View Full Version : The Scale Of The Universe...
http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/
Cool website.
Also explains how we know the approximate age of the universe by simply applying the known speed of light to the most distant visible object. Kinda like how the ancient Greeks understood the Earth was round long before Columbus by simply observing the round shadow on the moon.
That's really, really cool. Sending that link to everyone I know. Thanks!
Suwannee Tim
04-08-11, 14:17
Pretty interesting. How much quantum foam is there in a gallon bucket? A bunch I reckon. At least 1 X 10^104 cubic yoctometers. That is one heck of a lot of quantum foam.
Thanks for posting. I just sent it to my wife and she sent it out to the rest of her science dept.
wetidlerjr
04-08-11, 19:02
42
:D
As if I didn't have to explain enough things to my wife.....
She came over and saw what I was looking at. Now I have to explain yoctometers, light years, and how big the universe is. Thanks for cursing me with this link, fellas. :rolleyes:
Suwannee Tim
04-09-11, 05:16
And I thought a yoctometer was something used to evaluate comedians.
variablebinary
04-09-11, 05:46
The scale of the universe is incomprehensible
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232024489_The_size_of_planets.gif
Pretty interesting. How much quantum foam is there in a gallon bucket? A bunch I reckon. At least 1 X 10^104 cubic yoctometers. That is one heck of a lot of quantum foam.
Mostly empty space isn't it?
Anyways, cool tool. I like how it goes from the smallest thing we can observe to the largest.
Actually this was posted here last year or so and I saved the link. It's simply unfathomable.
And they say it all came from a speck of "matter" smaller than an atom. Makes perfect sense to me, countless trillions of stars compressed to absolutely nothing...:rolleyes:.
Actually this was posted here last year or so and I saved the link. It simply unfathomable.
And they say it all came from a speck of "matter" smaller than an atom. Makes perfect sense to me, countless trillions of stars compressed to absolutely nothing...:rolleyes:.
Actually that isn't what they say.
Actually that isn't what they say.
No, it is what they say. Unless you are referring to the "brane" theory, which is no less bizarre.
Please feel free to elaborate where you believe me to be mistaken.
variablebinary
04-09-11, 22:11
No, it is what they say. Unless you are referring to the "brane" theory, which is no less bizarre.
Please feel free to elaborate where you believe me to be mistaken.
Swiss Watch theory.
Shake up all the parts of a fine Swiss watch in a box, and they will never assemble themselves by luck into a fine time piece. Takes active hands to create something that nice.
Now humans are a billion times more complex than a watch, yet we are supposed to believe we just assembled into what we are by pure luck...
Mmmkay...
No, it is what they say. Unless you are referring to the "brane" theory, which is no less bizarre.
Please feel free to elaborate where you believe me to be mistaken.
It wasn't a small spec of matter that become more matter. Matter didn't even exist, space didn't even exist.
If you want to know what they actually do say, it is very easy to look up.
Swiss Watch theory.
Shake up all the parts of a fine Swiss watch in a box, and they will never assemble themselves by luck into a fine time piece. Takes active hands to create something that nice.
Now humans are a billion times more complex than a watch, yet we are supposed to believe we just assembled into what we are by pure luck...
Mmmkay...
Any "creator" would be far more complex than a human. Who made the creator?
If you want to know what they actually do say, it is very easy to look up.
Goodness, I'll give it a try sometime. Great non-answer.
Swiss Watch theory.
Shake up all the parts of a fine Swiss watch in a box, and they will never assemble themselves by luck into a fine time piece. Takes active hands to create something that nice.
Now humans are a billion times more complex than a watch, yet we are supposed to believe we just assembled into what we are by pure luck...
Mmmkay...
Not sure about that particular viewpoint, but just the fact that we as humans have both the ability to rationalize as well as unique facial features sets us far apart from anything around us.
variablebinary
04-09-11, 22:36
Any "creator" would be far more complex than a human. Who made the creator?
Don't apply your human limitations on the infinite.
If there is a timeline, your life would take up an infinitesimal amount of it.
God's omnipotence extends into both directions on the same timeline infinitely.
You cannot create the infinite. It simply is.
Old Jews seemed to grasp this concept thousands of years ago.
<< Exodus 3:14 >>...And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM
<< Revelation 1:8 >>
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
<< Revelation 4:8 >> ...Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Introducing a "creator" doesn't simplify anything. It makes your position easy to argue, but you'd have to ignore a great many things in the process and your argument is still flawed.
You can say all you want about what you believe your god to be, or how you would perceive him/her/it. However it is all without basis.
Also, quoting the Bible isn't going to reinforce your position. It's circular reasoning. Many religions have their holy texts. None is more valid than the other. You happen to believe in your text, and you happen to defend it as vehemently as any other religious person.
And the "Old Jews" had a very poor understanding of physics, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, I could go on...
Any "creator" would be far more complex than a human. Who made the creator?
The creator is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. That's the best I can do on that one.;)
variablebinary
04-09-11, 23:23
The creator is the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. That's the best I can do on that one.;)
And you'd be right.
You can't create infinity.
And you'd be right.
You can't create infinity.
Oops, didn't see you posted that first.:suicide2:
You cannot create the infinite. It simply is.
"It" would imply a something, something that had to come from somewhere and therefore must have boundaries. Even the supposed singularity was something that had to come from somewhere.
And if God did make it all, what did he make it out of and where did he do so? If matter can be created by God's word alone, who or what made God? Why did they do so? What was he made from? Who or what instilled his values?
Even if we aren't meant to know, there's still an answer someplace out there.
variablebinary
04-10-11, 08:16
Omnipotence and the infinite have no beginning or end.
Even that description fails to fully grasp the full extent of what the almighty is.
The fullness of the universe is beyond our comprehension, yet the universe is a speck of dust to God.
And if God did make it all, what did he make it out of and where did he do so? If matter can be created by God's word alone, who or what made God? Why did they do so? What was he made from? Who or what instilled his values?
I'll be sure to ask him when I see him.:cool:
dookie1481
04-10-11, 12:18
Of of course someone has to ruin a cool discussion by imposing his religious bullshit on us. :rolleyes:
An Undocumented Worker
04-10-11, 12:53
The short and simple of it is, I could argue that we and what we experience are nothing but some hippie's really whacked out acid trip. There is not enough understanding of science to prove that statement is correct or wrong.
Believe what you want.
While I would like to truly understand the workings and beginnings of the universe, I seriously doubt that I will live long enough to find out. And If I find out when I die, I don't have a problem with that.
Exactly. One theory is as good as another at this point whether it be the big bang, multi-verses colliding, or the hand of God.
Goodness, I'll give it a try sometime. Great non-answer.
I assume everyone has been told about the Big Bang. I similarly assumed your stated representation of it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent it in order to reject it. As such I really didn't feel like taking to time to argue science vs. religion again. So I simply corrected the misrepresentation and left it up to you if you were really interested in the correct information. It was of course a non answer, that is because I was seeking a non debate.
Don't apply your human limitations on the infinite.
If there is a timeline, your life would take up an infinitesimal amount of it.
God's omnipotence extends into both directions on the same timeline infinitely.
You cannot create the infinite. It simply is.
Old Jews seemed to grasp this concept thousands of years ago.
<< Exodus 3:14 >>...And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM
<< Revelation 1:8 >>
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
<< Revelation 4:8 >> ...Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
Ignore that man behind the curtain? Really?
If the creator can be infinite, than so can the universe without the need for a creator.
Ancient people also understood all about Zues, Aten and Amaterasu. Course they didn't understand much of anything else.
I yam what I yam" - Popeye
I similarly assumed your stated representation of it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent it in order to reject it.
I'm sorry, I must be missing something. "A deliberate attempt to misrepresent", what on earth?
There was matter in the singularity according to science, matter that expanded with the bang. Gases clumped and fusion began. What do you disagree with?
I really don't want to get drawn into this but I do want to correct one point. It isn't really accurate to say that matter existed before the big bang. Actually the big bang isn't even a good term for what happened.
Not only was there no matter as we know it, but the very rules of the universe as we know it didn't exist. There was no gravity, no time, no X,Y,Z coordinates. Everything that became what makes up the universe now was compressed into a single point. But it isn't like there was this little grain of sand floating in space.
Also the Comparison with the watch and people doesn't work. A watch is made of of non biological matter with no imperative to survive or grow.
I really don't want to get drawn into this but I do want to correct one point. It isn't really accurate to say that matter existed before the big bang...Everything that became what makes up the universe now was compressed into a single point.
There was no matter, yet "everything" was compressed into a single point? What was the everything by your definition?
There was no matter, yet "everything" was compressed into a single point? What was the everything by your definition?
All of the stuff I watch on the science channel etc say it was pure energy. Energy can be transformed into mass and that's what the math works out for it to be such a small point.
There was matter in the singularity according to science, matter that expanded with the bang. Gases clumped and fusion began. What do you disagree with?
The singularity would have been pure energy. There was no matter, there wasn't even space. The "bang" was the conversion of that pure energy into space and following that the first forms of matter.
We arrived at this when Hubbel discovered the universe was expanding. Prior to that most assumed a steady state universe (and the possibly it was eternal with no beginning).
Simple logic and reason applied to an expanding universe means that it all began at some original point if you go back far enough. This led to the realization that rather than matter simply having a "starting point" and then wandering into the outer reaches of space (since matter has gravity it would have all stayed in place without something to accelerate it).
So using E=mc2 it seemed logical that all the mass of space and the universe would likely compress into a singularity (as we observe with large collapsing suns which result in black hole singularities - though these are different from the one of the big bang singularity as they do have mass) of pure energy and that conversion from pure energy would provide sufficient properties to allow for the expansion of space itself.
This led to the creation of matter in the form of gasses that then converged to form the first stars which then produced the simple elements of the universe we are familiar with today through the process of fusion and the other elements in the process of their destruction.
Now what we do NOT know (and what nobody claims to know) is where the singularity came from and what "if anything" existed prior to it.
There is a pulse theory of the universe where energy is converted to space and matter in a big bang, expands to a point where the matter of the universe causes a stop to the expansion and this is followed by a gravitational collapse back to the starting point where it is all converted back to a singularity of energy ready to begin the process again. Currently however we can not observe enough matter to cause such an event as a halt to expansion and gravitational collapse. This would require the existence of lots of things we can't see like "dark matter."
But nobody is suggesting that there were tiny bits of matter in the middle of space that suddenly just got big for no reason.
The singularity would have been pure energy.
Energy without matter? What creates and propels the energy?
Introducing a "creator" doesn't simplify anything. It makes your position easy to argue, but you'd have to ignore a great many things in the process and your argument is still flawed.
Only if you assume a creator used "magic" and other things that do not follow natural laws.
You can say all you want about what you believe your god to be, or how you would perceive him/her/it. However it is all without basis.
Also, quoting the Bible isn't going to reinforce your position. It's circular reasoning. Many religions have their holy texts. None is more valid than the other. You happen to believe in your text, and you happen to defend it as vehemently as any other religious person.
And the "Old Jews" had a very poor understanding of physics, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, I could go on...
baffle Stack
04-10-11, 23:41
Sometimes I wonder what is beyond the observable univese. I understand what the poster above meant when he essentially said everything all of us have ever known or ever will know was once a single point... until it exploded and started to expand. Then what? Viola? It's so inelegant that I can understand why people have created a Creator. It is much more satisifing than Viola. IMHO if our universe was created in such a way(the Big Bang) then it is surely not alone. How do I put this... Our universe is to what is beyond the observable universe as an atom is to our universe, if that makes sense. Our laws of physics may not let us ever discover what is beyond, but it sure is fun to ponder:)
Do any of you guys know of any cool physics forums with good threads that might invesitgate such topics. Please post a link or shoot me and IM if you do. Thanks!
Another question for the resident physicists, what does energy consist of? Where did it derive from? What about quarks and neutrinos?
What created the energy based singularity and how did it create matter out of literally nothing? Gas is matter, so where did it come from? Good intent??
I suppose my point is that regardless of how many supposed answers there are, there are no tangible answers by definition. We still simply theorize but don't actually know. It's all speculation, sometimes seemingly hollow speculation at that despite the dedicated ongoing analysis.
Personally I give no full credence to either quantum or brane physics, but that's just dopey old me. I believe something far beyond what we can understand occurs around us every day. Eleven dimensions or not.
ChicagoTex
04-11-11, 00:23
IMHO if our universe was created in such a way(the Big Bang) then it is surely not alone. How do I put this... Our universe is to what is beyond the observable universe as an atom is to our universe, if that makes sense. Our laws of physics may not let us ever discover what is beyond, but it sure is fun to ponder
Ponder away! There is absolutely nothing in regards to big bang theory, or any of it's contemporaries that excludes the possibility of other universes.
I suppose my point is that no "matter" how many supposed answers there are, there are no tangible answers by definition. We still simply theorize but don't actually know. It's all speculation, sometimes seemingly hollow speculation at that despite the dedicated ongoing analysis.
There are, in fact, tangible answers (which is how these theories evolve). I think what you mean to say (or at least I hope so) is that there are not COMPLETE tangible answers at this time. While that is true, any and all spiritual explanations are equally incomplete, at best, but also lack the benefit of being theories derived from empirical evidence. Moreover, I have yet to see a spiritual creation theory that will tolerate revision under any circumstances (including empirical evidence that contradicts it, in whole or in part), which inherently compromises the integrity of it's "truth".
You are essentially arguing that because both theories are not ENTIRELY proven, both are equally valid/invalid, which is profoundly disingenuous.
Personally I give no credence to either quantum or brane physics, but that's just dopey old me. I believe something far beyond what we can understand occurs around us every day.
What, precisely, qualifies you to decide what "we" are and and are not capable of understanding? Just because you've given up trying to understand the world you live in doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect us to.
Sometimes I wonder what is beyond the observable univese. I understand what the poster above meant when he essentially said everything all of us have ever known or ever will know was once a single point... until it exploded and started to expand. Then what? Viola? It's so inelegant that I can understand why people have created a Creator. It is much more satisifing than Viola. IMHO if our universe was created in such a way(the Big Bang) then it is surely not alone. How do I put this... Our universe is to what is beyond the observable universe as an atom is to our universe, if that makes sense. Our laws of physics may not let us ever discover what is beyond, but it sure is fun to ponder:)
Do any of you guys know of any cool physics forums with good threads that might invesitgate such topics. Please post a link or shoot me and IM if you do. Thanks!
There is a real theory, which I forget the name of, that if you crossed the boundary of the universe heading outwards, you would appear on the other side of the universe heading inwards... kinda like the old game Asteroids when you flew off the screen. No kidding.
Energy without matter? What creates and propels the energy?
We have no idea.
The big bang only explains things from that moment forward. As space and time didn't even exist prior to that, it is entirely likely we will never know.
What created the energy based singularity and how did it create matter out of literally nothing? Gas is matter, so where did it come from? Good intent??
Essentially you are getting at where did the pure energy of the singularity come from. The answer is we have no idea and science doesn't claim to know. We simply have no evidence at all so go with what makes you feel good. You can choose God or you can choose "it's always been there" and neither one really gives us an answer.
God simply adds an extra step not an answer. For if God did it, where did he come from? And he he could simply exist without a creator, then so could the origin of the universe without the need for a big invisible guy. But that is simply speculation, not science. Science only explains what happened from the moment of the origin of the universe forward.
It's a lot like evolution. Evolution only explains what happened from the beginning of life forward. It doesn't say where that first life came from. We have notions of how it might have happened, but haven't been able to duplicate it so we don't have actual evidence. Ideas of cosmic seeding simply change the location of first life, they don't say how it happened the first time. So again, lacking any evidence to prove where the very first life started and how, you can believe anything you wish.
If a person wished to believe the big bang and evolution are the mechanics of God, there is nothing in science saying that isn't so. But if that is the case, then the question becomes where did God come from?
I personally suspect there are simply some answers we will never have regardless of how intelligent and capable we become. And if we ever do get the answer, I sorta suspect it will be very different from what we imagined.
There is a real theory, which I forget the name of, that if you crossed the boundary of the universe heading outwards, you would appear on the other side of the universe heading inwards... kinda like the old game Asteroids when you flew off the screen. No kidding.
The idea is called Closed or Finite Universe.
http://www.universetoday.com/36767/closed-universe/
wonder if the 12 year old Barnett is going to prove Einstein wrong ?
While most of his mathematical genius goes over our heads, some professors at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey — you know, the U.S. academic homeroom for the likes of Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Kurt Gödel — have confirmed he's on the right track to coming up with something completely new.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/26/12-year-old-genius-expands-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/#ixzz1JBtFiQBH
once you read a bunch of stuff on him you realize quite a few think he is on the right track and listening to him he makes good sense about it :)
There are, in fact, tangible answers (which is how these theories evolve). I think what you mean to say (or at least I hope so) is that there are not COMPLETE tangible answers at this time.
That is precisely what I meant, yes. It's not like I believe everything around us is an illusion by any means, but when quarks can supposedly be in two places at once they do raise relevant questions.
We have no idea.
The big bang only explains things from that moment forward.
And this is why I maintain that we don't know more than we do know overall. Just my opinion.
Ignore that man behind the curtain? Really?
If the creator can be infinite, than so can the universe without the need for a creator.
Ancient people also understood all about Zues, Aten and Amaterasu. Course they didn't understand much of anything else.
I yam what I yam" - Popeye
Oh well, what was/could have been a really interesting science thread, has been converted into a God/super hero created it all discussion. Exit stage left. :rolleyes:
Oh well, what was/could have been a really interesting science thread, has been converted into a God/super hero created it all discussion. Exit stage left. :rolleyes:
Not to speak for Steyr, but that's not where he is coming from. You might want to take the time to read his posts.
And if you have all the scientific answers we seek then please feel free to share. At the very least we understand that there is a limit as to what science can explain about the universe, if you can fill that void then please do.
Maybe start with how it is that certain sub-atomic particles fade in and out of existence.
Not to speak for Steyr, but that's not where he is coming from. You might want to take the time to read his posts.
Was a general statement, not directed at his post per se regarding conversion of conversation from science based to God/religious based discussion.
And if you have all the scientific answers we seek then please feel free to share.
If I had all the science based answers you seek I'd be busy picking up my Nobel prize vs posting in this thread. Don't recall claiming to have all the answers, but as others were attempting to keep the topic on track and science based, per usual, someone(s) have to jump in with God/religious talk, and force people (such as Steyr et al) to respond to that vs the actual discussion at hand.
At the very least we understand that there is a limit as to what science can explain about the universe,
What is that limit? And course because we can't currently (due to current state of technology or other) explain it, does not = God did it. Again, not directed at you per se, just general observation.
There's a lot science can't explain currently, and there's a whole lot it can, and a whole lot more it can now then it could last year, and so forth.
Has anyone here read The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow? That's Hawkings latest attempt to cover the beginning of the universe and other related topics for lay/non physicist readers. Highly recommended for those interested in the topic.
if you can fill that void then please do.
Maybe start with how it is that certain sub-atomic particles fade in and out of existence.
And they can be in two places at once and other behaviors that are still being elucidated via quantum mechanic theories. Way above my pay grade. Hawking book does touch on some of that also.
Was a general statement, not directed at his post per se regarding conversion of conversation from science based to God/religious based discussion.
Understood.
What is that limit? And course because we can't currently (due to current state of technology or other) explain it, does not = God did it.
No, it doesn't. As you may have seen I also have many questions regarding God and his potential existence. But that said, there are still so many unexplainable aspects to the universe that as far as I'm concerned the potential of something existing beyond our understanding is still very real.
Wait a minute... I've heard all this before...
http://thematrix101.com/media/still/photo-rel_architect.jpg
I'm a big fan of science and I've heard just about as many different theories as there are threads in my socks but all in all, it comes down to faith... and I'm not talking about religion.
Until they (we) have a better understanding of just how things work, people are simply using "faith" in what they know, which happens to be a fraction of what's out there (imo).
We live in interesting times... who knows what the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) will teach us (or destroy us). :)
montanadave
04-11-11, 09:44
And all this time I thought the answer was 42. :meeting:
But that said, there are still so many unexplainable aspects to the universe that as far as I'm concerned the potential of something existing beyond our understanding is still very real.
To think otherwise would be typical human-centric hubris which is very typical of religion vs science.
And this is why I maintain that we don't know more than we do know overall. Just my opinion.
And science would actually agree with you. That is why there are several categories.
Scientific fact - These are the things we know. We can demonstrate them time and again with the same result.
Scientific theory - These are the things that are likely true and supported by sufficient evidence. But we have yet to prove them conclusively.
Scientific idea - These are the things that seem likely based upon what we know but we don't even have sufficient evidence to qualify them as a theory.
No, it doesn't. As you may have seen I also have many questions regarding God and his potential existence. But that said, there are still so many unexplainable aspects to the universe that as far as I'm concerned the potential of something existing beyond our understanding is still very real.
I actually think we are capable of comprehending a great deal. if you went back in time a few centuries with modern science and atomic energy people would be mystified, today kids in Junior High grasp these concepts. It is simply a matter of discovery, comprehension and acceptance.
The big bang theory when you hear the kids basic explination of why it did not happen the way we are told makes sense
Something about carbon amounts and release in relation to time shows planets like earth would not be here if the big bang was what made our planet
I am going to bet the kid is correct as we move forward in time a ton of scientific stuff that is theory gets updated or proved to be something else etc...
And science would actually agree with you. That is why there are several categories.
Scientific fact - These are the things we know. We can demonstrate them time and again with the same result.
Scientific theory - These are the things that are likely true and supported by sufficient evidence. But we have yet to prove them conclusively.
Scientific idea - These are the things that seem likely based upon what we know but we don't even have sufficient evidence to qualify them as a theory.
I believe that would be considered hypothesis then. Most people don't actually understand what the term "theory" actually means in science, and say stuff like "it's only a theory" and other gems exposing their ignorance of science in general.
In non science circles, hypothesis is confused with theory. I'm not sure your def of theory would be technically correct, ergo "theory of relativity" can be can demonstrated time and again with the same result, even if some aspects are yet to be fully elucidated.
It's generally only non scientists who use the term "scientific fact" but the above is good enough for 'gubment' work as they say. :cool:
Good general write up on "theory" as it applies to science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I believe that would be considered hypothesis then. Most people don't actually understand what the term "theory" actually means in science, and say stuff like "it's only a theory" and other gems exposing their ignorance of science in general.
In non science circles, hypothesis is confused with theory. I'm not sure your def of theory would be technically correct, ergo "theory of relativity" can be can demonstrated time and again with the same result, even if some aspects are yet to be fully elucidated.
It's generally only non scientists who use the term "scientific fact" but the above is good enough for 'gubment' work as they say. :cool:
Good general write up on "theory" as it applies to science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
It is my understanding that scientific idea is about one pay grade above a hypothesis. Course I could simply be using antiquated terms. Comes from my Carl Sagan days when those were the terms in use.
I stand by my theory definition. With regard to relativity, we can conclusively demonstrate aspects of it over and over again, and those parts would be correctly scientific fact (to use an old term) but the complete idea has unproven aspects so the big picture is still considered theory.
That said, I think we are essentially saying the same thing but simply using different words. The main point I was trying to get across was the correct representation of what a theory is. As you noted most people use the term for ideas that are simply a hypothesis.
I actually think we are capable of comprehending a great deal. if you went back in time a few centuries with modern science and atomic energy people would be mystified, today kids in Junior High grasp these concepts. It is simply a matter of discovery, comprehension and acceptance.
Yes, of course we have made tremendous strides in that regard. But let's say you own a brick house and you are an expert mason. You may know your house inside and out, but if as a mason you still had no definitive idea how the bricks could have been made anywhere in the universe, how well do you really know your house overall?
It may not be the best analogy but you get my point. Much fundamental information still eludes us.
It is my understanding that scientific idea is about one pay grade above a hypothesis. Course I could simply be using antiquated terms. Comes from my Carl Sagan days when those were the terms in use.
That's good enough for me... RIP Mr. Sagan. ;)
Yes, of course we have made tremendous strides in that regard. But let's say you own a brick house and you are an expert mason. You may know your house inside and out, but if as a mason you still had no definitive idea how the bricks could have been made anywhere in the universe, how well do you really know your house overall?
It may not be the best analogy but you get my point. Much fundamental information still eludes us.
The answers to our most basic questions "Where did it all come from?" and "Why did it happen?" still elude us. And I am of the opinion that we may never have the ability to answer those questions.
What I am taking issue with is the notion that we couldn't comprehend those answers if they were made available to us.
The answers to our most basic questions "Where did it all come from?" and "Why did it happen?" still elude us.
Have you read The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow? They propose a "where" theory that's a strong contender for an answer. "Why" denotes, at least me, a Consciousness. Ergo, there may simply be no "why"
It's human nature to think everything has to have a "why" when in fact, many things (most?) do not.
Whether or not we ever end up with enough supporting evidence, to the satisfaction of the majority of the scientific community I don't know.
We are not nearly as far from the "where" question as most people believe, it's simply that most people pay little to no attention to what's actually happening among those who wok on such questions.
The other day someone I know said something like "until we at least find other planets outside our solar system, I can't believe in the possibility of life on other planets"
I explained to him, not only has planets outside the solar system been discovered, but that hundreds had been, with more found almost weekly, etc, etc. a new effort was being made to find earth like planets using new tech, etc, etc.
He was stunned. Point being, very few people have any idea just what's going on in that field, and it does not get any more esoteric then the possible beginnings of this particular universe and all the sciences it pulls in to it.
Personally, I don't think we will have what's considered close to a definitive answer until we are able to get off this planet and have something other then an n = 1 example of existence on our home planet.
Have you read The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow? They propose a "where" theory that's a strong contender for an answer. "Why" denotes, at least me, a Consciousness. Ergo, there may simply be no "why"
It's human nature to think everything has to have a "why" when in fact, many things (most?) do not.
Whether or not we ever end up with enough supporting evidence, to the satisfaction of the majority of the scientific community I don't know.
We are not nearly as far from the "where" question as most people believe, it's simply that most people pay little to no attention to what's actually happening among those who wok on such questions.
The other day someone I know said something like "until we at least find other planets outside our solar system, I can't believe in the possibility of life on other planets"
I explained to him, not only has planets outside the solar system been discovered, but that hundreds had been, with more found almost weekly, etc, etc. a new effort was being made to find earth like planets using new tech, etc, etc.
He was stunned. Point being, very few people have any idea just what's going on in that field, and it does not get any more esoteric then the possible beginnings of this particular universe and all the sciences it pulls in to it.
Personally, I don't think we will have what's considered close to a definitive answer until we are able to get off this planet and have something other then an n = 1 example of existence on our home planet.
I didn't mean to suggest a consciousness. If there was a "beginning" then my "why" is more of a desire to understand the nature of the catalyst.
I'll read Grand Design.
I didn't mean to suggest a consciousness. If there was a "beginning" then my "why" is more of a desire to understand the nature of the catalyst.
Now that may never be understood!
I'll read Grand Design.
It's a real mind bender. :cool:
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-11, 21:26
Though most people cannot fathom how large our universe is, I ponder how many universes there are parallel to that of our own. I can't get enough of String theory and the theory of Everything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.