0
   

God's Critical Mass

 
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2016 05:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
what scientists tells us
That there are still many crucial unanswered q's
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2016 05:48 pm
@dalehileman,
Not for me; my life is pretty simple without much in religion or politics.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2016 07:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Not for me; my life is pretty simple without much in religion or politics.


No wonder the religious hate you so much. You arent making your life miserable avoiding joy and pleasure, like they do.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2016 07:37 pm
@Krumple,
My miserable life has allowed me to travel around the world, visiting all five continents, over 85 countries, and making friends in many of them - including Moscow, Russia, and all across the United States. I have visited Esperanza Base in Antarctica, a place not many people have visited.
I also have friends in Mexico City, Lippstadt, London, Singapore, Dar es Salaam, Thimphu, Havana, Loreto (Mexico), Manchester (England), New York City, Houston, Austin, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Chicago, Paris, and Cairo. I'm probably missing some; my memory is very bad now.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2016 09:11 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
CI Quote:
When was the world created again?

Dale answer:
It wasn't, Cis. Always here in one form or another, skirting much cont and dox

If you want to know what the 'old' theory really was, your answer was it. (And what our scientists used to tell us CI.)

Is 'cont and dox' the same thing as sturm & drang?
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2016 01:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
...'old' theory... your answer was it
Wow Cisd, I'll just hafta take your word at that. But how sure is it all

Quote:
'cont and dox'
Contradiction and paradox, but thanks for asking


Help, somebody
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 08:56 am
@dalehileman,
That was from me but ok on cont and dox.

How sure is it? Depends on your confidence in science but in the case of the Big Bang and how it ends, I think they got that right. It appears to be a single shot event.

When it comes to 'multiverses', science is veering into pure speculation. Science can't stand the cont and dox of its own conclusions on BB.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:36 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It appears to be a single shot event
Yea Lead that's the current feeling though foreverness entails fewer 'trad' and 'rad'

0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:44 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
How sure .... It appears to be a single shot event.
The idea of infinity still bothers the intuition

Quote:
... 'multiverses', science is veering .....
In doubt abut that too. Ordinarily the more complex and the less evidence, the most doubt

Quote:
Science can't stand the cont and dox of its own conclusions on BB.
That's what I'd thought til I read some of our late postings taking issue with Al
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:47 pm
@dalehileman,
Okay lets settle this.

The sum total mass of the universe is only around 4%. This means everything visible makes up 4%. The rest is darkmatter and dark energy. However; I believe darkmatter is the after effects of gravity which is the relationship between matter and space.

Galaxies group up into filaments. We have mapped this.

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/virgo/millennium/seqF_037a_half.jpg

If the universe is expanding it would mean these filaments would need to be stretched out. They are not.

Their gaps would become larger, creating space with nothing in it. No stars no galaxies, nothing.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 04:52 pm
@Krumple,
Thanks Krump but evidently youall 'way ahead of us old guys. Yet still can't stand for the idea of infinity, it's intuitionally ridic
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Nov, 2016 05:12 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Thanks Krump but evidently youall 'way ahead of us old guys. Yet still can't stand for the idea of infinity, it's intuitionally ridic
0 Replies
 
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 11:21 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
There are so many holes in the old models that the need for new ones is starting to be recognized among recognized scientists and not just us amateurs.

Yes, this will always be true. This is the way science works, the definition of science which was created in recognition of the fact that our knowledge will always be incomplete and unsatisfactory beyond purely pragmatic considerations.

Individuals may be staunch in their support of old theories and unwilling to change/adapt to new ones, but that is individuals and will always be. In fact, it probably should be. The move to a new theory shouldn't be taken lightly. It needs to be hefty enough to displace the old theory, new theories need to be approached cautiously and not believed just because they support predefined notions.

I say that because religious people are always looking for holes in scientific discoveries that they perceive discount theirs. The fact is, as mentioned, the holes are always going to be there. And new theories will always displace old ones. Yet, many religious people take the holes and the changes to be one more step towards the confirmation of their beliefs as if they were somehow aberrations.

As I see it, no holes, no new theories will ever bring us logically closer to belief in a some kind of supreme being or to their not being some kind of supreme being. The glee taken over people who practice science being 'wrong' and having to find new explanations is sensational. And maybe this is partly the fault of folks who practice science either not being sincere or conscientious enough about how they word their findings. Probably more likely, this is the fault of the media. Again, see sensationalism..
dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 11:50 am
@Krumple,
Krump I had vaguely understood that the reason filaments don't appear to expand is that the closer matter's grouped, gravitation disproportionally attracts, preventing the same rate of expansion as the more distant. However I'm only an old guy and willing to entertain you new fellas' notions
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 11:55 am
@dalehileman,
You put that together nicely dale, and correctly too
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 11:57 am
@catbeasy,
Quote:
the definition of science which was created in recognition of the fact that our knowledge will always be incomplete....

Why do you keep quoting this to me...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 12:56 pm
@catbeasy,
It's easy to understand why there are many scientists who are also religious. The simple fact that many different cultures believed there is a creator is the evidence; many from advanced cultures.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 01:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You'll hafta admit however Cis that they come up short trying to explain why there's anything at all and why it's the way it is
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 01:51 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
and correctly too
Why thank you Lead, you've made my entire week; not often I'm called correct
0 Replies
 
catbeasy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 04:14 pm
@Leadfoot,
Maybe because you keep saying things like "there's so many holes.." etc.

Without qualification it seems as obvious to me as you ask why I tell you about science. So why bother stating that "there's so many holes". That is without qualification. If you do have qualification, some damning evidence that would utterly wreck the "old" "holey" theory, by all means..

So yes, this is obvious! There is in fact holes on all sides and from what I understand (ok, dubious I know - I am not a physicist - I just play one at home) there is still much active debate and that there isn't one that, post Einstein, currently stands head and shoulders above all others as fact..

If I take the straw man with you, it may be because you appear to do it to "science".

The funny thing is that I think we are probably in agreement that no matter how many facts are acquired, no matter how strong a theory humans have, we'll never know the answers to these deeper questions viz a viz science. That methodology isn't built to answer those questions. You yourself have said that's not where you got your answers..

On the flip side though, neither do I think that scientific fact at its most possible sophistication will ever be shown to be evidence for a God/Supreme Being/The Supremes/Burrito Supreme etc..
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2024 at 10:24:16