It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the accomplishments of creation " science "

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

For a closed universe the total density has to be greater than that of a flat universe. The total density of an open universe has to be less than a flat universe.


I agree, but conditionally, as these statements imply assumptions that may, or may not, be true.

Density is the number of items in a bounded set. It makes no sense to speak of density of an unbounded set. We must have a boundary or limitation to count the number of items contained.

In an infinite universe, we may rightly speak of a per-volume density, but we cannot assume an even distribution of items.

Consider that an infinite universe is likely to contain an infinite number of objects, most of which are beyond our ability to detect (the part of the set that we can observe being finite) so we could never determine if the density of observed objects is representative of the whole.


That doesn't take into account vacuum energy, or the cosmological constant. At the Big Bang event, energy was in the form of radiation. As radiation cooled, it became the cosmic background radiation which we detect today. Visible matter makes up only a small portion of the energy density. The contribution of dark energy, which causes the acceleration of the universe, and dark matter (without exact measurements) are estimated to be close to critical energy density causing the universe to be flat. Not open, not closed - but flat. The net energy of the universe is zero.


While the net energy being zero 'feels right', I don't think we are in a position to make such an unequivocal statement.

You have to remember that the figures for the estimates of dark energy are calculated from observed values. You cannot say those same calculations prove the observed, from a basis of the theoretical, because that is just backwards.

edit on 16/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

For a closed universe the total density has to be greater than that of a flat universe. The total density of an open universe has to be less than a flat universe.


I agree, but conditionally, as these statements imply assumptions that may, or may not, be true.

Density is the number of items in a bounded set. It makes no sense to speak of density of an unbounded set. We must have a boundary or limitation to count the number of items contained.

In an infinite universe, we may rightly speak of a per-volume density, but we cannot assume an even distribution of items.

Consider that an infinite universe is likely to contain an infinite number of objects, most of which are beyond our ability to detect (the part of the set that we can observe being finite) so we could never determine if the density of observed objects is representative of the whole.


That doesn't take into account vacuum energy, or the cosmological constant. At the Big Bang event, energy was in the form of radiation. As radiation cooled, it became the cosmic background radiation which we detect today. Visible matter makes up only a small portion of the energy density. The contribution of dark energy, which causes the acceleration of the universe, and dark matter (without exact measurements) are estimated to be close to critical energy density causing the universe to be flat. Not open, not closed - but flat. The net energy of the universe is zero.


While the net energy being zero 'feels right', I don't think we are in a position to make such an unequivocal statement.

You have to remember that the figures for the estimates of dark energy are calculated from observed values. You cannot say those same calculations prove the observed, from a basis of the theoretical, because that is just backwards.


There's a difference between a closed/open/isolated system in classical thermodynamics and a closed/open system in cosmology.

In classical thermodynamics a closed system has a boundary where anything inside the system doesn't interact with the outside environment. An open system can interact with its environment and has no defined boundary.

In cosmology, a closed system is the amount of matter/energy/density required for the universe to contract due to gravity. An open system implies that the matter/energy/density isn't sufficient to stop expansion. Neither state requires a boundary. The expansion creates space (I think) but wouldn't have a boundary because that would imply that there is something beyond the expansion. In other words, having a boundary would imply that the universe is expanding into something. It takes two objects to create a boundary. Our logic is based on our every day experience with boundaries. But the universe expands into.............. who knows what, if anything. If it's nothingness, then there is no boundary. At least that's my logic.

The net energy of zero makes sense. When you drop a ball it initially has potential energy. The potential energy is translated into kinetic energy as the ball falls. When the ball hits the ground, its energy is zero. In effect, the ball has positive energy which is cancelled by the negative energy of gravity. That outcome will always be zero. Why would the universe be any different?

I'm not sure that density requires a fixed boundary. Add/subtract a single atom and the volumetric density changes. The atom doesn't necessarily have to cross a boundary to do so. You can create an imaginary boundary for convenience of measurement I suppose. But I don't think it's required.


edit on 17-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

what I am saying is there is not way to verify what we see of the elements in distant galaxies are the same as on the earth despite what any computer ways. you have to go their a verify the veracity of the data before making conclusions that those elements are out there.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

what I am saying is there is not way to verify what we see of the elements in distant galaxies are the same as on the earth despite what any computer ways. you have to go their a verify the veracity of the data before making conclusions that those elements are out there.
The flaw in your reasoning is that if they went and collected some substance from a distant star and analyzed it in the lab on earth, they'd use the same type of spectroscopic analysis here as they do through a telescope, so why do they need to go get a sample and bring it here?

The only reason I can think of for wanting samples is to see if any galaxies might be made of anti-matter, but there are other lines of evidence suggesting that other galaxies aren't made of anti-matter. That would be nice to confirm though, but as for elemental analysis, spectroscopy works quite well.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Your original claim was:

"evolution proposes that conscious beings came from the random behavior of matter "

That's wrong. There is much more involved in the process, like I said, natural selection is not random and is a huge factor in the process of the evolution of conscious beings. Next time come up with a better description instead of using vague generalizations to falsely try to make science look bad.
edit on 1 17 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
1) evolution proposes that conscious beings came from the random behavior of matter

2) creationism proposes that matter came from an always-existent Conscious Being


It makes much more sense to me that a highly intelligent Conscious Spirit formed matter effortlessly, rather than matter working against all odds to create the complexity of human beings and solar systems out of randomness.


Coop, your learning curve is flat. Jeez, don't you ever study?

There is no such thing as "the random behavior of matter". Here is the description of the PHYSICAL states of matter from a first year chemistry book:



Would you please, once and for all, get yourself a few good books? Here's a link to free chemistry courses online. Isn't it about time?????????????????????????????????

alison.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



How can People think that randomnes exists in Our universe....... Our universe is crontrolled by universal laws. All matter is no matter what it is as long it is a part of Our universe.



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Matter is always in a state of flux, atrophy, known as the second law of Thermodynamics.
edit on 17-1-2018 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Phantom423

Matter is always in a state of flux, atrophy, known as the second law of Thermodynamics.


You could use a chemistry book as well. In the meantime, read this:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Phantom423

Matter is always in a state of flux, atrophy, known as the second law of Thermodynamics.


Your point is?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423

How can People think that randomnes exists in Our universe....... Our universe is crontrolled by universal laws. All matter is no matter what it is as long it is a part of Our universe.



Exactly. If any of the major forces were to change the entire universe would go through an instantaneous radical change. Their argument is that mathematics don't imply intelligence... You can't argue with these post-modernists. They are purposefully ambiguous and thrive in the gray area.


originally posted by: Phantom423

There is no such thing as "the random behavior of matter".


Which was my point. All matter acts according to particular fundamental laws of physics. These mathematically predictable laws were implemented by an Intelligent Being. You have to dig your head very deep in the secular sand to ignore this obvious postulate.
edit on 18-1-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


Randomness dont exist. I would like to see how they have proven that to have happened.

Randomness is just a Word With a definition in the dictionary.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Creating a universe with all the bells and whistles, physical laws, etc. in the lab may be no big deal in the future.
This universe may be a simulation programmed to develop and evolve just like it is now.

None of this implies a "God" in the Christian-religious sense, although anything is possible when you don't know the answer.

Enough work has been done on the topic of creating universes that the probability is high that it will happen.

I don't object to people believing in a God(s). I object to people believing that they actually know something when they have not an iota of scientific evidence.




posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

If you think this is a simulation.....who is doing the simulations?


Why have a simulation if it dosent have a purpose?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423

If you think this is a simulation.....who is doing the simulations?


Why have a simulation if it dosent have a purpose?



Why do you have to know who's doing the simulation? Maybe that isn't possible. Maybe the programmer decided to remain hidden. The programmer may have a purpose but maybe we can't know that either.

It's all speculation until there's hard evidence. Here's an article from COSMOS which speculates that the universe COULD NOT be a simulation. However, read the caveat at the bottom of the article:



There is a caveat to this conclusion: if our universe is a simulation, there is no reason that the laws of physics should apply outside it. In the words of Zohar Ringel, the lead author of the paper, “Who knows what are the computing capabilities of whatever simulates us?”

cosmosmagazine.com...

Perhaps quantum computing will be able to answer some of these complex questions. In the meantime, it's fun to think about!



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

This Universe is not stable, it is in a constant state of flux, eventually it will run out of power and will destroy itself if left unchecked.

That is why in the end the firmament and all that it is in it is destroyed and the old earth replaced with a brand new one Rev 20:11 and 21:1.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

This Universe is not stable, it is in a constant state of flux, eventually it will run out of power and will destroy itself if left unchecked.

That is why in the end the firmament and all that it is in it is destroyed and the old earth replaced with a brand new one Rev 20:11 and 21:1.


Can you please provide some scientific evidence for your conclusion? And not from the bible - from science.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



Well if Our existance is a simulation it would matter would it not? It would be a very imporant question within science and religion. It would give a purpose to the reason to Our existance......


If it would not matter then what is the purpose of the simulation?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Barcs

This Universe is not stable, it is in a constant state of flux, eventually it will run out of power and will destroy itself if left unchecked.


The universe will eventually run out of useful energy for thermodynamics processes (ie heat). This is entropy. It has nothing to do with stability, flux or destruction, that just means it will get cooler over time once the useful energy runs out. I'm still not sure what that has to do with creationism.


edit on 1 18 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Phantom423



Well if Our existance is a simulation it would matter would it not? It would be a very imporant question within science and religion. It would give a purpose to the reason to Our existance......


If it would not matter then what is the purpose of the simulation?



It matters regardless how the universe came about - whether it's a simulation or came out of nothing. We don't know the answer to either possibility. That makes the question a moot point because it's unknowable - at least at this point in time.


edit on 18-1-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join