UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:So, are there any people here that have a problem with cosmology? That's what this thread is for.
I don't understand. How can you have a problem with cosmology?
Advertisement
by Barringtonia » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:23 pm
by Lord-General Drache » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:24 pm
by Allbeama » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:24 pm
by Dragontide » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:25 pm
by Hydesland » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:26 pm
Lord-General Drache wrote:
Biblical literalism, flat earthers, and probably others that don't readily come to mind do.
by Allbeama » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:27 pm
Dragontide wrote:If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.
by EVIL BEYOND COMPARE » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:30 pm
by Dragontide » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:35 pm
Allbeama wrote:Dragontide wrote:If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.
Following this premise, God( if he exists) has more important things to do than meddle in the affairs of tiny beings like insects in his eyes, regardless of whether they are sentient or not. And we have every right an ability to live our lives without adhering to what is claimed to be his will. Largely because it becomes clear that his will is unknowable and the books about him and his will are merely fictions devised by humans to control other humans. An interesting concept indeed.
by Barringtonia » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:40 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Damn this is boring.
by Blouman Empire » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:44 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Damn this is boring.
by Allbeama » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:46 pm
Dragontide wrote:Allbeama wrote:Dragontide wrote:If God is suppose to be the one creating and destroying worlds and star systems then why are the black holes (that are at the center of every galaxy) doing it? God is much bigger than trivial things like one universe's little ole big bang.
Following this premise, God( if he exists) has more important things to do than meddle in the affairs of tiny beings like insects in his eyes, regardless of whether they are sentient or not. And we have every right an ability to live our lives without adhering to what is claimed to be his will. Largely because it becomes clear that his will is unknowable and the books about him and his will are merely fictions devised by humans to control other humans. An interesting concept indeed.
Good point. The only questions I have is: Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? Same question for Mohamed.
by Allbeama » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:47 pm
Barringtonia wrote:UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Damn this is boring.
See, you want to beat down on someone religious here, rather pathetic no, rather like picking on the small kid in the playground.
It's that attitude that makes people react against knowledge overall, including scientific knowledge, it's the way you go about informing people, less a genuine desire to make people understand and more to coddle your ego.
by Beachchairs » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:47 pm
by Drachmar » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:54 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Damn this is boring.
by Barringtonia » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:57 pm
Allbeama wrote:Barringtonia wrote:UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Damn this is boring.
See, you want to beat down on someone religious here, rather pathetic no, rather like picking on the small kid in the playground.
It's that attitude that makes people react against knowledge overall, including scientific knowledge, it's the way you go about informing people, less a genuine desire to make people understand and more to coddle your ego.
Actually a thread where everyone agrees is boring. To be honest that is.
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:06 pm
Drachmar wrote:Well, how do you believe the universe will end? Current theory widely accepted is a heat death or "big rip." While I'm not a physicist, I don't necessarily agree with that. I do however, quite agree with the big bang theory as a whole.
I don't necessarily understand how scientists have come to believe that the universe is now expanding more rapidly than it did after the initial expansion of the universe. I mean...it was faster initially, but then expansion continued, and now it's believed that it's accelerating more than it did several billion years ago. I don't get it.
I would assume that means scientists are measuring a faster velocity of interstellar bodies closer to the Earth. Is this a correct assessment?
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:07 pm
Barringtonia wrote:I don't know, great fun can be had in agreeing, a lot of learning can come from it, but I suspect UT isn't motivated by imparting knowledge.
by Drachmar » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:00 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Drachmar wrote:Well, how do you believe the universe will end? Current theory widely accepted is a heat death or "big rip." While I'm not a physicist, I don't necessarily agree with that. I do however, quite agree with the big bang theory as a whole.
Why do you disagree with a heat death? If the universe exists forever, there can be no other end.I don't necessarily understand how scientists have come to believe that the universe is now expanding more rapidly than it did after the initial expansion of the universe. I mean...it was faster initially, but then expansion continued, and now it's believed that it's accelerating more than it did several billion years ago. I don't get it.
Dark energy.I would assume that means scientists are measuring a faster velocity of interstellar bodies closer to the Earth. Is this a correct assessment?
No. The farther away something is, the faster it is moving away from us.
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:05 pm
Drachmar wrote:Dark energy I get...totally.
What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.
by Drachmar » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:11 pm
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Drachmar wrote:Dark energy I get...totally.
What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.
Because thw way dark energy works, it produces an observed velocity which is linear with distance. This is what the Friedmann equations predict our observations will be if dark energy exists. The particular stuff we put into the Friedmann equations is matched as closely as possible to our local (in our Lorentz frame) observations.
by Beachchairs » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:14 pm
Drachmar wrote:What I don't understand is how scientists come to the conclusion that the universe is starting to accelerate faster, the further out they look. Since looking further out essentially is looking further in the past, seems that if the universe was accelerating faster scientists would see acceleration happening closer to home, like within our galactic cluster.
by UnhealthyTruthseeker » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:18 pm
Drachmar wrote:I have to admit that's totally above my head.
Essentially, I would believe that if the universe is accelerating faster than it did after the initial expansion, that some sort of bubble effect would occur. In other words, we would see a greater expansion closer to the earth, than was measured closer to the edge of the universe.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dogmeat, Google [Bot], Neu California
Advertisement