the universe and space....?

ican711nm wrote:

The volume of a sphere = (3/4) times (3.14159) times R^3.

R = the radius of the sphere.

Suppose Ru = the radius of OOU, and Rg = the radius of the space around the average galaxy.

Allegedly the radius of OOU is 30 billion light years = 3 x 10^9 light years. But suppose it is actually 10^18 light years, because of errors (to be discovered) in computation of the amount of redshift caused by the Dopler Effect.

The closest galaxy to us, the Andromeda galaxy, is about 2 million light years from our galaxy, and approximately that amount of light years from other of its neighbors. However, we also observe galaxies in collision in OOU. Suppose the actual radius of the space around the average galaxy is only 1 light year.

Then the total number of galaxies in OOU would be G =

(3/4) times (3.14159) times Ru^3 / (3/4) times (3.14159) times Rg^3 =

Ru^3 / Rg^3 = (10^18)^3 / 1^3= 10^54.

THEN G = 10^54 galaxies in OOU.

It is alleged that the number of stars in the average galaxy is less than 10^12. But suppose that computation is also in error and the true average number of stars in a galaxy in OOU = 10^24.

Then the total number of stars in OOU would be = 10^54 x 10^24 = 10^78.

The number of life evolving planets/moons in our solar system is alleged to be less than 10. But suppose the average number per star in OOU is 100 = 10^2.

Then the total number of life evolving planets in OOU would be P = 10^78 x 10^2 = 10^80.

THEN P = 10^80 life evolving planets in OOU.

This number is substantially less than the 10^(1,000,000) that would have to exist in OOU to begin to make UC+NS a practical probability.

Thus, I'm even more willing to gamble that DC+NS, and NOT UC+NS, caused the evolution of humans within the lifetime of OOU.

===========

But this analysis contributes zero data to the question of whether or not God exists. Whether God exists or not continues to beatsthehell out of me.

0 Replies

Terry,
Can I have some time?

Postulate- Mass increases with speed (you know who, I'll not go name dropping here)

The speed of space-time increases/decreases with mass (my reading of the Harvard Tower experiment.

The accelerations of gravity are a function of space-time and mass

So the speed of time is a function of distance and mass

So the "gravitational red shift" (particles per second at a given point or wavelength) is a function of mass and distance. It must be red shifted as there is no way gravity can blue shift light to an observer.

The "Doppler Shift" can be red or blue.
The "environmental shift" (loss or gain of energy) to a particle due to the temperatures of it's immediate environment can be red or blue.

Just some of the problems involved in determining that OOU is Expanding.

0 Replies

Ican,
I still am inclined to think that "life" implies intelligence, though not necessarily "self awareness".

Simply using energy to replicate copies of itself for no good reason, just does, implies the unwitting effect to change the environment. The environmental changes must encourage more and beneficial changes or else the life simply becomes an inert conglomeration of chemistry.
This is the unwitting mechanism by which "life" skews your odds something awful.
So if you wish to call "life" "intelligence" then that would be reasonable.
Thence if Whatam (the Cosmos) is eternal then it probably follows that life is eternal and simply then that the Cosmos has always had a modicum of intelligence, Directed simply by life, which just IS.

0 Replies

volume of sphere

Quote:

The volume of a sphere = (3/4) times (3.14159) times R^3

As a mathematician, I have to correct you there. Your fraction is upside-down! The volume of a sphere = (4/3) times (3.14159) times R^3. Of course, this is just an approximation since pi is not exactly 3.14159. This is easy to remember if you know calculus and the formula for the surface area of the sphere. If you differentiate with respect to R you get the formula for the surface area of a sphere, 4 times pi times R^2. Indeed, going the other way, it follows from the surface area formula that dV = 4 pi (r^2) dr is the formula for the infinitesimal volume of a spherical shell of radius r and infinitesimal width dr; integrate this (= add these) between r=0 and r=R and you get the volume formula. Not that any of this will change your numerical results by even an order of magnitude or presumably alter your conclusions.

0 Replies

Frank,
I tend to agree with Bogowo.

Ican has always been a delightful adversary; still is. Since I have no biases Laughing

, nor does Terry Laughing

,nor you

it should be easy for us to recognize a bias if there was one Rolling Eyes

He and hopefully I and everybody else here, debate by defending an assumption. There has never been any doubt about Ican's initial assumption. He tends to give more credence to statistics than either you or I do but so does Terry.
This IMO is a necessary consequence of the way we think. Thats why arguement and civilized debate is necessary. It is probably the only way that a human can ever hope to become "unbiased". In order to learn anything we must confront our own biases. Since we are not particularly religious I think that we all agree that "hanging our biases" out for everyone to see and attack is a reasonable way to come up with a satisfactory world view.
Aand if a little "puffery"(a legal term by the way) should happen to inadvertantly Shocked

enter our arguements you can rest assured that someone will mention it. Thats why we are here and not in church.
I also find nothing wrong with "more probable". Since "we probably will never know". Need I attribute that statement? Probabilities, correctly assessed seem a fair conclusion.
I admit that even a whole string of facts may lead only to a probable outcome. The more facts and ideas that we entertain the more likley that our view may correspond to reality. Probably Confused

0 Replies

truth
Interesting discussion. A bit over my head in places, but I wonder if I have missed the part where we have decided on what we mean by INTELLIGENCE. Is it some kind of rationality (if-then "thinking"), self-awareness (denied by someone above), or simple awareness?--or something else. If we are referring to the capacity to design a cosmos so that it does not (or some parts of it do not) malfunction or self-destruct I then suggest that its intelligence is not absolute, that it is an alloy containing some degree of Cosmic Stupidity.

0 Replies

I am beginning to recognize a multi polarized universe here;

'Here' meaning this thread!

ican is leaning toward an 'intelligent' balloon with nothing outside it (certainly explains the big bang, anyway!). Shocked

Mech is trying to reinvent 'steady state' embellished with much compelling, but not 'bankable' evidence. Sad

I am totally convinced we have a steady state containing a/or many
big bang(s), with time as an innocent bystander; but seem unable to convey my 'intuitive understanding' of 'the way things are' simply due to a little thing like a lack of 'evidence'! Rolling Eyes

Frank continues to bend in any direction that guarantees that he cannot be seen as having decided something; no, sorry that's not fair, Frank is probably the least flexible of all!:wink:

Terry (the sniper), the only sane voice crying in the wilderness (or should i say from the distant wilderness!) seems willing to accept any provable, fully supported concept, not based upon mumbo jumbo, and jargon, but refuses to bring such to our attention. Confused

And all the others (please pardon the relegation to 'bit' players) bless us with little tit bits of wisdom from time to time only to demonstrate how little we all really know! Crying or Very sad

I don't see a lot of epiphanous movement here!

0 Replies

who dominates the universe,the God;but who masters the God,and we humanbeings do;
why?
just because the Eternal only exists in the illusion and imagination.when you think he does exist,he does;if you regard it just as unreality,also he stands no way.so to be the host of the universe.

0 Replies

The one thing i would have thought we could all agree on is that there is no hand at the wheel.

But then ican insists we are on 'autopilot'! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

truth
Someone asked if God is the prime cause, what caused Him (something like that). Well, if He is the first cause and not an effect of a cause, He is uncaused. Does that make sense? And what about the condition before "causes", some kind of emptiness? I wonder, in this vein, what people think was the state of things before the Big Bang. I used to think that the scientific consensus was that after expansion from a bang gravity would eventually "cause" an implosive contraction to a condition of intense gravitational pressure resulting in another expansive explosion, and so on. But now we're told the universe is only expanding and not contracting. That suggests a single Big Bang. It's mind boggling, to think the universe is "mortal". I get around this by conceiving the Universe to INCLUDE whatever was before the Big Bang and whatever continues to be the on-going condition in unending expansion. Why should we think of the Universe as beginning with the Big Bang? That would be, logically, like defining my hand only in terms of its "fist" gesture to the exclusion of its "open- handed" gessture.

0 Replies

Jln;
Have to dissagree with the comments you heard about the big bang being 'one of a kind'.
While that is being theorized, it is makes little sense as evidence everywhere shows that all 'events' are entropic, and the result on a universal scale of the whole thing coming to an eventual halt (ignoring the vast temporal expanses involved) is that eventually, gravity will 'have its way' and the big collapse will far out strip Wall Street in its destructiveness!

While i may not be able to keep my seat, i expect this phenominon to cycle endlessly for ever (that's 'infinite' time, if ican reads this)!

0 Replies

JLN, there really is no consensus as to whether there is or is not sufficient matter in the universe to overcome the expansive effect of The Big Bang and eventually contract all back into a singularity ... perhaps from which all would begin again. While there would appear to be too little observable matter to cause gravity to do the job, there appears to be more gravity than can be accounted for by visible matter. "Dark Matter" would seem to be not only a theoretical nicety, but a mathemathic necessity, if sense is to be made from some observations.
Of little pertinence to this discussion, but of interest nonetheless is the hypothesis that the speed of light represents the maximum accelleration achieved during the Big Bang, an upward limit of energy potential. On the other side there is argument from quantum mechanics which counters that hypothesis, and both camps fill blackboards, monitor screens and mind-numbingly dry journals with arcane notations and synapse-twisting formulas which lend support to their divergent propositions. One thing seems sure; we're unlikely to run out of math soon.

0 Replies

Timber; i feel the need to repeat my 'continuing' theory here (can't help myself)

i see the big bang as the eruption of an 'unstable nothingness' into 'everythingness';
(not just playing with words, but the ones i need don't exist).

however, in my analysis, the universe 'is' the big bang, and it is happening over time, untill everything exists, and at that point it will have the requisit mass, and begin to collapse to the point of nothingness again (a highly kenetic nothingness!); then "BANG"!

thus the occurance of matter from nothing is "happening" continuously, and the expected compliment of 'dark matter' does not yet exist (they are finding new quantiies of DM all the time, as search technology improves; or are they??) Laughing

my universe is happening, man!

0 Replies

Re: volume of sphere

step314 wrote:

As a mathematician, I have to correct you there. Your fraction is upside-down! The volume of a sphere = (4/3) times (3.14159) times R^3.

Right you are! As a retired engineer I have to thank you. I appreciate your correction. I note that I too frequently type permuted versions of what I am actually thinking or I leave out required digits as in my post preceding the one on which you commented.

Fortunately in the case you mention, I lucked out: because as you pointed out (4/3)(pi)Ru^3 / (4/3)(pi)Rg^3 = Ru^3 / Rg^3 whether I invert the 4 and 3 or not! Smile

Likewise whether I approximate (pi) to 5 places or to moogol places (i.e., 10^1,000,000), I will still get the same result.

0 Replies

Obviously, Ican ... one may have one's pi and eat it too Twisted Evil

BoGo, I'm pretty much with you on the pule theory of the expansion/contraction/expansion of the universe, though I suspect we arrive at our conclusions a bit differently. As I noted earlier, there's plenty of math left undiscovered as yet Laughing

0 Replies

A CONVERSATION TAKING PLACE ON THE BANKS OF THE NILE RIVER BETWEEN TWO EGYPTIAN SCIENTISTS IN THE YEAR 2003 B.C.

1ST SCIENTIST: "Now to continue with my reasoning about this bowl with the lights imbedded in it that is inverted over our head -- and why the lights appear able to move across the bowl."

2ND SCIENTIST: "But you haven't dealt with my concerns that what appears to be a bowl over our head might not actually be a bowl -- but instead might simply be space with all those lights in it. AND -- there might be much more space beyond what we see - containing who knows how many other lights that we just cannot see for some reason."

1ST SCIENTIST: "It is absurd to even consider that because we have zero data to show that exists."

2ND SCIENTIST: "But we have to consider the POSSIBILITY that it exists if we are going to truly try to arrive at a reasonable explanation for what actually IS.

1ST SCIENTIST: "What is wrong with you? Don't you see that there is absolutely no data to suggest there is anything else out there? The only reasonable thing to do is to go with what we can see -- and what we can infer exists from what we can see -- and create our concept of reality based on that.

2ND SCIENTIST: "But that seems to be skewing things. That seems to be eliminating some very important possibilities. That just doesn't feel right for some reason."

1ST SCIENTIST: "Well that is because you are not able to understand things the way I am able to understand them. Don't feel bad. For some reason, most people can't."

2ND SCIENTIST: "I still think we should consider the possibility of something else existing past what we can see and reasonably infer from what we can see. Don't you think by doing what you are doing, you will more likely come up with a false picture of reality than if you did consider the possibility of something more? Are you really sure you will come up with a reasonable concept of the reality of things using the method you are using?

1ST SCIENTIST: "I am absolutely positive that the best way to proceed is to eliminate any consideration of anything for which we have zero data of its existence. Absolutely positive.

Now, let me explain a few more things about the bowl.

0 Replies

truth
Frank, where did you get that wonderful edifying and stimulating story? Did you make it up?
BOGOWO, too bad you're not God...well, of course you are, but only in the sense that we all are. Smile

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican,
I still am inclined to think that "life" implies intelligence, though not necessarily "self awareness".
...
So if you wish to call "life" "intelligence" then that would be reasonable.
Thence if Whatam (the Cosmos) is eternal then it probably follows that life is eternal and simply then that the Cosmos has always had a modicum of intelligence, Directed simply by life, which just IS.

Interesting points! Cool

For my part, I care little what one actually chooses to call the intelligence I am currently calling IOU (Intelligence Of the Universe). Frank has given only a partial list of ALL the various names and acronyms I have assigned to it over the years. I picked IOU for my latest name of it, because the name amuses me, not because it expresses any special philosophical point I want to make. IOU suggests that something owes us something, but I do not have sufficient valid data to warrant even a guess what is that something that owes us it, what is that something that it owes, whether we are actually owed something, or, if we are actually owed something, why we are owed it. I find all that humorous. Laughing

I claim that it is probable that IOU is manifested as a configuration of OOU protein molecules distributed over OOU, just because the human brain is such a configuration. Admittedly, that is not much to gamble on yet. What However, I am eager to gamble on now is that IOU exists in some form in OOU to be discovered.

Perhaps IOU is LIFE. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is something else. Beatsthehell out of me. :wink:

There are nine combinations of the entities space, stuff, and time, with the adjectives zero, finite, and infinite. I can accept the possibility of all but one of those combinations: infinite space, infinite stuff, and infinite time. I have encountered insufficient valid data that would warrant even a guess whether that combination is even possible or not, much less whether it is probable or not. That particular combination is equivalent to <omnipresent>. That is one of the <omni> attributes some alledge is God's. Is it possible that SATOOU is God? Beatsthehell out of me! Shocked

0 Replies

I'm too busy smelling the roses to worry about math.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

... I wonder if I have missed the part where we have decided on what we mean by INTELLIGENCE.

============
Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gence
Pronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION
4 a : INFORMATION, NEWS b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions
=============

I favor these: 1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to <achieve one's objectives> and manipulate one's environment.

JLNobody wrote:

If we are referring to the capacity to design a cosmos so that it does not (or some parts of it do not) malfunction or self-destruct I then suggest that its intelligence is not absolute, that it is an alloy containing some degree of Cosmic Stupidity.

I agree that this is one of its attributes!

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know