Topic: Stars (Read 2473 times)

Stathei · « **on:** December 18, 2005, 09:29:22 PM »

With the naked eye on a good night we can see about 5,000 stars. If stars were grains of salt, we could fit the visible stars on a teaspoon with ease.

The total number of stars in the universe would fill a sphere EIGHT MILES in diameter!!

David · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2005, 12:09:25 AM »

That is impressive.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #2 on:** January 05, 2006, 07:28:38 PM »

Very!

Realist · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2006, 08:39:51 PM »

A while ago NASA focused the Hubble telescope at a seeminigly empty point in space that would resemble a person focusing on a grain of sand held at arms length. The resulting image revealed hundreds - if not thousands - of galaxies, each containing billions of stars at distances approaching 4 billion light years (in astronomical terms, just after the big bang).
I don't think an eight-mile sphere is quite big enough!

Zagzagel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 18, 2006, 08:57:50 PM »

That is totally awsome.

Great is our God.

G.

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2006, 02:09:33 AM »

Quote from: geegee

Great is our God.

And small is the portion of the universe devoted to narcissistic humans.

Realist · « **Reply #6 on:** February 20, 2006, 12:53:46 AM »

Quote from: geegee

That is totally awsome.

Great is our God.

G.

Actually, stars are the result of natural (non-magical) forces; gasses compress and ignite when certain physical properties reach specific levels. The existence of stars has nothing to do with children's fairy tales.

matt · « **Reply #7 on:** February 20, 2006, 07:19:28 PM »

Realist,

The initial explosion of the universe is commonly known as the Big Bang. To call gee gee's God a children's fairy tale is interesting to me, whenever the evidence for those gases that compress to form stars are actually the design of (at the moment I shall say a supernatural being even though I believe it was God). If the edge of the universe at t=0 (the singularity) supports heavily the implications of design, then why refer to God as a children's fairy tale?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The universe began to exist at t=0 ("a formless void of nothing") which is commonly called the singularity.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 20, 2006, 08:13:33 PM »

Quote from: matt

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The universe began to exist at t=0 ("a formless void of nothing") which is commonly called the singularity.

Matt, a singularity is not "a formless void of nothing". It is actually a physical thing. Also, be careful not to equivocate on the word "universe". Sometimes it means the "sum total of all that exists". Sometimes it just refers to the post-Big Bang universe. In fact, there are varying opinions about how to interpret the so-called "initial" state of our inflationary universe. There is certainly no reason at all to think that an intelligent agency caused it to come into existence.

matt · « **Reply #9 on:** February 20, 2006, 08:27:24 PM »

Quote

Matt, a singularity is not "a formless void of nothing".

The standard Big Bang model describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover, this deserves underscoring the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.

Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 442.)

There are only two choices when considering the cause of the Big Bang.
As Paul Davies writes,

"What caused the big bang?" . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause."

Realist · « **Reply #10 on:** February 20, 2006, 08:33:20 PM »

Quote from: matt

Realist,

The initial explosion of the universe is commonly known as the Big Bang. To call gee gee's God a children's fairy tale is interesting to me, whenever the evidence for those gases that compress to form stars are actually the design of (at the moment I shall say a supernatural being even though I believe it was God). If the edge of the universe at t=0 (the singularity) supports heavily the implications of design, then why refer to God as a children's fairy tale?

Because it is.
The creation of something from nothing, as told in Christian mythology, belongs in the realm of magical fantasy. The creation of stars, while impressive in physical properties, has nothing to do with magic.
Your explanation, however, has nothing to do with the creation of something from nothing. But it does refer to the idea of some supernatural being directing the course of stellar physics. This explanation runs parallel to the attempt of Christians to hijack the evidence of evolution and twist it to fit their theological agenda.
What you, matt, and all Christians have to decide is quite simple. Do you support the ancient stories of biblical creation, or the very recent conception of ID? You can't have it both ways. Either the bible is right, or science is.

matt · « **Reply #11 on:** February 20, 2006, 09:05:51 PM »

Quote

Your explanation, however, has nothing to do with the creation of something from nothing. But it does refer to the idea of some supernatural being directing the course of stellar physics.

By following the evidence of cosmology, the beginning of the universe is either uncaused or caused. However, we do know that the universe began to exist.

Intelligent Design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Personally, I believe that supernatural, personal cause is God. However, ID only holds that the complexity of life can be explained better by an intelligent cause than an undirected process such as natural selection.

Copernicus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 20, 2006, 10:13:39 PM »

Quote from: matt

By following the evidence of cosmology, the beginning of the universe is either uncaused or caused. However, we do know that the universe began to exist.

Matt, did you ignore or misunderstand my admonition about equivocating on the word 'universe'? I think that you did. Physical reality may well be something that extends beyond the post-big-bang universe. But that isn't something that you feel comfortable addressing, is it?

Quote

Intelligent Design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm not sure what this has to do with cosmology. Intelligent design is about biological complexity, not physics. You folks already have the biologists in an uproar. Don't disturb the physicists. They have nuclear weapons.

Quote

Personally, I believe that supernatural, personal cause is God. However, ID only holds that the complexity of life can be explained better by an intelligent cause than an undirected process such as natural selection.

OK, but let's not stray of the topic, OK?

Zagzagel · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2006, 01:09:51 AM »

Man alive..

Isn't God Great??

G.

matt · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2006, 08:47:16 AM »

As one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself (the initial singularity).

I'm not quite sure what you mean Cop. Could you maybe explain a little better what your trying to say? I'm not trying to dodge what your saying, but I don't quite understand what you mean.

I'm trying to say that if we reverse the expansion of the universe then we arrive at a singular state.

Either this singularity was caused and supports the ontological argument or it was an uncaused event, because some say that the universe could have been a long-lived virtual particle, whose energy is zero, and was born out a primordial vacuum.

The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2006, 08:30:55 PM »

Oh, I see two views...and the two don't meet?

Bless your souls.

Quote

And small is the portion of the universe devoted to narcissistic humans.

Cop? You didn't say that did you? Now really....do you think that is the right word to use? lol.

Ah..hem. One at a time.

G.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #16 on:** February 22, 2006, 08:38:48 PM »

One at a time....

Quote

Actually, stars are the result of natural (non-magical) forces; gasses compress and ignite when certain physical properties reach specific levels. The existence of stars has nothing to do with children's fairy tales.

So you understand this all beyond the childs fairy tale? Good for you, Realist. It probably has much more to do with some fairy tales of children than you understand, but you won't understand what I mean since you are soooooooooo grown up. LOL.

G.

physicist · « **Reply #17 on:** March 04, 2006, 07:57:19 AM »

You have to be careful about taking the singular solution to general relativity too seriously. I agree that the FRW metric diverges, but the aplicability of Einstein's theory in that scenario is suspect. The only safe statement is that the universe was once much smaller than it is today.

It is much more reasonable to expect that, in the high energy - high curvature regime, one must replace GR with a larger theory. Presumably a quantum theory.

Just to gauge the participants, do you know what a virtual particle is?

matt · « **Reply #18 on:** March 04, 2006, 08:55:26 AM »

Quote

Just to gauge the participants, do you know what a virtual particle is?

Virtual particles are subatomic particles which flash into and out of existence spontaneously. They are allowed to "borrow" rest energy via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle but only for a short time.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** March 04, 2006, 10:09:11 AM »

I know what a virtual particle is. Sometimes they come up when we discuss whether something can exist without a cause. Certain folks will say that virtual particles have no cause.

Author Topic: Stars (Read 2473 times)

Stathei

David