were a bit older than we think!

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
http://freeinternetpress.com/modules...ticle&sid=6812



where's dmz Now we have four explanations of the universe. I bet he's wetting his pants! hows that (for a) p-brane?



hey sego, looks like god is very old and infinite.



remember a while ago, I said that the size of the universe is zero in every direction, and our 3 spatial dimensions are illusions of travelling slower than light.



Well, before science confirms that, first we will discover that Quantum interactions are not random, they confirm to Chaos Theory.



Crackpot, Over and Out.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member




    it must be the lack of sleep, but that Vatican article is just so funny, so true and yet so perverse all at the same time.



    Sometimes I just cant get my head around these guys. What gives with them?



    I mean take the quote "Creationism dismissed as 'a kind of paganism' by Vatican's astronomer"



    should I laugh or cry at that?
  • Reply 2 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
  • Reply 3 of 43
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    A couple of questions:



    1. Hasn't this Big-bang...Big-crunch...Big-bang theory been around for as long as the Big Bang theory itself?



    2. What evidence do they offer for it, and where does this one trillion number come from?



    3. Does time even really exist when the universe is only a singularity, between the bang and the crunch?
  • Reply 4 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    from linked article (limbo)



    "He said that the reason the Catholic Church was clarifying its position was that people still wrongly perceived heaven as a place and not as a state of being"



    You know, i know you really dont like Catholicism (I presume), but I wonder, they obviously know the roots and origins of their history - and again with the Creationist article - there does appear to be two odd sides to Catholicism. Almost as soon as one spokesman gives an argument - another will give the opposite view.



    For instance, this astromer has said creationism is paganism, but it wasn't so long ago that this pope was praising it.



    The bit I quoted above. Its like they're teaching a form of gnosticism, while claiming it is heretical



    Have you picked up on that?
  • Reply 5 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    A couple of questions:



    1. Hasn't this Big-bang...Big-crunch...Big-bang theory been around for as long as the Big Bang theory itself?



    2. What evidence do they offer for it, and where does this one trillion number come from?



    3. Does time even really exist when the universe is only a singularity, between the bang and the crunch?




    1. I think it has, IIRC there were two possibilities originally, and later evidence (the increasing speed of expansion and the 'critical' value) came down on the side of permanent expansion.



    2. Im trying to find the whole of the journal given by them, because I'd like to know how they arrived at that aswell. Im guessing they are claiming that for the cosmological constant to be at such a small value, orders of magnitute smaller from what it what it was expected to be, then due to its natural decay, if it started off as what we think it should, then it would take 'so long' for it to decay to its present value.



    3. AFAIK time wouldn't exist at a singularity, but I think they are claiming there wasn't a singularity anyway.



    Personally I think there is only the expansion phase, No 'CRUNCH'- but I think they may be onto something. I imagine it as ripples on a pond. Each stone thrown in is a big bang, and the ripples eminate away from the 'cause' - and eventually just die out, but I have a hunch, that when the ripples are far away enough from the 'centre' (remember there is no centre in the universe - visualize it in 2D) there is insufficent 'energy' masquerading as mass near the centre to prevent the branes recolliding and starting a new big bang. (a new pebble). That might explain why the 'cosmoligical contant' doesn't reset itself with every bang, as you would expect if there was a crunch to a singularity.
  • Reply 6 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Yes, it is a marked feature of Catholicism. Most religions feature it in fact but it is more obvious in the Catholic Church because it is a dogmatic hierarchical entity.



    Imo, this phenomena is due to the fact that there are many sincere people drawn to religion (as well as the usual shysters who tend to rise to the key positions of power) and these people once 'inside' are in a position to know the truth. This is especially true in the Catholic Church where there is a long academic tradition coupled with libraries and resources unavailable to lay-people.



    Once these have been investigated and researched the truth becomes clear - in this case that Creationism is known to be Pagan because the Church stole it from Paganism and inserted it into Christianity which had no such concept originally.



    At that point the situation you note will arise: the Sincere Catholic will speak out and draw attention to this truth. The Shyster (or someone who's job this is) will speak out against it so as 'the flock' (love that term) don't get the wrong [right] idea.




    right, but the thing here is - which one is the shyster?



    That the "astronomer" says Creationism is Pagan (true) and is bad (true) while pretending that Catholicism is something more than paganism (false)



    or the Pope, knowing Creationism is Pagan (true), knowing Catholicism is pagan (true) thus praising Creationism - true in his belief as a 'pagan' (true but stupid).



    If anything, you could argue that Popey is more 'genuine' to the truth??? [edit - his truth]



    [edit 2] or perhaps you dont agree with my statements?
  • Reply 7 of 43
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    A couple of questions:



    1. Hasn't this Big-bang...Big-crunch...Big-bang theory been around for as long as the Big Bang theory itself?



    2. What evidence do they offer for it, and where does this one trillion number come from?



    3. Does time even really exist when the universe is only a singularity, between the bang and the crunch?




    1. Yeah, it was sometimes referred to as the cyclic universe, big-crunch, etc. It's also been postulated that the cycles are getting longer and longer until one cycle becomes a runaway (expansionist) universe. This implies that with every crunch and expansion some matter is being erased from existence.



    2. A lot of zeros?
  • Reply 8 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Outsider

    This implies that with every crunch and expansion some matter is being erased from existence.







    yes, but in the brane scenario, when 2 branes collide, matter is created, so doesn't it depend upon whether when the branes collide, the existing matter is anhilated, and new matter is created.



    The problem? - is that if everthing is anhillated in the collision, and everything is started afresh, how does the cosmological constant 'remember' what it had decayed too?



    Thats why I think my pond analogy might be a better explanation, than a crunch back to a singularity.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Great theory. Religion is really in the last death throes now. I think a hundred years will do it.



    Is this a sarcastic joke?
  • Reply 10 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    No.



    hehe, i thought it was aswell
  • Reply 11 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Sego, has something changed with you? that doesn't quite fit with what I would think you would say.
  • Reply 12 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Do you think it is true though?



    yes, but I don't want you to write things in the context of what you think I think is true.



    If you believe that - well if you really do, fine.



    But i'd rather you were just honest, and said what your/the truth is. We don't agree on some things, fine. Argue your case, I'll argue mine. If you think im talking shit, call me on it. I might get pissed, might not - who knows?



    I don't always (often? )feel the need to be 'philosophically reflective', and you shouldn't either. We can bash out our differences of opinion till were thumping the screen at 5am in the morning if you like,(but not tonight, i'm really tired)



    But when I wake up (maybe not straight away ) you're still the great segovius. (sometimes)



    [edit] unless of course you're demonstrating the way catholicism works as I critisized above by giving me some medicine?
  • Reply 13 of 43
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,230moderator
    Being raised in a strict religious environment and having moved far away from the farce, I have no doubt religion will die out. Maybe not explicitly but people who follow the religion don't even believe it any more. They say they believe it but they say the name Jesus with an air of theatrics as if they know it's not real but they are carrying on some tradition.



    They preach that they have all the answers but you give them real questions and they have no real answers.



    In many ways though, this is similar to theoretical physics, which I graduated in. They come up with a bunch of theories that seem to fit the observations but realistically, they could make anything up just like religion. Multiple universes and n dimensions...



    Lol, one of those religious articles had the line:



    "Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptised babies will go directly to heaven."



    WTF. If they don't know then why bother saying anything at all? It's just stupid.



    To be honest, I wish the end of the world will come soon, if for nothing more than to end the madness.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    the best link I found so far back on topic is http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010413-1.html



    I think the science journal the article is referring to might be this www.sciencemag.org but I cant find any reference to this topic there
  • Reply 15 of 43
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Marvin

    Being raised in a strict religious environment and having moved far away from the farce, I have no doubt religion will die out. Maybe not explicitly but people who follow the religion don't even believe it any more. They say they believe it but they say the name Jesus with an air of theatrics as if they know it's not real but they are carrying on some tradition.



    Maybe thats all religion ever intended for itself to be - maybe its the people who take it seriously, who follow it strictly, are the very ones who least understand it's reason for existance.



    Quote:



    They preach that they have all the answers but you give them real questions and they have no real answers.




    Give anyone a real question, and if they give you a real answer, they are lying.



    Quote:



    In many ways though, this is similar to theoretical physics, which I graduated in. They come up with a bunch of theories that seem to fit the observations but realistically, they could make anything up just like religion. Multiple universes and n dimensions...




    You're right, thats all it is a bunch of guesses to fit the evidence. Its ok as long as you've got all the evidence to look at.



    Quote:



    Lol, one of those religious articles had the line:



    "Instead, the new belief is expected to be that unbaptised babies will go directly to heaven."



    WTF. If they don't know then why bother saying anything at all? It's just stupid.




    That depends on whether you think religion is absolute and static, or relative and changing. I think people who have been fed a strict diet expect religion to be absolute and rigid, and abandon it as rubbish when the reality sinks in that it is relative and flexible. Perhaps you just need to re-evaluate what religion really is against what someone told you it should be.



    Quote:



    To be honest, I wish the end of the world will come soon, if for nothing more than to end the madness.




    I wouldn't really wish for that. I'd wish for a way of seeing through the madness and the madmen.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Funny, I was going to start a thread called Vatican: creationism is a crock of [@!*#] or something similar when I saw this one.



    Great minds and all that.



    Great theory. Religion is really in the last death throes now. I think a hundred years will do it.




    I disagree,man loves religion & tradition to the point of ignoring everything around him to hold onto it. Religion will be with us as long as the weak minded are with us, Its easier to let others think for you isnt it? Its easier to think of a static world not in change and God is done rather then a universe in constant change,evolving and growing.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    No, I really believe it. Clearly the rise of fundamentalism is a reaction to this death-process which is well underway and which the organized religions can clearly perceive if only on a subconscious level. . .



    As many problems as there are with the politicking of religion in the modern world, they are nothing new. It is exuberant at best to think that, somehow, in the next hundred years evidence will arise and relegate religion to a place as the opiate of fools. The universe is infinite, and mankind will never discover all of its nature. Right now, we still haven't a clue. For this reason, there will always be room for religion. In fact, I'd construe athiesm as a religion, since it is based on the belief that there is no god. I think you'll find that it is just as much of a stretch to believe in the existence of a god as it is to deny that any god exists.



    For what it's worth, Dr. Steinhardt's son lived across the hall from me when I was a freshman in college. He is a very smart guy, and so is his dad, but neither of them have all the answers, nor does the Princeton physics (or astrophysics) department.





    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aurora

    I disagree,man loves religion & tradition to the point of ignoring everything around him to hold onto it. Religion will be with us as long as the weak minded are with us, Its easier to let others think for you isnt it? Its easier to think of a static world not in change and God is done rather then a universe in constant change,evolving and growing.



    If you look hard enough I think you'll find that the only people who dismiss religion as a way-out for the weak-minded are people who are smart enough to realize that the ritual of organized religion is beside the point, but not observant enough to realize their own insignificance. As I said, the belief that there is no god, and the related belief that only fools are religious is a religion in itself. I have to say, though, that it's a bad religion since it declares all of its belivers as fools.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    hardeeharharhardeeharhar Posts: 4,841member
    as a scientist who doesn't have faith, i disagree that science will ever replace religion... it just isn't a realistic conjecture because for the most part the two operate in very different realms... science is concerned with objective reality... religion is concerned with subjective mentality...



    the vatican is beginning to argue this point as well, a theologically rigorous religion has no basis in reality... faith cannot survive evidence...
  • Reply 19 of 43
    An observation of the trends in the last hundred years shows a rapid increase in the number of people in the world who don't consider themsleves religious (seculars/agnostics/atheists, etc.), if I recall correctly that group is third in size behind Islam (and growing faster than Islam, yet not being a religion it cannot claim being ?the world's fastest growing? etc.)

    Observing the last five hundred years, we can see that religion's influence and authority has been in decline (with some short upward spikes from time to time).



    It would be presomptuous for me to claim that religion shall disappear in any given deadline, but there is no hint at a tremendous change of the long-term trends as observed.



    People still need religion, or else it wouldn't exist anymore, yet what we know about reality indicates that people need religion less than they used to.



    Perhaps religion will change to adapt, which doesn't necessarily mean altering itself to cater to the prevailing fashion (vanity of vanities), but rather finding a way to keep its core ideas intact while making them accessible and relevent to the the people of today, instead of wishing that people come around and back to yesterday.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    What a sad world this will be if all faith is lost.
Sign In or Register to comment.