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.

 

Anybody else notice the stunning increase in volume in the conspiracies in religion sections? this i

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



If there are 1 trillion planets in the universe (there are likely many more)


1 trillion in our galaxy.

1 trillion times 100-*500 billion galaxies to get the # of planets in the Universe.

As a general estimate.
edit on 7-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



The physical Universe is eternal. Infinite series of Big Bangs to Big Crunches for the purpose of creating life forever.

Unfortunately, current cosmological observations show that the universe is expanding, and that the rate of expansion is increasing. Since gravity is the means by which that expansion might be slowed, the increasing rate of expansion means that there cannot be a "Big Crunch" -- the universe had a discrete beginning, and it will have a discrete (and nasty, lol) end.

Here's a thread I did on it in 2012, I think I kept the maths fairly simple: A Prediction you can bank on: It's the End of the Universe As We Know It…



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I'm actually aware Big Crunch isn't currently the popular model. I believe it to be the likely outcome regardless
The Big Freeze is more daunting than the idea of there not being a creator god imo.

From your thread


a slowing expansion, or a retraction, but observation has shown that the expansion is, in fact, increasing in speed.

The increase in expansion rate is believed to be due to something called Dark Energy, a theorized form of energy that underlies all space


What I am thinking is that we don't fully understand the mechanism of dark energy and that sometime in the Universe's future we will see the expansion slow and contraction start to occur via that underlying energy. Again…just my thoughts. I'm no physicist.
edit on 7-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



I'm actually aware Big Crunch isn't currently the popular model. I believe it to be the likely outcome regardless

How?

For the universe to contract back on itself would require either a current state of contraction, or a slowing rate of expansion. Because the expansion is increasing, the ability of gravity to contract it is reduced every second, and the state at which gravity could have caused the contraction probably never existed (or existed in the first milliseconds after the Big Bang.)

I don't see how the laws of physics can be bent to allow for a Big Crunch, but I'm open to hearing your theory.

ETA:

What I am thinking is that we don't fully understand the mechanism of dark energy and that sometime in the Universe's future we will see the expansion slow and contraction start to occur via that underlying energy. Again…just my thoughts. I'm no physicist.

There is nothing to indicate that dark energy would cause contraction. Because the expansion is increasing, the expansion does not seem to deplete dark energy, nor does the expansion reduce the efficacy of dark energy, so there does not appear to be any mechanism by which contraction can occur.

True, we don't know everything, but by all appearances, under the current laws of physics and the observations made in the past ten years or so, the universe is not cyclical. Never fear, though, we'll all be dead 16 billion years or so before the end comes.
edit on 7-1-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



True, we don't know everything


To be more clear it's generally understood by the science community there is much to be learned about Dark Energy. Like I said I am aware it's not the current theory, and it's merely my belief about the likelihood not something I am claiming as definitive truth. But yes also 'we don't know everything'. Something I hold dear to my heart and often bring up in religious conversation.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:00 PM
link   

ketsuko

flammadraco
reply to post by ketsuko
 


If what you say is true, then in the US, proper Christian Church's should picket the likes of Westboro Church and the nutter in Florida with placards that state "Not in Our Name" or phrases to that effect. Instead they do nothing.

Perhaps Christians need to differentiate themselves from groups such as these. If this was to happen then perhaps I would have more respect for your beliefs but until such time all I see with the Christian Church is hatred and yes certain sections do need to be regarded as "Hate Groups". 


Christians denounce them all the time. You just aren't listening. For the most part, we are busy with our lives. Why is the only possible denunciation you will accept a noisy counter-protest? Is it not enough for nearly everyone you meet of every religious affiliation to say outright that they are disgusting?

Apparently not. *sigh*

We must burn down their meeting places or something or else it's just not legitimate. Of course, that makes us no better than they are ...


I'm not saying burn down anything, I'm just saying what I see, several Christian Church's spurting hatred, I've witnessed the intolerance from Christians on this site towards the LGBT community.

Personally I think the Vatican should be tried in the international courts for genocide for the HIV epidemic in Africa and the number of senseless deaths caused by the church's stance on safe sex. I think the Christian faith has a lot to answer for as do other world religions but I don't see Jewish, Muslim or other faith members preaching on here like the Christians.

I'm personally Agnostic and this does not mean I've not made my mind up, it means I believe in God, I also believe Jesus existed, however i do not believe in any organised religion as they were all created by man and thus the amount of human sorrow caused by religion is shocking and worse still, it continues to this day.

So with the aforementioned in mind, no amount of preaching or teaching will change my views on Christianity or any other organised religion. I have read the bible, Torah and Koran and it's the same to me, a tool to use against society to bring law and order to a less advanced civilisation. It worked at the time but now it's holding the human race back BIG TIME.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by freedom7
 


I'm beginning to wonder if the satanic globalist oligarchy is using some of the Destroyer in Chief's cyber warriors to provoke, identify, target

those who have a passionate believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob . . .

at least to identify and mark them for earlier extermination.

Such threads on such a site as this would be a great way and place to do that.

Personally, I want to be sure that there's plenty of evidence to convict me as a supporter of the Lord Jesus the Christ.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 


Yes, I know it is. Just look at how much it held back Mao's China and Stalin's Russia. Bad Religion!



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by flammadraco
 



I'm personally Agnostic and this does not mean I've not made my mind up, it means I believe in God, I also believe Jesus existed, however i do not believe in any organised religion as they were all created by man

I think this would make you a deist and not an agnostic.

I share your sentiment about religion being man made (and the *possibility of a creator god) and how intolerant and spiteful the religious can be towards LGBT on ATS.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I'm sure that you see the irony in your wanting a certain outcome (a cyclical universe,) in order to bolster a belief that you have, and you then rejecting the evidence that exists which falsifies that outcome, stating that "when we know more, the theory that supports me will somehow be valid." That's not how science works.

But I understand why you would want it to.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I found some interesting info. I am trying to understand more about it so I am reading now.

Here is an article that suggest new findings call into question dark energy being a cosmological constant and posits quintessence. Which is a force that can either attract or repel.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



I'm sure that you see the irony in your wanting a certain outcome (a cyclical universe,) in order to bolster a belief that you have, and you then rejecting the evidence that exists which falsifies that outcome, stating that "when we know more, the theory that supports me will somehow be valid."


I made it very clear I wasn't suggesting this was objective truth. And it was merely something I believed to be the likely outcome. In order to bolster a belief I have? Please. You're telling me you and the others in this thread wouldn't be arguing for or against the nature of the Universe with the underlying intent of bolstering their religious belief. Pot calling the kettle black. Difference again is I am not claiming it as truth. Unlike the OP which was clearly doing so about the nature of reality and how we fit into it. How can you say I am rejecting the evidence when I acknowledge the science community currently doesn't favor a cyclic Universe? Isn't that me acknowledging what science feels about the evidence right now?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Well, I think that you have the first article backward -- they are talking about how the expansion of the universe is used as evidence of dark energy, and that it is valid if w=-1, but as they note (and as I noted in my other thread,) w is less than -1. So the universe in an accelerating rate of expansion isn't in question, but its relationship to dark energy is (though they make it clear that their results are too preliminary to draw any conclusions from.)

The observations are that the universe is in a state of accelerating expansion. What is causing that is in question, though dark energy seems the best explanation to date.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Well, I think that you have the first article backward --

The last bit of that article


An alternative value of w might indicate that dark energy hasn’t been constant over time, but varies—an idea called quintessence.


I took the quintessence bit and found the 3rd article I linked which has one of the founders of Inflation Theory talking about quintessence and how the fate of the Universe isn't necessarily perpetual expansion since quintessence can repel or attract.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



How can you say I am rejecting the evidence when I acknowledge the science community currently doesn't favor a cyclic Universe?

Well, you wrote this:


I'm actually aware Big Crunch isn't currently the popular model. I believe it to be the likely outcome regardless

and when I asked what your basis was for that conclusion, you said that you didn't have one, because you're not a physicist. To the casual reader, that is rejecting the evidence, simply because it doesn't bolster your notion of what the truth should be.


You're telling me you and the others in this thread wouldn't be arguing for or against the nature of the Universe with the underlying intent of bolstering their religious belief.

Believe it or not, I came to my religious perspective long after I began studying science, and, while I came to a deistic (eventually Christian) position through physics and cosmology, I don't use one to promote the other. Science is what it is, and faith is what it is.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



while I came to a deistic (eventually Christian) position through physics and cosmology, I don't use one to promote the other. Science is what it is, and faith is what it is.


Hmm. Seems to be a conflict there. The bridge between deism and Christianity. You said it happened through physics and cosmology. So through science. Implying science and your religious beliefs are intimately connected. So whether you voice [promote] it, underlying discussion of the Universe/science for you is in fact a discussion of your faith as well. Right? Even if you do so silently you are bolstering your belief about your religious conviction by reading the evidence in science to fit your ultimate desired outcome of reality. So why call me out for doing it about a cyclic universe?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



I took the quintessence bit and found the 3rd article I linked which has one of the founders of Inflation Theory talking about quintessence and how the fate of the Universe isn't necessarily perpetual expansion since quintessence can repel or attract.

Well, what I got out of it is that their theory was that there was once a time when quintessence was not repellant, though it is now. I don't see any mechanism by which it would become attractive, but I suppose it's possible. The point of quintessence is to explain the expansion, which conflicts with Einstein's cosmological constant.

This article: Dark energy, quintessence is a bit more technical, but this bit at the end is relevant:


Both subtypes of quintessence can be modeled using a variety of different types of "scalar fields", but not any fields that are part of the current standard model of particle physics.

What about the case w (is less than) 1? In that scenario, acceleration increases very rapidly, leading to what is called the "big rip", in which not only the universe itself expands, but in the distant future even stars and eventually subatomic particles are torn apart. This would correspond to yet another type of quintessence, called "phantom energy". But that's a story for another time

That bit, written in 2005, is what was found in the Chinese study that I cited in my 2012 thread -- w is not only less than one, it's substantially less than one.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 



So why call me out for doing it about a cyclic universe?

That seems obvious -- because, as of now, the scientific evidence supports a non-cyclical universe.

Again, I do not generally mix my science and religion -- while I believe them compatible, I don't really use one to prove the other.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Well, what I got out of it is that their theory was that there was once a time when quintessence was not repellant, though it is now. I don't see any mechanism by which it would become attractive, but I suppose it's possible.


And the possibility is all I am trying to express here.

Here is the pertinent part from the 3rd article addressing that


"The cosmological constant is a very specific form of energy, a vacuum energy," Steinhardt said. "Quintessence encompasses a wide class of possibilities. It is a dynamic, time-evolving and spatially dependent form of energy with negative pressure sufficient to drive the accelerating expansion."

Vacuum energy is the potential energy in an absolute vacuum, devoid of matter or radiation. Think of a chimney sucking air from the living room; that's the universe's matter expanding into the great unknown. Quintessence is a quantum field with both kinetic and potential energy. Depending on the ratio of the two energies and the pressure they exert, quintessence can either attract or repel.

For quintessence, the quantum field would have a very long wavelength, about the size of the universe. Its kinetic energy depends on the rate of oscillations in the field strength; its potential energy depends on the interaction of the field with matter. The more kinetic energy, the more positive the pressure - which isn't so likely for a universe-long wavelength. So for now, potential energy and negative pressure dominates. Hence, quintessence is a repulsive force.

This can change, Steinhardt says. Quintessence interacts with matter and evolves over time. Quintessence can also decay into new forms of hot matter or radiation. So we are not necessarily doomed to a universe that expands forever, stretching every atom from here to infinity.


Now I'm not saying that just advocated big crunch but certainly suggestive of my original point that the mechanism of dark energy (or the underlying mechanism of the Universe in general) is an evolving understanding. So yeah….possibility. One thing I think we can bank on is reality being stranger than fiction so to speak.
edit on 7-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



That seems obvious -- because, as of now, the scientific evidence supports a non-cyclical universe.


Even more obvious. Science doesn't support burning bushes talking.

You can omit science from your beliefs now but that seems all too convenient since you just acknowledged you used science to affirm them.

Well this is getting a little tedious to me.


while I came to a deistic (eventually Christian) position through physics and cosmology

edit on 7-1-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join