299 (93794)
03-22-2004 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Sylas
03-22-2004 1:49 AM


Re: the specking order
quote:
It is pretty much impossible to give a size to the whole universe
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:
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
Of course the evidence is inconclusive. Basically they don't much know that much about hardly anything at all.
quote:
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.
Closer together, maybe. speck sized, no.
quote:
The density of matter and energy increases without bound as we extrapolate back in time.
PRECISELY!!! So if you extrapolate beyond the 6000 yrs when it started, you get utter nonsense!
quote:
if you go back to within a tiny fraction of a second of the initial singularity, then there was a very small region, the size of an orange, or pea, or atom (depending on how far back you go) which contained every particle or graviton or photon or physical influence which could possibly have had any interaction or engagement with any of the particles of which we are made.
Bingo! See, I'm not making this stuff up! They are!
quote:
There is no physical edge to this small region
No problem, if it will suit your sensibilities, I'll call it an edgeless speck. The edgeless glory hole.
quote:
Everything which we see was originally contained within a tiny region of that space
Voila! So tiny it could fit in a frog's eyeball!
quote:
Reject it as nonsense if you like. Many people just can't accept that this is the conclusion reached on the basis of many observations and the applications of very well tested physics of space and gravity.
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:
But to describe it as proposing a speck of a given size is misleading, and to describe it as something from nothing is wrong.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 1:49 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 6:59 AM simple has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 299 (93798)
03-22-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by simple
03-22-2004 2:36 AM


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:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 2:36 AM simple has not replied

Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 228 of 299 (93811)
03-22-2004 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by simple
03-22-2004 3:15 AM


Re: the specking order
arkathon writes:
Sylas writes:
It is pretty much impossible to give a size to the whole universe
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.
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:
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
Of course the evidence is inconclusive. Basically they don't much know that much about hardly anything at all.
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:
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.
Closer together, maybe. speck sized, no.
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:
The density of matter and energy increases without bound as we extrapolate back in time.
PRECISELY!!! So if you extrapolate beyond the 6000 yrs when it started, you get utter nonsense!
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:
But to describe it as proposing a speck of a given size is misleading, and to describe it as something from nothing is wrong.
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 3:15 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2004 7:18 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 232 by Trixie, posted 03-22-2004 3:36 PM Sylas has not replied
 Message 233 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 6:53 PM Sylas has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 299 (93812)
03-22-2004 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Sylas
03-22-2004 6:59 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 6:59 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by 1.61803, posted 03-22-2004 11:38 AM crashfrog has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 230 of 299 (93844)
03-22-2004 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
03-22-2004 7:18 AM


Me too
I found Sylas last post very interesting as well, and the Volcano analogies fantastic points. Too bad it is pearls before swine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2004 7:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 9:57 PM 1.61803 has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 231 of 299 (93864)
03-22-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Sylas
03-22-2004 1:49 AM


Re: the specking order
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 1:49 AM Sylas has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 232 of 299 (93883)
03-22-2004 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Sylas
03-22-2004 6:59 AM


Re: the specking order
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 6:59 AM Sylas has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 299 (93948)
03-22-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Sylas
03-22-2004 6:59 AM


big bang is dead
quote:
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.
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:
The size depends on the time of asking.
Yes, and the time which I am dealing with here, is when it was one heck of a speck.
quote:
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.
Thank you! Now please remember you said this!
quote:
Unfortunately, our current physics breaks down as we approach the singularity;
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:
their own miscomprehension no matter how often or carefully corrected
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:
Until a few hundred years ago, the Solar System and the Universe were equivalent in the minds of scientists, so the discovery
that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System was an important step in the development of cosmology
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:
apparent inability to distinguish between acknowledging that there are many things which are unknown, and declaring that we know nothing at all.
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:
By "we", of course, I mean people who are willing to learn.
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:
The expansion is of a kind that, extrapolated into the past, it reduces without bound
OK so let that be a warning to extrapolators - if you go beyond the time of creation backwards you get real crazy!
quote:
That is, it gets as small as you like as you approach the break down in existing physics.
I don't need to get near 'break down' levels! We don't need to, there is a God!
quote:
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.
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:
The place where physics breaks apart is 13.7 billion years, not 6000 years.
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:
It rather acknowledges a point at which we just don't know what is going on.
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:
By all means, squeeze God into the continually reducing gaps
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 have more respect for traditional Christian theology, which recognizes God equally in all processes; even those we do understand.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Sylas, posted 03-22-2004 6:59 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2004 7:13 PM simple has replied

Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4375 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 234 of 299 (93951)
03-22-2004 6:58 PM


Arkathon
is an idiot. Go back to playing with your Legos. It is patently obvious you do not comprehend anything of a technical nature.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 9:43 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 239 by wj, posted 03-22-2004 9:58 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 235 of 299 (93959)
03-22-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by simple
03-22-2004 6:53 PM


(where are an oranges edges anyhow?)
The surface is it's edge - the "edge" between inside and outside the orange.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 6:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 9:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 299 (93989)
03-22-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Eta_Carinae
03-22-2004 6:58 PM


names will never hurt me
quote:
Go back to playing with your Legos. It is patently obvious you do not comprehend anything of a technical nature.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-22-2004 6:58 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 299 (93991)
03-22-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by crashfrog
03-22-2004 7:13 PM


peeled orange universe?
quote:
The surface is it's edge - the "edge" between inside and outside the orange.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by crashfrog, posted 03-22-2004 7:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 299 (93992)
03-22-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by 1.61803
03-22-2004 11:38 AM


evos pearly gates
quote:
I found Sylas last post very interesting as well, and the Volcano analogies fantastic points. Too bad it is pearls before swine
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by 1.61803, posted 03-22-2004 11:38 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Melchior, posted 03-23-2004 1:05 AM simple has replied
 Message 243 by 1.61803, posted 03-23-2004 9:56 AM simple has replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 299 (93993)
03-22-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Eta_Carinae
03-22-2004 6:58 PM


Re: Arkathon
Arkathon's avatar says it all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-22-2004 6:58 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by simple, posted 03-22-2004 10:04 PM wj has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 299 (93994)
03-22-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by wj
03-22-2004 9:58 PM


Re: Arkathon
quote:
Arkathon's avatar says it all
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by wj, posted 03-22-2004 9:58 PM wj 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