PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Further Evidence Found for Dark ...



Fraser
2003-Jul-22, 09:02 PM
SUMMARY: Since the discovery several years ago of a mysterious force, called dark energy, which seems to be accelerating the Universe, astronomers have been searching for additional evidence to either support or discount this theory. Astronomers from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey have found fluctuations in cosmic background radiation that match the repulsive influence of dark energy.


Comments or questions about this story? Feel free to share your thoughts.

JourneyPS@aol.com
2003-Jul-23, 02:45 AM
Dear Fraser: I would like to talk about "Dark Energy".

From: JourneyPS@aol.com

I found several reports on Dark Energy one of which I would like to share with you:
Darthmouth College-Dark Energy Dominates the Universe.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/20.../jan010203.html (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2003/jan010203.html)

If you have any information on how Supersymmetry and Nanotechnology can converge I would appreciate any information on this as a researcher.

Thank you,
Journey

Ray Bingham
2003-Jul-23, 04:51 AM
First Dark Matter and Now Dark Enerrgy. The farther we go into trying to find out the nature of the universe the more we try to find excuses for the fact that no matter what our theories are they just don't add up to a accidental universe. There are only theories that support either Dark Matter and now Dark Energy. In spite of what is said there is no evidence for either. Both are constructs of theory to explain away unexplainable anomolies. When will someone finally realize that all this just didn't "happen"? There is a creator and he is so far beyond what we can observe that our finite minds will never think up enough excuses for our failed theories.

Fraser
2003-Jul-23, 05:01 AM
I don't see how the discovery of additional matter/energies is concerning to scientists in any way. This is the whole point of scientific exploration.

Dark Matter was discovered when astronomers found that the movement of objects in the Universe didn't match up with the predicted gravity when you added up all the "stuff" that we know about (rocks, water, people, photons, etc).

Dark Energy is a recently discovered mysterious repulsive force that works against gravity, and seems to be accelerating objects in the Universe away from each other. It was discovered when astronomers tried to determine once and for all if gravity would cause the Universe to collapse back in on itself in a big crunch, or if it had enough momentum to keep expanding forever. The evidence was completely shocking, as it turned out that some energy was appearing in the vaccuum of space and causing objects to push away from each other. The more space between objects, the more of this dark energy that seems to appear.

There is absolutely evidence for both, and this new research helps confirm the presence of dark energy from a completely different vantage point.

In a recent census, astronomers now believe that the Universe is composed of 4% matter, 25% dark matter, and the rest dark energy.

I really feel that astronomy is reaching a golden age. I can't wait to see the new theories and experiments that help explain what dark matter and dark energy might actually be.

tgbotg
2003-Jul-23, 05:46 AM
Do I hear about dark substances once again? Things that are as mythical as Zeus and Apollo themselves. If scientists could accept the possibility of a young universe, then the subject of dark matter and energy would not be so crucial. These dark substances are necessary to maintain the belief of an ancient 15 billion or so year old universe give or take an eon or two. Given a young universe, things would not seem so mysterious and
exotic. These absurd WIMPy particles are the only things that can possibly have enough mass to
make up for the lost mass. None has ever been observed ... none. There is so much faith in the theory of an ancient universe that a lot of scientists will make up excuses to further that belief ... including inventing new
exotic particles. If you ask me, the whole concept of dark matter/energy should be listed under the erroneous ideas presented in Bad Astronomy.

I noticed that on another (oh, i've forgotten the techy term ... line of thought, train, yarn ... anywho) that someone mentioned Noah. Don't you know that if dark matter/energy and the ancient universe theories are true, then Noah's timeline never existed. Supporters of this belief contradict the first eleven chapters of Genesis, from Creation to the Tower of Babel. And if there is no Adam or Eve, the ones who brought sin into the world, then Christ's mission to save the world (John 3:17) would have been pointless (Romans 5:12-21). But enough of that tangent.

Unless someone can provide real evidence of WIMPs existence, this is where I stand. I suppose this is something similar to what you were saying, Ray, am I right?

tgbotg
2003-Jul-23, 05:51 AM
Woops, the "quote" tag wasn't what I expected .... here's what I meant:

Do I hear about dark substances once again? Things that are as mythical as Zeus and Apollo themselves. If scientists could accept the possibility of a young universe, then the subject of dark matter and energy would not be so crucial. These dark substances are necessary to maintain the belief of an ancient 15 billion or so year old universe give or take an eon or two. Given a young universe, things would not seem so mysterious and "exotic." These absurd WIMPy particles are the only things that can possibly have enough mass to "make up" for the lost mass. None has ever been observed ... none. There is so much faith in the theory of an ancient universe that a lot of scientists will make up excuses to further that belief ... including inventing new "exotic" particles. If you ask me, the whole concept of dark matter/energy should be listed under the erroneous ideas presented in Bad Astronomy.

I noticed that on another (oh, i've forgotten the techy term ... line of thought, train, yarn ... anywho) that someone mentioned Noah. Don't you know that if dark matter/energy and the ancient universe theories are true, then Noah's timeline never existed. Supporters of this belief contradict the first eleven chapters of Genesis, from Creation to the Tower of Babel. And if there is no Adam or Eve, the ones who brought sin into the world, then Christ's mission to save the world (John 3:17) would have been pointless (Romans 5:12-21). But enough of that tangent.

Unless someone can provide real evidence of WIMPs existence, this is where I stand. I suppose this is something similar to what you were saying, Ray, am I right?

imported_James
2003-Jul-23, 08:36 AM
I have not had much time to examine the "dark matter/dark energy" phenomena, but the presence of non-radiating matter is certainly widespread. The existence of a force that warps spacetime in the opposite way that matter warps spacetime may also be possible.

I consider it improbable. Consider the origin of our universe, the "big bang". The best guess is a massive explosion that was initiated at a single point. In this case, where would you place the majority of the mass/energy of the universe? I would place it at or near the surface of the expanding sphere of the shock wave of the initial explosion. Since the majority of the mass is still exerting its influence, I do not find it surprising that the universe is still expanding.

Part of this problem is in determining where we are in relation to the center of this expanding sphere we call our universe. Since the background radiation is fairly uniform in all directions, I would presume that we were somewhere in the middle of the residue of the slower matter of the universe. This would also tend to explain why everywhere we look we see red shift proportional to distance.

But, I digress.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

vanderL
2003-Jul-23, 09:20 AM
All this talk about dark matter and dark energy can mean only one thing:
If something unseen is necessary to keep the current theoretical model intact and it gets worse after years of research, something is seriously wrong with the assumptions underlying the current theory. And frankly, a creationist view of the universe doesn't stick either.
I think it is time to answer some basic questions first before building intricate models like the Big Bang. What about the redshift controversy, it is still an open question. One with very big implications. My guess is that the universe is not running on gravity alone (that's where the idea of "missing" or dark matter came from) and at www.holoscience.org there are people with new ideas that can help us to make sense of the observations.

Fraser
2003-Jul-23, 04:25 PM
Welcome to the Universe Today forums James.

Just to answer your comment. The trick with dark energy is that it's appearing in the vaccuum between objects. The larger the space, the more repulsive force that's being generated.

So, the observations seem to indicate the opposite of what you're proposing, that the bulk of the energy is on the outside of the explosion.

I don't see why people are concerned that these new observations break past models of the Universe. So what? Science does that all the time. Experimenters are constantly searching for evidence to overthrow older theories with a new one that better matches the evidence.

Gravity and evolution are just theories and even they could be overthown by some clever scientist with a new theory that better explains things.

imported_James
2003-Jul-23, 07:54 PM
I am thinking that my thoughts on the matter may be just as valid unless an unequal expansion rate can be demonstrated.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

tgbotg
2003-Jul-25, 05:42 AM
vanderL, please explain why you believe the Creation model of the Universe "doesn't stick." For a further explanation on my beliefs of dark matter go here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=352).

Thank you.

Fraser
2003-Jul-25, 05:55 AM
I find it bizarre that so many people have a problem with the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter". Perhaps if they had different names, like "expansive force" and "additional mass" people probably wouldn't fixate on it so much.

Although they're mysteries, I don't really find them anywhere near as baffling as a concept like quantum mechanics, yet our technology depends on the results of quantum theory.

vanderL
2003-Jul-25, 08:29 AM
In reply on why the Creation model for me doesn't stick: there is something needed that can't be proven, namely God, the same goes for the current version of the Big Bang model, if something like dark energy is invented to make the model work, that's not science, that's proof we dont' know enough to explain the data.
Fraser you're right to say that science should make and brake models all the time, but I'm suspicious that the models are more based on a certain "faith" than on data;
an open mind is the best way to view all the new ideas that appear in astronomy, never forget to look at what the real data are and what is interpretation,

I hope you checked the www.holoscience.org website because in my humble opinion the models discussed there are closer to the truth,

Louis van de Locht

tgdye
2003-Jul-25, 01:30 PM
So this "Dark energy" is basically acting like Anti-gravity waves pushing everything apart? So whenever we manage to discover a unifying theory of gravity it will also explain the dark energy/matter? I dont see why this is so hard for some people to understand.

Thanks

tgbotg
2003-Jul-28, 12:04 AM
vanderL, interesting website. I hadn't considered electricity as being a possible factor in the alleged Big Bang scenario. But I'll admit, planet birth from stars themselves seems a bit hard to swallow.

If you want proof of God, look around you. If you want proof of God's sense of humor, look in the mirror :). See, I have a sense of humor, too. But seriously, life absitively posolutely cannot come from non-life. It had to have started somewhere, regardless of the theories. And no amount of Mary Shelley physics is going to change that. On top of all of that, there is absolutely no proof here on earth of God-less evolution. Theistic evolution, however, is discussed above (if it were true, there'd be no reason for Christ to come etc.). Now, I'm not saying humans and other species don't adapt, because they do. They need to in order to survive climate changes and so forth. But no genetic material is ever added. Every mutation has been shown to take away genetic material, or change it slightly. Those finches that Mr. Darwin found? Just different traits of the same bird. One was better suited to one area, while one for another. For instance, I have brown hair. My girlfriend has red hair. If we get married and have kids, some may have brown hair, some may have red, and some may have blonde (I do have family that's blonde). Just different traits of the same species. But this isn't a biology forum ...

James, M31 actually is blueshifted.

I have no problem with the term dark matter itself. There's no implication of it being sinister in any way. To quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." I'd still rant and rave, so to speak, if it were called something else.

Fraser, in reference to another thread, also linked above, Creationism is science. To prove this, here are a couple links to show you scientific proof of God (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/cfeog.pdf) and of the holy inspiration of the Bible (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/idobi.pdf). They are a bit lengthy, and you need Acrobat Reader in order to view them, but they are well worth it. Especially for scientists seeking truth. After all, every possibility must be considered, right? No matter how far-fetched it may seem. This is why I have looked over vanderL's link and will look into it in more depth.

Thank you.

imported_James
2003-Jul-29, 06:11 PM
Dark Energy. What a concept. From what I have been able to glean over the internet with some help by people that have supplied URLs for appropriate sites, it is just an unproved theory to explain what should be obvious if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang is an explosion of mass and energy into our universe from a point source. The bulk of all mass and energy should be at or near the leading edge. The leading edge of this explosion may still expanding, probably as a sphere, at the speed of light. This leading edge is being followed by the majority of the mass of the universe which should be disbursed as the surface of a sphere with a residue of matter in its wake. Since this explosion originated from a point source, there should be no core of matter at the site of the explosion. I expect the site of the explosion to be almost devoid of any mass, much like intergalactic space.

The section of our observable universe is small. The age of the universe has been estimated to be from 11.5 to 17.5 billion years. That should make the size of the universe somewhere between 23 and 35 billion light years in diameter. That is between 6.2e+30 and 2.2e+31 cubic light years. Now the most distant observations have been supernova at about 10 billion light years. That means our observations encompass 4.2e+30 cubic light years. That is anywhere between 66% and 19% depending upon your estimation of the size of our universe. My personal opinion is the age of the universe is much older and what we see of it is less than 2%. How much less is anyone's guess. The space we can see is fairly uniform which supports my opinion that we are seeing only a very small portion of the universe. According to one source, the universe may be as much as fifty times older than the current estimate or three quarters of a trillion years old. We may be tending to underestimate the age of the universe because of the small sample we observe of the universe.

With the majority of the mass towards the leading edge of the expanding universe, the residual mass would of course continue to expand because of the mass at the surface of the sphere of expansion. That this expansion seems to be accelerating may be due to the leading edge mass stopping its expansion, thus increasing its relative influence on the residual mass of the observable section of the universe.

fraser: From your comments, I had an inspiration. Spacetime is bent by the presence of mass. In the absence of mass, there should not be any warp in spacetime. Between galaxies, presumably where there is no mass, space is totally relaxed and since this is not the condition observed in the area with mass, it is being presumed that there is something there that is causing this difference when, in actuality, it is the normal state of spacetime in the absence of mass. Also, consider that with all the warpage caused by mass, there must be some buffer where there is some stretch in the other direction before spacetime can truly be relaxed.

Kashi: A wonderful theory. When it is combined with the thoughts of N3373H, you may have an explanation of how the Big Bang originated. There was a super massive mega black hole in an adjoining universe. When the Black Hole reached its peak, it made a rupture into our universe and all the mass and energy that had accumulated in the Black Hole erupted into our universe.

tgbotg: I consider M31 a local anomaly.

There are other opinions that should have a hearing, but since they are off topic, I will just include a couple of links. <http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/Essays_About_Math_and_Science/Cosmology.html> <http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/>

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

Fraser
2003-Jul-30, 01:20 AM
Here are some theories

Dark Matter might be:
- normal matter that we haven&#39;t seen yet (dark galaxies, brown dwarfs, black holes, rock, dust)
- massive neutrinos
- exotic, undiscovered particles

Here&#39;s a link to a Dark Matter FAQ
http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/FAQ/faq.html


Dark Energy might be:
- particles popping into existance for a moment and then being destroyed again.
- a strange effect of gravity across a long distance
- just the way the Universe works - Einstein&#39;s Cosmological Constant


Here&#39;s a series of research documents about Dark Energy
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/sci.html

Enjoy. :-)

tgbotg
2003-Jul-30, 04:34 AM
So this "local anomaly" should be brushed under the cosmic rug? There are 2 basic laws of physics that cannot be ignored when considering our origins: The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

First: Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it merely changes forms. This accounts for only the natural processes, and not the supernatural.

Second: The law of increasing entropy, from order to chaos, not vice versa. Entropy only goes in one direction and applies to everything. A nebular or interstellar dust cloud will disperse until it fills the entire Universe before it will collapse in on itself and make a star.

It makes no sense for Big Bang cosmologists to simply ignore these basic laws because it suits them. These two laws basically say that the Universe is not eternal (2nd Law) and, since it will have an end, a beginning must ensue. But something can&#39;t come from nothing and remain a natural process (1st Law). That thing that "triggered the Big Bang" ... where did that adjoining universe come from? That black hole? All the matter inside that black hole? These are questions that will never be answered should a Higher Power be eliminated from the equation.

Thank you.

vanderL
2003-Jul-30, 09:06 AM
Thanks Fraser,

Sure, theories abound, I have read all that stuff about what dark matter might be, but the crux of the matter is that dark matter is ASSUMED based upon the radial velocities of galaxies. We have to make sure first that there is no "theory" that can explain the motions of the galaxies without resorting to something unseen, don&#39;t you agree?
And it seems that the effort in astronomy is always to grab at the most exotic possibillity first. I still think that the plasma or electric universe model must de looked very closely.

Louis.

imported_James
2003-Jul-31, 05:49 PM
fraser: Thanks for the links. You seem to have the best collection of online resources.

tgbotg: When I was writing my comments, I was thinking in term of the whole rather than just what was within our observable volume. Besides, there are many explanations why the velocity (speed and direction) of M1 has changed. After all, the velocity of the Earth is constantly changing.

tgbotg: Negative entropy exists else we could not. Is not a star more organized than the dust cloud that provided the raw material?

tgbotg: You have it backward. It is the "Steady State" theory that claims the universe has no beginning and no end. If, indeed, we are able to observe a large portion of our universe, then it is the "Big Bang" theory that will come into question. The problem is that the expected explosion pattern is not visible to us. Everything is relatively uniform. This uniformity does tend to support the "Steady State" theory.

tgbotg: Your statement, "something can&#39;t come from nothing", is one of the great unanswered questions and may be the primary reason that the "Creation" theory is still popular even if it does not actually answer the origin question. To put it in perspective, God (the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth) can not, by definition, be unnatural or supernatural any more than you are unnatural or supernatural just because you constructed a sand castle.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

tgbotg
2003-Jul-31, 08:57 PM
James, I was merely eliminating the possibility of the Steady State theory along with the Big Bang. For your argument in negative entropy, you are using circular reasoning. According to you, the Big Bang theory, along with the current models for the formation of stars and solar systems, must be true, therefore negative entropy must be possible. That is both unscientific and ludicrous. I am a physics major at a state-funded college and I am well aware of the Second LAW of Thermodynamics. Why is it called a law and not a theory? The Big Bang THEORY contradicts the Second LAW of Thermodynamics, therefore it is the theory that must be revised or abolished. It&#39;s in Chapter 14 of my General Physics textbook.

THE ARROW OF TIME
Of all the laws we have studied, only the Second gives a direction to the unfolding of events, to the progression of processes. It points the arrow of time in the "forward" direction--toward maximum disorder. Time stops when all events stop, when nothing happens, and the Second Law provides the direction to processes and to time. Have you ever seen the gases come back, the smoke descend, the light return, the heat pour in, the flame collapse, and a match reform, unburnt and whole? Will the gray hairs spontaneously darken, the skin grow tight and supple, the sags unsag? Not likely&#33; And yet energy would be conserved. If everything reversed and processes ran toward order, would time be going backward? All by itself the game runs downhill, and it is the Second Law that shows the way.
And to address me making a sand castle:

True, you could reach into the system (then no longer isolated) and sort out the sand--you could reestablish order and decrease entropy. But you would spend more order in the effort; you would disorder your breakfast more than you would order the sand--the Universe would lose again. It must lose again.
Wherever entropy is decreasing--in a factory where someone is stringing beas, among the ice cubes in a freezer, or with the cells forming a living embryo--order is rising out of disorder. But whenever that occurs locally, there will always be a hidden harvest of mayhem that overbalances the scales on the side of universal disorder. The freezer will make its ice cubes, but the system isn&#39;t isolated. The cost will be in electrical energy converted to heat and in the end, (delta)S is greater than zero.
In other words, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEGATIVE ENTROPY, not in an isolated system, not even in a non-isolated system. Universal entropy is ALWAYS positive.

James, am I correct in assuming that you believe, should He exist, that God is a natural entity? I believe the only true authority we have on God is His Word. Therefore, it is the best document qualified to define the nature of God. John 4:24, "God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." God is a Spirit, therefore, He is not subject to the scientific laws that He created. He created the Universe, making it a non-isolated system, but, since He is a Spirit and outside of space-time, He did not expend any energy in the Creation of this Universe.

Often mankind underestimates the awesomeness of God and His power. The Titanic was believed to be unsinkable, even by God Himself. Mark 10:27, "But Jesus looked at them and said, &#39;With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.&#39;" I&#39;m not suggesting we forego all cosmological studies. I&#39;m merely saying we should keep these things in mind, all these things, so that we may come to a more correct solution.

Also, should anyone believe the Creation model (which is only logical), then the logical course of action would be to take the account given in Genesis 1 & 2. This does answer the origin question. God is outside time, and therefore eternal. In Revelation 22:13 Jesus says, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." He is eternal. John 1:1-5 explains this as well.

If the Universe has a Creator, then it was created with a purpose. One, not even God, creates something without a purpose. What is that purpose? Only logical thing to do is to read His Word to find out. Nobody likes being told they&#39;re wrong. I&#39;m not trying to just be right. I&#39;m just trying to "show you a more excellent way" (1 Corinthians 12:31).

There are a few other less-popular theories as to the cause of a cosmological redshift. I have not gotten far enough into the holoscience.org website to answer this question, so I don&#39;t know what theories they may have. But there are three others that I&#39;ve come across:

2. Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star&#39;s gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling to the top of a mountain.

3. Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.

4. Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A theoretical understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been developed.
Number 1 is the commonly accepted result of the redshift. It goes on to say that any of these is possible or a combination of these. I like #2 the best, though. But the acceleration of the redshift that is measured supports #3 more than any other. But any combination of the 4 could be correct, according to observable evidence and other possible theories. Here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/406.asp) is where I find the different theories.

Everything should be considered, everything should be questioned, especially theories created by imperfect men. All I ask is you keep an open mind. I have done thorough research into the Big Bang and other cosmological origin theories, but most have two major flaws they can&#39;t get rid of: The First and Second LAWS of Thermodynamics.

Thank you.

imported_James
2003-Aug-05, 10:05 PM
tgbotg:

entropy; It would seem that we each use different definitions for the word entropy. I use the definition to rate the organization of whatever I am referring to. If it is less organized then it exhibits positive entropy (ie. candle burning). If it is more organized then it exhibits negative entropy (ie. water freezing). If it is not changing then it exhibits zero entropy (ie. ball bearing in storage). You can get "technical", but I will always attempt to keep it short and simple in an attempt to avoid confusing others. True, there is a price to pay for order. That is true not only in physics, but also in politics as well as in one&#39;s personal life. Positive entropy will always overtop negative entropy so we must cherish the negative entropy we have. :-]

origin theories; To which origin theory do you subscribe? Unless we start out on the same page, we will have no common references. Nobody can eliminate any origin theory on the basis of its violation of the laws of thermodynamics because it was the origin event that created the environment in which the laws of thermodynamics operate.

God the Creator: If God created the universe, then God exists outside of the universe. I presume that we are perceived as a gestalt. That is to say God sees everything all at once from the beginning to the end. Whatever God&#39;s purpose is, God has always used the most natural, least intrusive, and most effective means available to advance towards this goal. Just because we do not understand the mechanism now does not mean we can not recreate it when we do learn how. For example, when Moses confronted the Pharaoh, his two court magicians they cast their staffs and their staffs changed into serpents. Moses dropped his staff and it changed into a snake that devoured the serpents. How was this done?

red shift; Another theory is that energy is somehow leached from the photon as it travels. Yes, there are many theories and unless you examine them closely and thus eliminate them from contention, there will always be the possibility that more than one theory can be in effect at the same time to explain the red shift observed. The problem then becomes how to quantify how much is accountable for each theory. Personally, I discount any theory that has photons doing anything during its journey because the photon is traveling at the exact speed where time stops for the photon (aka the speed of light or C). The only change is the change in perceived frequency because of the different perspective. In any case, the origins of these photons are ancient by any standards. They were created when the universe was much younger. Who is to say whether or not the conditions were different enough to account for some of the observed red shift?

I have no favorite theory, but I expect all theories to adequately explain what is observed. So far, that rather limits the field.

Lastly, it is not true just because it was published in a textbook. I have seen some errors that have been perpetuated because the author supported a disproved theory.

I wish I had more time for this, but I hope you find this reply adequate. If not, write again.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

Fraser
2003-Aug-05, 11:44 PM
Okay, I have to jump in.

The Big Bang describes how the Universe got into its current formation, with galaxies and stars hurtling apart. I think you&#39;ll find that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is alive and well in our Universe, and has no contradiction with the expansion of the Universe.

What happened to cause the Big Bang and impart the Universe with all this energy and matter? Who knows? But the Big Bang theory doesn&#39;t attempt to explain it - just that the Universe is indeed expanding; and the evidence from numerous directions supports this. There are all kinds of theories which have been postulated, including exploding black holes; interacting dimensions, and even more exotic stuff. None of this rules out a creator.

Although I&#39;m not religious, I&#39;m amazed that some people of faith don&#39;t consider the beauty and wonder of a Universe that&#39;s been operating for over 12 billion years, filled with trillons of stars and potentially inhabited planets to be adequate evidence for their chosen diety. Isn&#39;t that miraculous? Can&#39;t an all-powerful diety create any kind of Universe of any age?

Oh, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be called a "law", but it&#39;s still a "theory". Something can always come along and better explain the evidence.

N3373H
2003-Aug-07, 12:37 AM
Perhaps I can add a small conundrum to the whole Big Bang/creation debate. According to the current theory, time started with the Big Bang. There was nothing before because there was no before. The universe is infinite in time and space in a finite sort of way. If this is true then God would have been created with everything else and not the cause of creation. Also, if the Big Bang cannot be proven then neither can the presence of God. (of course I suppose your extra-dimensional god would explain that) (I apologize for my musing if it offends) :P

I think the point of theories is (the excitement of) the potential for new discoveries. They keep us from stagnating on old ideas. I&#39;m open to all suggestions even though I tend to lean in particular directions.

Here&#39;s a site that explains the Big Bang Theory for other laypersons like myself.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

...and here&#39;s a lecture about The Big Bang, and God.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

...but to get back to the subject matter, check out this article in Phisics Today to help explain what they already have accomplished concerning Dark Matter/Energy
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-4/p10.html

VanderL
2003-Aug-07, 09:33 PM
Thanks for the links N3373H,

This last link is exactly why I&#39;m turning away from science in utter disbelief; how can anyone seriously consider that patching up the theory time after time to save the beautiful equations has anything to do with reality. It says somewhere that scientists are prepared to believe the implausible but not the impossible. I think it has already gone way beyond the impossible. I&#39;m not schooled in astronomy, but I&#39;m trying to understand what I can see. Why is science not going to the basics first. Doesn&#39;t anyone question the assumptions that can lead to the "discovery" of dark matter and dark energy?
Redshift equals distance, it is still not proven. So first address this matter and then start dreaming again.

tgbotg
2003-Aug-09, 08:37 AM
VanderL, I thank you for showing me that Electric Universe site. It certainly is an intriguing idea, and I think that it&#39;s certainly more believable than anything Big Bang cosmologists have dreamt up. It doesn&#39;t explain the Beginning, but it certainly better explains current goings-on in the Universe.

What many people don&#39;t realize is that the Big Bang is kept alive by people who don&#39;t see an alternative except for Creation. James, I subscribe to the literal events as recorded in Genesis. I have given links to better explain why I believe this, and I shall give them again at the end of this post. But ponder the nature of the Almighty God for a second. He plainly gives us His account of how it all came to be, of what He created first, second, and third. "So the evening and the morning were the first day." This indicates a single day, not an age or any other length of time. Did God lie? If so, then the entire Bible is put into question. So Fraser, James, and N3373H, there were no billions of years. God cannot lie; it is one of the few things He cannot do. It is against His nature, or supernature :) .

Also, when considering how God does things, in using the least obtrusive manner, you must also consider the time of when such a thing occurred. The Bible splits time into 3 parts: the Patriarchal Age, the Mosaic Age, and the Christian Age. The Patriarchal Age is from the Beginning to when Moses received the Law from God and sacrificed the first animal as a result of that Law. We have it recorded in the Old Testament. In the Patriarchal Age, God talked to the patriarchs directly and when signs and wonders were called for, He provided them (the snakes story was still in the Patriarchal Age before Moses brought down the Law). Under the Mosaic Age, God worked through people, called prophets, to perform miracles, with the exception of Jesus Himself (He wasn&#39;t a prophet, He is divine). In the Christian Age, which started after Jesus was crucified, God allowed the apostles and those the apostles chose to work miracles through the Holy Spirit. These were used to prove the message of Christ was from God. They are still miracles, things that God did, or had people do through Him, which cannot be explained through conventional means. If God works miracles today, after the apostles are dead and after the ones whom the apostles chose are dead, then it is, indeed, in the least obtrusive manner possible.

You&#39;re right, James, in that just because it&#39;s in a textbook doesn&#39;t make it gospel, so to speak. But I&#39;ve seen nothing to disprove what I showed you, nothing credible anyway. Plus it all makes sense.

Laws should only be revised with other laws, or ammendments to laws, not with idol speculation and baseless theories. The Big Bang has been disproven countless times, and the only one still here who is astute enough to realize it is VanderL and myself. Ray was here for a few postings; where did he go anyway? Of course, I&#39;m not putting VanderL on the side of the Creationists, but he&#39;s not on the Big Bang cosmologist side, and right now that&#39;s good enough for me.

N3373H, God is a hard entity for us limited humans to understand. All that we know of Him can be found in His Word and in His Creation. Since His Creation doesn&#39;t have the answer as to His personal longevity, then His Word is where one must go. As I said, Revelation 22:13, among other places, tells of God&#39;s eternal nature. When one goes to Heaven, or elsewhere, it will be for eternity. Eternity in one direction suggests eternity in the other, for the place itself or for its Creator. God did Create the physical universe as well, but sin crept into the world through humanity, and caused everything to decay (hence the 2nd Law). Of course a limited 2nd Law existed before the Fall (Gen 3), but it was clear that God had a more direct influence on the goings-on of the Universe before the Fall. And I have a horrible tendency to go off into tangents.

Suffice it to say, God exists outside time. Call Him extradimensional if it helps you better understand His nature. If time is, indeed, the 4th dimension, then He certainly exists outside of that. Mathematics has proven at least 10 dimensions, isn&#39;t that right? Someone correct me if I&#39;m wrong on that.

James, if you want to be right, you need to be technical. Especially if you want to understand the true goings-on of the Universe. And "technically", negative entropy is a bedtime story you tell your kids before you tuck them in at night. I think we can give these people enough credit to understand the fallacy of negative entropy. I suppose a melding of the Big Bang and Creationism would solve all your problems with the Big Bang deus ex machina. But, as I&#39;ve related before, the Big Bang was theorized as an alternative to the Creation scenario.

I admit, my beliefs limit the Almighty God. But they only limit Him to what He&#39;s told humanity through the Bible. Also ponder this: Adam was created as an adult. He was intelligent; could you name all the animals? Would it not reason that he created a mature Earth along with all the other celestial bodies? I&#39;m not saying He tricked us into thinking the Universe was ages old. Remember there was no decay, no death, before the Fall. (He called everything "very good" after He finished His Creation.) But a Flood would certainly make things appear older, here on Earth anyway. There are even some Creationists who theorize that instead of just a worldwide flood, it could have been a solar system wide flood. It might explain evidence of water on Mars and ice on Europa. Of course the water referred to in the very beginning (Gen 1:2) could also have resulted in water evidences on Mars.

And earlier, Ray was right. It couldn&#39;t have happened by accident. Well, it could&#39;ve, but the possibility is so infinitessimally remote that it might as well be impossible. Remember, if one takes the Big Bang theory, then he/she must also take evolution. That also has been disproven time and time again. Yet people refuse to listen. People can&#39;t see the implications of what they believe. After all, only one truth is true. Only one can be true. That is the nature of truth. Since God lays it all out for us in Scripture, how can one not see that as what is true?

And now for the links:

The Electric Universe (http://www.holoscience.org). Although it doesn&#39;t entirely follow with what I believe, it is definitely an idea worth considering.

The Big Bang Theory -- A Scientific Critique (Part I) (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0305a.htm). And since this does follow with what I believe, I definitely encourage each of you to take a gander. While you&#39;re at it, take a look at Part II (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0306a.htm). For those who think Creationism and Evolutionism can be melded: The Big Bang Theory -- A Biblical Critique (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0307a.htm).

Here are the links that I displayed before regarding Biblical inspiration, Parts I (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9805a.htm), and II (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9806a.htm). You don&#39;t need Acrobat Reader for these as you did with the other links.

But you will need it for The Case of the Existence of God (http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/cfeog.pdf). It is a .pdf file.

I also encourage you to search for other things on that site, called Apologetics Press (http://www.apologeticspress.org). It has much more there than what I show you here in regard to a literal interpretation of the events in Genesis. It also provides a defense for the inerrant Word of God on countless other issues. Explore it at your leisure.

I&#39;m sorry N3373H, but I do not have the time now, after writing this post, to take a gander at your links. But rest assured, I will look at them in due time. And if I&#39;ve left anything out, I don&#39;t think I&#39;d have to tell you to remind me, and I&#39;ll get to it when I can.

Can I write short posts?

Thanks

John Dedes
2003-Aug-09, 02:23 PM
:rolleyes: In a recent census, astronomers now believe that the Universe is composed of 4% matter, 25% dark matter, and the rest dark energy........or IS IT?

The overwhelming evidence is if you take a better look at all the colour generated imagery is that all galaxies that light up the known universe also "lights" up all the dust and matter around it some of it looks very dense, it also appears that where the density of this "dust" is greater you have the ignition and formation of stars and galaxies.

The universe as we know it would have to consist largely of matter for there to be collisions from the tinest atomic particle to galatical collisions to "create" forces bonding or otherwise?.......hasn&#39;t this been already proven by current imagery? think of driving along a dirt road your car collides with mud particles or dirt and they bond together, then you see a moth splat and some of it bond&#39;s to the windscreen, these bonding forces are the result, however if you collide with another car of a similar mass the chances are they will repel, or repelling forces are at play.....now if the earth collides with a meteor shower or a comet they will bond ,correct?.....but if the earth collided with say, Mars they will disintegrate and most likely repel?...correct?
Now if the Milky way strolled ino a nebula galaxy one quarter of our size I would guess to say that it will "bond" and the milky way will grow and its total force and mass will increase...........but what if it collided with andromeda galaxy, they would both destabilise and most likely repel in most parts.

The universe exists today because of collisions large and small, energy is created by the "collisions" whether it&#39;s light,dark, or whatever, energy is created. Force would be the measurement of the actual collision.


Its also evident that the universe just by looking at the imagery that its a controlled energy transfer station like an invisible "circuit board" ...i.e. the sun shines, photons collide with plants and then the stored energy tranfers from the wood is used for burning then the energy transfers back to heat and then transfers throught the atmosphere....the whole time energy has been stored .........the essential part of all this is the RATE at which energy is transfered from sun to plant to wood to fire to heat to atmosphere and to space and beyond.

If you take this point of view as fact then us, the stars, galaxies, everything that is matter is a by-product of energy transfer. and energy is what made the universe in the first place and everything that exists in this universe is a control mechanism for all this universal energy, that has no begining and no end.

VanderL
2003-Aug-10, 03:00 PM
tgbotg,

You&#39;re damn right I&#39;m not on the Creationist side, and I would be a Big Banger if not for the fact that some astronomers point out time and again that the assumption on which it is based could be wrong. If redshift does not equal distance, as Halton Arp is trying to prove, it would make everything that has been theorized so far meaningless.
Eventually we will know the truth, but I&#39;d rather see it happen in my lifetime. Doesn&#39;t anyone else have this nagging feeling we could be horribly wrong with the Big Bang while the evidence is right under our noses for the past 70 years?

Fraser
2003-Aug-10, 05:32 PM
So what? It&#39;s always cool when one theory is replaced with one that better matches the evidence. The Big Bang is going to be a pretty tough one to unseat, though - it&#39;s just been confirmed in so many ways.

VanderL
2003-Aug-10, 08:37 PM
So What???

Spoken like a true journalist, just report and let others make of it what they want. I&#39;m probably too impatient to wait for the correct theory, either that or because I read Arp&#39;s books.
Like the Peter Hammill song: "I want the future now"&#33;

Arramon
2003-Aug-10, 11:00 PM
rabblerabblerabble...

Just looking at all the Hubble and other pictures that are available is enough to get my head a-thinkin... visualizing what stars are where, how far, deep, how big, what the reflections from the lenses tells... the gravity that pulls each of them by their neighbors... gas clouds obscuring nebulae, showing density, solar winds, currents... galaxy clusters and their angular rotations, the thickness of the bulges at their centers... the eliptical galaxies pushing outward from within, sending elements and raw material into the ISM...

...bothering with numbers is too time consuming right now...
....use the ruler we all have... our eyes...
and being connected to Hubble and all the others..... there ya go....
binoculars...

millions of pictures out there...

....whew... only 999,901 more to go....
..and thats just with the satellites we have now...
wait another 5 years... and BAM&#33; better resolution.. farther magnification...
more sensitive spectral & chemical density analyzing nodes....
negatively charged, pinpoint electromagnetic light streams that both send and receive compressed data ...

oh wait... that last one was in a dream.. =)

. ..-={A}=-.. .

imported_James
2003-Aug-11, 03:01 AM
According to the Bible, God created the Heavens and the Earth. To me this means that God is outside of spacetime. I suspect that God sees all creation as a gestalt. That would guarantee the accuracy of any prophesy which is why the test of prophets are the accuracy of their predictions. There is no "strike two" as the penalty for the first error is death.

As for the rest, I have not read anything that challenges my theory.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

tgbotg
2003-Aug-11, 09:46 AM
So, James, I&#39;m confused on which theory to which you subscribe. You seem to believe in the existence of God, but earlier posts suggest you think He may have used the Big Bang or other means of Creation. If one is to take the Genesis account literally, since there is no other way to take it, then this would be impossible. The first eleven chapters are taken allegorically by many people who believe in the Big Bang and the evolutionary timeline. But this is inconsistent with the remainder of the book. Also, Exodus 20:11 affirms the Creation account. Several other places in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, refer to people in the first eleven chapters, affirming their existence and the events that should be taken literally in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. 1 Peter 3:20 is a good example of this. You&#39;re right, if I understand the meaning of a gestalt, about that particular nature of God. At least, I can&#39;t see any other way for Him to be.

N3373H, I have looked at that Big Bang and God link you posted earlier, and am still not sure where the author stands on the Creation-Evolution issue. I assume he stands for a melding of the two, but as I&#39;ve mentioned earlier, a conservative or any Bible-believing (there really can&#39;t be another kind) Christian cannot believe both and be right. It would make God a liar, which He cannot be. As to your musings, basic scientific "laws" cannot support a godless Big Bang scenario. Something outside of space-time, something supernatural, must be a guiding force for the Big Bang be true. Even in an electric universe things wear down, entropy occurs, and a beginning, with maximum order, must ensue.

VanderL, you may be surprised (or not), but some of those links I gave last time refer to Hilton Arp&#39;s work in debunking the Big Bang. You should give it a look-see, if only to find more ammunition against the Big Bang. Also, the reason the Electric Universe site gives for a surge of culture that came from seemingly nowhere is the events that happened in the early sky. Couldn&#39;t it be possible that the surge of culture occurred because mankind occurred, especially right after the Flood (Gen. 6-8), over 4000 years ago?

John Dedes, I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re saying exactly. Are you suggesting that the Universe is eternal? Oh, and that was nice, actually returning to the original subject. I&#39;d almost forgotten what it was. :)

Fraser, yeah, the Big Bang has been proven in so many ways ... ad hoc. It is analogous to the ancient Ptolemy who created these elaborate equations for the motion of the planets to support a geocentric universe. Then Copernicus comes along and makes the discovery of a heliocentric system with much simpler equations to master. And Kepler makes it even easier by suggesting the elliptical orbits of the planets. C&#39;mon, give us Creationists a challenge. :)

James, you&#39;re right in saying that a test of a prophet was the accuracy of their predictions, but it wasn&#39;t the only one. The miracles they performed on behalf of God also proved them. If miracles didn&#39;t accompany them, who would listen? How would someone know that the prophet is right, before the prophecy comes to pass, without a miracle?

Arramon, are you suggesting we wait for more visual evidence before theorizing on our origins? That hasty or outdated theories should not be taken as absolutes? That we don&#39;t know enough to make any kind of educated guess? It is a good idea, if that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying.

You know, dark matter is analogous to another outdated belief. It was the glue that held everything together, too, before gravity was theorized as being a unifying force and even centuries after. From the time of Aristotle to the 20th century, this theory had survived. Einstein mathematically disproved it; R. Kennedy and E. Thorndike experimentally disproved it in 1932. It was the theory of the aether. Instead of a void, they believed space to be filled with this exotic material called aether. Someone so ancient as Aristotle influenced this theory. The ad hoc idea of the Lorentz-FitzGerald Contraction was even added to it to make it work in 1892. Dark matter/energy is just like this aether. It&#39;s a unifying force that light can travel through. It was changed ad hoc to make it work despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The only appreciable difference between the aether and dark matter/energy is the fact that we don&#39;t believe in the aether anymore. I&#39;d hate to see brilliant minds wasted on such a pointless endeavour.

Thank you.

N3373H
2003-Aug-11, 09:53 PM
Just curious, if God created the universe and all it&#39;s dimensions and is outside of those dimensions, then what created the dimension he&#39;s in? ... and so on and so forth? :unsure:

gary
2003-Aug-12, 07:13 AM
Dark Energy,

............could this be God ?

Arramon
2003-Aug-12, 02:28 PM
...that&#39;s like asking, is my arm really attached to my body...

our whole universe is one big operating system of molecules, atoms, elements, reactive particles, and attracting/repulsing energies....

..um... kind of like our own bodies....

so whats to say that we aren&#39;t IN God already.... his own body... and are seeing His functions from within.... we are made of His image, yes?

=)

. ..-={A}=-.. .

imported_James
2003-Aug-12, 08:04 PM
Off topic reply to tgbotg:
I am no bible scholar so I am not going to try to justify it. I do not even own a copy so I can not look up your references. My point is that what was not written is how God did it. That leaves the "how" open to speculation.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

VanderL
2003-Aug-12, 10:23 PM
tgbotg,

The Electric Universe website tells us to look for ourselves at what science considers dogma, and not take anything for granted or gospel ( yes, that includes the bible).
Some of the dogma&#39;s:

1. The sun (like every star) is a giant fusion reactor.
2. Redshift equals distance
3. The Universe started some 13 billion years ago from a singularity
4. Electrical fields do not exist in space
5. The only force that was used on cosmological scales is gravity (the weakest of all forces)
6. Black holes are real
7. Dark matter must exist because we can&#39;t otherwise explain the motion of the galaxies
8. Dark energy must exist because of redshift discrepancies

I really don&#39;t know if the electric universe is the final answer, but it seems to me we should give it a try.

Fraser you said earlier:
"In a recent census, astronomers now believe that the Universe is composed of 4% matter, 25% dark matter, and the rest dark energy.

I really feel that astronomy is reaching a golden age. I can&#39;t wait to see the new theories and experiments that help explain what dark matter and dark energy might actually be."

I think astronomy is still literally in the dark age and I hope we soon find enough evidence for an electric or plasma universe and get rid of all the constructs. Let&#39;s face it the universe is dynamic, evolving and very, very old.

tgbotg
2003-Aug-13, 04:26 AM
N3373H, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is based on time: the 4th dimension. Outside of these 4 dimensions it is possible to conceive that things do not wear down, entropy does not occur, and, therefore, can be eternal. If the dimension that God exists in is independent of time, then it can be around for eternity.

Gary, the whole concept of dark matter/energy is an ad hoc one for the Big Bang theory: a theory to try to eliminate God from the equation. So I doubt "dark energy" is God.

Arramon, forgive me for saying so, your beliefs sound almost Native American in origin. Or hippie. In a sense, God is in everything since He did make it. But God is perfect. This world, and everything in it, are obviously not. We are His Creation, not He Himself. And yes, we are created in His image, but since He is a Spirit, He, by definition, cannot have two legs, two arms, a head, or any other parts that a human body has. What He has is a soul, the ability to reason, to think, to contemplate His surroundings. No other animal truly has that capability. As I&#39;ve said before, if one takes the Big Bang, one must also take evolution. According to evolution we are no different than the animals, except we have a more developed brain. And animals have the capability to evolve into intelligent beings like us one day. So, according to evolution, we are not the ones made in the image of God, no one is. And if we&#39;re talking strict biology, then yes, we have few characteristics dissimilar from animals. But God instilled in us a living soul, one capable of reason, of thinking, and of contemplation: in His image.

James, you&#39;re right in that we don&#39;t know exactly how God created the Universe. What we do know is that it was in six days, and in what order He created everything. No Bible? No problem. Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) has it online for your referencing convenience. :D

VanderL, I&#39;m sure if you were to look back on some of my earlier postings, I said to question everything, to challenge everything we know to be truth. That has not changed. With that, I am in full agreement with you. And all of those things you listed should, most definitely, not be taken for granted. But you see, I have questioned the Bible&#39;s authenticity. But it has never lied to me before. I can see few people have actually visited the links I produced. And if they have, they&#39;ve failed to think of the implications of what they read. That is sad to see, proving that not all of you are as open-minded as you claim.

Since this is an astronomy forum, I will forego the evidences in archaeology, biology, oceanography, and medicine. I will forego the amazing unity of a piece of literature written by over 40 individuals in over 1500 years. I will forego the countless prophecies made in the Old Testament that came true hundreds, sometimes thousands of years later in the New Testament. Here is some evidence from the field of astronomy of the Bible&#39;s inspiration:

Psalm 19:5-6 contains several interesting scientific facts. In speaking of the Sun, the psalmist suggested that "his going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." For years Bible critics scoffed at Bible believers, stating that this verse taught the false concept of geocentricity (i.e., the Sun revolves around the Earth). Then it was discovered that the Sun was the center of our solar system, not the Earth. People subsequently felt that the Sun was stationary, with the Earth revolving around it.

Only recently has it been discovered that rather than being fixed in space, the Sun actually is in an orbit of its own. In fact, it is estimated to be moving through space at the rate of 600,000 miles per hour, in an orbit so large it would take approximately 220,000,000 years to complete just one orbit. How did the psalmist portray such accurate statements--when people of this day, and for years afterward, taught that just the opposite was true? And, by the way, there is another gem packed away in these two verses. The psalmist hinted at the fact that the Sun is the source of energy for the Earth ("and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof"). An amazing statement, is it not, considering when it was written and by whom?
This is just an excerpt from this link:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/idobi.pdf

Thank you.

John Dedes
2003-Aug-13, 02:12 PM
:unsure: :blink: :ph34r: :( :angry: :) B) :rolleyes: <_< :lol: :D :P :huh: :o ;) if you were an"ant" and evovled to the level of intelligence of humans today, and with the technology of today you would probably think the earth was the universe and just discovering that continents exist somewhere no-one knows excately where but by listening they know they exist. You&#39;ll probably bynow think that distance stars are quasars and everything in between is "dark matter", and the sun would be something that they could see but understand little about. You would have no idea that the stars you see is part of a massive spiral structure called the milky way let alone of having anyconcept of the universe beyond.

WE humans today still know very little about the universe and the suprises yet installed to be dazzled and amazed. Dark Matter may be a stepping stone in the overall understanding of makes up the known universe but it is more significant you just don&#39;t jump to conclusive judgements i.e the big bang got the universe started etc etc. with better imagery,in time more secrets will be unlocked and many more discoveries made. For all those creationists who try to enforce their creationists views on this forum, will fade away as background noise in the light of new information and imagery of what the universe is about and the frenzy of what lies beyond will become the driving force for astronomy.

For us to understand more we need to be able to see more and furtherthan ever before, the hubble was a fantastic stepping stone, but to understand more is to be able to see more, since 70% of learning is through our sight sensor, this is how we would learn more than by any other method.

At a guess we would probably discover that clusters of galaxies are mere systems similar to the weather systems on earth and that it is all part of a much much larger picture of which is yet to be discovered. Its possible many theories out today like dark energy etc etc have had some part to play in the orchestration of the universe, but some of the answers to how everything in the unverse ticks could be be a simple as "volume" and the shear power that "volume" possess.

Arramon
2003-Aug-13, 03:02 PM
well... i&#39;m not native american (unless you call being born here a native of america)... or a hippie (too young =P) ....but i do believe that this universe is a collective organism.... the similarities are too much the same when you back up and look at a wide view of the universe and how everything is functioning around eachother (in very sloooow terms... but functionin within a constant none the less... ie the CMB)...
and i would never presume to think what God may DO or BE.... but He IS everywhere... for their is life everywhere... even in the most uninhabitable places. And even animals contemplate their surroundings... for they lok for places to have their young, places that would provide shelter, food, even away from other predators that would try to eat them or their young... animals can be very territorial, just like humans... we may not eat eachother, but we sure as hell kill eachother...
Dolphins & chimps & gorillas, they can communicate.. plus other less known species... they may not be able to pilot a ship or drive a car, or make a burrito, but ya never know.... science is going pretty fast right now =)
bobo, go make me a bean & cheese if you could...

and of course the world isn&#39;t perfect... thats because of us.... not the animals...
we use the resources to develope things, not them or the flora or fauna...

Most of the time.... other species on earth are alot more sensitive to the environment around them than we are...

and the to end...

i dont see us coming from the same line as other species.... else their would be records of human fossils in various stages throughout the continents, back when the continents were close to eachother... in areas where they should be plentiful amounts of fossils.... not just a skull.... or a leg or two and some arms...
Where are the humans with tails? or the ones with fins... or with gills... the amphibious ones? we couldn&#39;t have just sprouted from goo creature to homo erectus... oi&#33;&#33; =P

i just go with the facts that present themselves.... and being only 28, i know that i will find other facts to alter or persuade me to think certain ways........

But BB doesn&#39;t nesecarrily mean Evolution on a human scale...
maybe humans were added after the fact.... after all the radiation and &#39;bad pie&#39; spread out enough to give us room to operate (without being cooked or something)... other life may have been present early on... stuff that we may not even know exists...

but, i agree with one thing.. we are unique... and most definitely have a purpose for being here.... and must not lose that chance...


. ..-={A}=-.. .
-------------------

"if i&#39;m a monkey... then you&#39;re mother&#39;s a pile of goo..."

polymath
2003-Aug-14, 10:15 PM
I think that the introduction a god into the arguments about the formation of the universe only muddy the issue. All gods and religions are man-made so they prove nothing. Incidentally, those who have used the word god so far in this thread should make clear that they are talking about the Christian god ( and a fundamentalist one at that). There are many other gods besides christ - allah, jehovah, brahma, to name a few. Why don&#39;t some Moslems or Hindus give us the benefit of their religious theories about creation - it won&#39;t help us scientifically but like the Christian creationists will make fior amusing reading.

I believe that we live in a godless Universe; we must look to science and to human understanding and instinct to help unravel the mysteries of this wonderful and awe-inspiring universe. There can be no more exciting or challenging quest.

Arramon
2003-Aug-14, 10:27 PM
i could only believe that the awe inspiring that you speak of can come from a being that would know what the hell He was doin....

it can&#39;t be godless.... for something had to come first..... it may be on a level that we may never fully understand, until the shroud of death covers us.... but a being of vast amounts of power had to of created us.....

the universe couldn&#39;t just be its own puddle of goo in the beginning with nothing else there.... something always begins with another...
even singularities... all things have a starting point....
can you name some that dont&#39;? maybe i&#39;m missing something....
but, to believe that we have nothing above and aorund us to whom gives us thought and life and an understanding of how small we are, would just seem to unlikely.... even if i never SEE this &#39;god&#39;, i still feel within that someThing exists that knew what It was doing in the beginning... could chaos organize itself enough to create life? that would be interesting to find out...

i for one won&#39;t say that somethingisn&#39;t there just becuz i havent seen it... just like the peanut butter and jelly sandwich.... i love it... and probably still would even if i never tasted or knew about it.... i just wouldn&#39;t know to what the affection may be for.... but, i would have an acheing to find it&#33;&#33; =)

mmmmm pb & j&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; BB & the big G&#33;&#33; and the provocation of Eternity&#33;

. ..-={A}=-.. .

WendellG
2003-Aug-14, 11:54 PM
Ok, this dark matter stuff is WAY beyond anything they taught me in the Marine Corps, or later on in Nursing School. But, given that every action has an equal or opposite reaction wouldn&#39;t it make sense that the universe needs dark matter too?

Semper Fi,

Wendell

tgbotg
2003-Aug-15, 07:00 AM
There was a comment I made earlier regarding dark matter that I must point out. Gary asked if dark energy could be God Himself. There is a Scripture that mentioned God&#39;s "invisible attributes" (Romans 1:20). But that, no doubt, is talking of His spiritual nature, and of the wonders of the Universe, glorifying Him. To get a better idea of the context, read Romans 1:18-32. If you need that Bible link again, it&#39;s further up on this thread. I recommend the NKJV, it&#39;s the one I&#39;m using.

polymath, the God I refer to everytime I use the word is the God of the Bible. And really, there is no other god. All are man-made, except for the One True God. And if you can back up your claims on a godless Universe, then I suggest you try. I have given plenty of information on my beliefs and why I believe them. It is up to all of you to look at it. If idle claims are good enough for all of you, then this is no science-based forum.

I am pleased to see such a diverse group of people responding to these posts. I&#39;d like to run a pole somehow of what each of you believes. I don&#39;t know exactly how to do that. Maybe I&#39;ll just ask the question here:

To what origin theory do you subscribe? Why?

I think it&#39;s quite obvious what I believe. But for those of you who are new to this thread and are too lazy to read everything, I believe in the literal account given by Genesis. Six days, light before stars, the whole bit. And it should not be a Christian&#39;s job to prove that light came before stars; what we should do is defend its possibility. Revelation 21:23 talks of there being no sun or moon but there being light while 1 Peter 3:15-16 talk of the necessity of our defending "the hope that is in [us]."

WendellG, what is the action/reaction to dark matter?

What one fails to challenge in these fora (plural of forum) is the dogma of the Big Bang. It may help explain the redshift, and in that it works. But there are so many more implications to that belief than one can realize. It suggests that the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics are meaningless and that they no longer mean anything. It suggests, on a more Biblical note, that God lied on the Creation account. Dark matter/energy was invented to make the Big Bang work. Also, there are other theories as to the result of the redshift, as I&#39;ve mentioned before. So the Big Bang isn&#39;t the only explanation, and shouldn&#39;t be treated as such.

Arramon, I like the way you look at things. You&#39;re exactly right about human evolution. Where are all the "missing links" and all that? And when I said that about animals not contemplating their surroundings, well, I was using a poor choice of words. They do, but more on a primal scale, more for survival. We, too, endeavour to survive, but we contemplate on much more than that. At least some of us do. And animals do communicate. I meant that they don&#39;t communicate on a scale that we do. They cannot articulate a complex language as we can. I also do not suggest the animals are responsible for our pollution problems. God created a very intricate ecological system, and it is we who are responsible for mucking it up. And I think that Romans passage mentioned above explains your ideas quite well especially verse 20.

VanderL, I don&#39;t believe totally in the Electric Universe theory. All circuits need a source, right? What is this source/Source? Are there resistors or capacitors? If so, what are they? Are they stars? Also, these "Birkeland currents" in space seem about as hokey as dark matter. But perhaps I have not examined all the evidence for these things yet.

John Dedes, what if the more we discover, the more BB cosmologists must ad hoc to their precious idea when a much simpler Creationist view of the Universe would explain it much better? Or even if an Electric Universe model would explain it better? Occum&#39;s Razor: "All things being equal, the most simple solution is the right one." Roughly paraphrasing, you understand, but very profound nonetheless. Which is simpler? The Big Bang with all of its ad hoc addenda (plural for addendum)? The Electric Universe idea? A Creation/BB hybrid? A Creation/EC hybrid? Or a strict Creationist view? Hmm. Do you even know enough about each theory to make an educated guess?

It&#39;s similar to scientists searching for intelligent life on only Earth-type planets. For the longest time, they believed that life could only have happened on Earth-type planets. They failed to realize that, if evolution were true (which many believe it is), then intelligent life could&#39;ve evolved in Jupiter&#39;s clouds, adapted to the cold, no need of water, feeds on the clouds, adapted to the radiation. I mean, there could even be creatures who dwell happily in the vacuum of space&#33; And feed on dark matter. :P Most of us would think that looking for intelligent life on only Earth-type planets would be silly, but they believed that those were the only places that intelligent life could&#39;ve developed. Granted, it might be easier to communicate with beings like that, but not impossible otherwise. Now I personally don&#39;t believe in ET. I am just using this as an example of scientist dogma that has not been proven true or false.

And I&#39;m not trying to "enforce" anything. I am merely broadening all of your horizons, hoping you&#39;ll accept the possibility of my belief and maybe change your beliefs in light of evidence you hadn&#39;t earlier considered.

What I am stressing is an open mind to all the evidence presented here and in your own research. Many believe that Creationists are the most close-minded individuals that have ever lived. Well, I won&#39;t argue with you, some are. But not all of us. I, on the same token, could say that athiests and agnostics are the most close-minded individuals. But I know that not all of them are. And I hope that most of you are open-minded to new ideas, or new research (or new to you) in old ideas.

And I think I&#39;m going to make a PB&J right now. B)

Thank you.

VanderL
2003-Aug-15, 10:06 PM
tgbotg,

Why do you insist on discussing the concept of God, it has nothing to do with science and the idea of God is not falsifiable (the hallmark of a scientific model). You cannot disprove the existence of such an entity, so you cannot approach it scientifically.

Look at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm and if needed just keep on reading, it explains how science should work and then it explains how stars function when viewed in electrical terms, especially the more exotic variable stars suddenly seem a lot less exotic. I think it is worth a very careful look.

I hope we can discuss the topic of dark energy/ dark matter a little further. I agree with you that the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. Concepts like inflation, neutron stars/neutronium, black holes, dark matter and dark energy are all theoretical constructs, invented to keep the BB theory alive. It should be the other way around, first we gather data, then we make a model and then we test and adjust the model. If too many adjustments are needed the theory is probably wrong and we need a new theory. I don&#39;t see this happening at all. When looking at the Big Bang, it keeps limping on, because people believe that it MUST be true, just like religion, in disregard of overwhelming evidence against it.
In my opinion an Electric/Plasma model would fit the data better, but everyone should make up its own mind. And don&#39;t let other people tell you what to believe.

L.

Arramon
2003-Aug-15, 10:24 PM
think for yourself? question authority?
very true...
but to what ends?
everyone can&#39;t be right.... and everyone can&#39;t be wrong...
there is no middle ground?
there just may be....
and we may be standing right on it...
Dark matter and energy, are they opposites?
Dark matter seems to be clustered deeply within a galaxy, while dark energy repulses from the outside of the galaxy within the ISM... is dark energy repulsing the dark matter along? kind of like two magnetic pieces.... facing one way, one repulses the other, and if the other is turned around it attracts the other...
does dark energy repulse singularities? or would black holes attract the force of dark energy along with dark matter?and in so doing, forcing the dark energy to keep the galaxy cluster constantly in a repulsing motion.. like a carrot tied to a stick, dangling infront of a animal, while the stick is strapped to the animal... the animal can&#39;t grab the carrot, because the animal is moving the stick at the same time, forcing the carrot to move with it...

that was alittle stretched... but hey&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I like carrots too =)

. ..-={A}=-.. .

VanderL
2003-Aug-16, 08:14 AM
Arramon,

The very concept of dark matter and dark energy is questionable, so there&#39;s no need to think of a way to give it meaning, unless it is proven to exist. The only thing that is proven until now is that the motion of the galaxies isn&#39;t doing what the equations dictate, so I say get new equations and look at the assumptions on which they were based. In science one should search for the truth and if you are unsure what the data mean, just say so and don&#39;t go off speculating.

John Dedes
2003-Aug-18, 03:01 PM
tgbotg......how rude to comment{to elevate yourself above and beyond}by asking whether I even know enough about each theory to make an educated guess. I thought 30 years of studying astronomy would account for something? My suggestion towards the end was clear if you bothered to read thus far.....I stated its possible that theories discussed today may have some part in the orchestration of the universe. .....meaning not just the one theory. It would be insane even ridiculus to think that the universe started from a "bang" or its just an electrically based energy system or thermodynamics on its own had anything to do with it. Ask yourself and think "small" to think "big" how does our solar system "tick" or how it even started? is it electricity,dark matter,gravity,etc,etc or is it an orchestrated series of simultaneous events?......our solar system is part of the universe why would the universe as a whole be any different? The forum is about many different opinions and points of views some may not be to your liking i.e "creationists views". however in the spirit of understanding and learning asking for more information or clarifictaion is a more appropriate approach.

I will always be more than happy to clarify my position, and stand by my own theory that the universe started and its workings today are as a result of an orchestrated simultaneous evolution, with multiple theories at play. Rather than by starting from a big bang its been more like a slow ignition with many theories playing a part to create what we see in our imagery today.


The logic behind my theory is simple, take earth for example as our universe, dark matter,gravity electricity,all combined with external heating forces to weld together a planet and in time was heated from within as well and with biodiversity it evolved to what we see today. Who in this forum would believe me if i said earth was created or evovled in a matter of seconds? Is the rest of the universe so different it has to have comfort zone theories?

I do concur with most theories and they make practical and scientific sense however just like the human body, the brain is useless if it has no body attached to it and the heart can&#39;t function without other vital organs interconnected with it. The same applies to the theories floated in this forum, on their own they are useless, in the right place we have something.

btw tgbotg no hard feelings I do like some of your views and look forward to healthy discussion.

Arramon
2003-Aug-18, 03:09 PM
Not speculating leaves an open ground for another to come in and claim they know what they are talking about...
When, in fact, none of us do...
But, to let the mind consume this knowledge leads the conscious (and even unconscious) thought to speculations upon its own accord...
Your mind processes without your permission, so bringing these thoughts to voice is only bringing your processes of thought to the conscious level...
If no one speculated, we probably wouldn&#39;t know the earth was round, and wouldn&#39;t have sent others off into the wide blue yonder to discover new lands...
I&#39;m just letting my mind try to fit these puzzles together without any hinderance, giving my thought its natural process... (i AM human, ya know...)
and am only going on what we&#39;ve discovered so far...
My perceptions of things may alter or change, but that would be for my conscious and unconscious thought to decide, with the accumulation of knowledge and data, and of the understanding of my mind.

Besides... this whole forum is just speculation... built upon gathered knowledge, one may tend to speculate with the best of one&#39;s own processes...
and to never cease to gather that knowledge would only broaden one&#39;s views upon said speculations...

=P

. ..-={A}=-.. .

rocketa
2003-Aug-18, 04:41 PM
There is a grave problem amongst scientists. It comes from the concept of INVESTMENT = BELIEF. Investment is in the form of the amount of research, the trust in colleagues, the monies gained in grants and many other factors. The belief comes from the fact that those factors generate pleasure (in a maximum simplification) and pleasure is better than pain.

Watch attacks ad hominum by scientists against those challenging their beliefs. (the idea of "challenge" says it all, doesn&#39;t it) the tempest in a teapot over cold fusion comes to mind- the refutation should come from an examination of facts, not from accusations against personalities.

And this "investment&#39; is an incorrect attitiude towards what is known. The mind should be ever open and agile- ready to pounce on a new concept of worth and carry out permutations against other concepts of worth. Simply, BELIEF has no place in science. There should be only temporary acknowledgement of a structure that seems to work but is easily and gracefully discarded.

Arramon
2003-Aug-18, 04:58 PM
So what does that say about the &#39;beliefs&#39; that have been around for thousands of years? =)

doesn&#39;t say anything nice, i would think...
But, those &#39;beliefs&#39; have been a foundation to which many Men have found solace within personal understanding...
Certain &#39;beliefs&#39; may be deconstructive towards one&#39;s own personification of how life must be, or how life should be... or of how life is.
Other &#39;beliefs&#39; give way to better understandings of how life differs throughout the world, and, most importanlty, throughout the universe...
Difference is good =)
Ignorance is not...
And to learn new things, we are given the opportunity to better understand another&#39;s own view on life... we may not become as they are... but we may begin to see as they do...
Perception of the world around us is never truelly the same between to different individuals... we think one way, and find scrutiny in another. But, if we are to never question what is, and why it is, how are we to better understand the functions of ALL things, without first seeing that being and thinking differently is just a way of life...
We must consume the knowledge of all beings first before we can truelly begin to understand the meanings behind any certain &#39;belief&#39;, or even scientific &#39;theory&#39;, for that matter.... examine all facets of the universe, catalogue, file away, keep on hand, compare notes, alter your designs, models, accordingly...
Distinguigh yourself as one who is part of the whole, before you can first claim yourself as seperate from it...

...sorry... i&#39;m just full of instant oatmeal today... =P

. ..-={A}=-.. .

Nico.B
2004-Mar-10, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by fraser@Jul 23 2003, 05:01 AM
I don&#39;t see how the discovery of additional matter/energies is concerning to scientists in any way. This is the whole point of scientific exploration.

Right: After Ptolemeus found the orbits of planets around the
Sun were necessarily Circles (since God is Perfect, and so is a Circle) he needed tens of Circles and epi-circles for fitting purposes. They increased in number, for the known planets (excluding the outer planets Uranus and Pluto, I believe) with every increasing accuracy of measurement, untill some 77 Circles and epi-Circles - at the time of Kepler (1600). Kepler, after a lifetime of fitting and refitting - forced by the very accurate measurements he inherited from Tigho Brahé (a Dane, in the service of King Rudolf in Prague) - eventually found that a slightly more generalized quadratic: the Ellipse, was doing a Much Better job than Circles.
Now our Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the Epi-circles of past times: nothing more and nothing less :: just fitting the Data - without having a Clue of what Really is going on&#33;
--- What I&#39;m waiting for is the New Ellipse Principle that we&#39;re all missing (I am not a specialist, but if someone suggests that EM-filed propagates with a constant speed &#39;c&#39; of Light,
and then declares there is NO medium to propagate in --
Then I am certain we are still in the Dark ... (whatever;-)
Check it out: http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop

Dark Matter was discovered when astronomers found that the movement of objects in the Universe didn&#39;t match up with the predicted gravity when you added up all the "stuff" that we know about (rocks, water, people, photons, etc).

Dark Energy is a recently discovered mysterious repulsive force that works against gravity, and seems to be accelerating objects in the Universe away from each other. It was discovered when astronomers tried to determine once and for all if gravity would cause the Universe to collapse back in on itself in a big crunch, or if it had enough momentum to keep expanding forever. The evidence was completely shocking, as it turned out that some energy was appearing in the vaccuum of space and causing objects to push away from each other. The more space between objects, the more of this dark energy that seems to appear.

[ . . . ]
I really feel that astronomy is reaching a golden age. I can&#39;t wait to see the new theories and experiments that help explain what dark matter and dark energy might actually be.

Precisely, but don&#39;t talk about them as &#39;existing&#39; quantities,
They are just Fitting-assumptions, just as the Epi-Circles ;-)
-- untill someone gets a Bright Idea (...Ellipse...) -- NB
I don&#39;t see how the discovery of additional matter/energies is concerning to scientists in any way. This is the whole point of scientific exploration.

>> Right: After Ptolemeus found the orbits of planets around the
Sun were necessarily Circles (since God is Perfect, and so is a Circle) he needed tens of Circles and epi-circles for fitting purposes. They increased in number, for the known planets (excluding the outer planets Uranus and Pluto, I believe) with every increasing accuracy of measurement, untill some 77 Circles and epi-Circles - at the time of Kepler (1600). Kepler, after a lifetime of fitting and refitting - forced by the very accurate measurements he inherited from Tigho Brahé (a Dane, in the service of King Rudolf in Prague) - eventually found that a slightly more generalized quadratic: the Ellipse, was doing a Much Better job than Circles.
Now our Dark Matter and Dark Energy are the Epi-circles of past times: nothing more and nothing less :: just fitting the Data - without having a Clue of what Really is going on&#33;
--- What I&#39;m waiting for is the New Ellipse Principle that we&#39;re all missing (I am not a specialist, but if someone suggests that EM-filed propagates with a constant speed &#39;c&#39; of Light,
and then declares there is NO medium to propagate in --
Then I am certain we are still in the Dark ... (whatever;-)
Check it out: http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop
<<

Dark Matter was discovered when astronomers found that the movement of objects in the Universe didn&#39;t match up with the predicted gravity when you added up all the "stuff" that we know about (rocks, water, people, photons, etc).

Dark Energy is a recently discovered mysterious repulsive force that works against gravity, and seems to be accelerating objects in the Universe away from each other. It was discovered when astronomers tried to determine once and for all if gravity would cause the Universe to collapse back in on itself in a big crunch, or if it had enough momentum to keep expanding forever. The evidence was completely shocking, as it turned out that some energy was appearing in the vaccuum of space and causing objects to push away from each other. The more space between objects, the more of this dark energy that seems to appear.

[ . . . ]
I really feel that astronomy is reaching a golden age. I can&#39;t wait to see the new theories and experiments that help explain what dark matter and dark energy might actually be.

>> Precisely, but don&#39;t talk about them as &#39;existing&#39; quantities,
They are just Fitting-assumptions, just as the Epi-Circles ;-)
-- untill someone gets a Bright Idea (...Ellipse...) -- NB
<<