Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



🙂       Use the black navigation bar to log in or create your account.

Jump to Page:  1  2  3  4 

 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality



The reason I posted this here was to show that scientists are using mathematics, observation and experimentation in order to try and figure out the secrets of the universe and why we are here. We could simply say that the reason the universe is the way it is and why we are here is because god wanted it that way but that would be over simplifying it. If that were the case there would be no desire to learn and discover and we would still be living in the dark ages.

I agree, and I think the theorized age of the universe was a good thing to note, because it shows that the universe wasn't created 6010 years ago. A lot of creationists claim that evolution isn't a fact because it contradicts the book of Genesis, but there have been so many other discoveries that also contradict the "teachings" of the Abrahamic religions, that many creationists don't even seem to know about. Although creationists have, in the past, disputed the spherical shape of the earth, the fact that the earth is NOT the center of the universe, and several other facts that scientists used to be put on trial for bringing to light, evolution appears to be the only factual discovery that creationists have tried to "disprove" in public school classrooms in this day and age. Then again, they might be giving students the wrong age for the walls and artifacts of ancient Jericho, although I'm not aware of it if they are.

Yes, using Goddidit to "explain" everything unknown or not understood is oversimplifying things, as well as the lazy way out. I see nothing wrong with saying "Well, maybe Goddidit, but let's see if there could be some other explanation..." but if everyone throughout the ages all said, "Goddidit, because that's what I was taught to believe and because this book right here says so," without opening one's mind to other possibilities, we would still be living in the dark ages. We would still believe the world is flat and the center of the universe, women would still be burned at the stake or stoned to death for suspicion of sorcery, slavery would still be considered acceptible by more people worldwide, and we never would have made a lot of medical advances to prolong our lives and/or give us better quality of life, because all of our medical and mental ailments would be blamed on evil spirits... just to name a few things.

The reason I found the perceived age of the universe so interesting is because the general concensus was recently 4.5 billion years. I also somewhat understand how scientists can measure distance and movement and apply mathematics to arrive at a possible age of the universe. The reason I say it could be older than 13.7 billion years but not younger has to do with the fact that it takes so long for light to travel from distant reaches of the universe, that it might take more than 13.7 billion years for the light from some distant bodies to reach us and we simply cannot see it yet.

Back to the matter of dark energy, I'm a bit confused by the idea that it has mass, yet could pass through other mass. If I understood how this works, and understood more about dark energy in general and how it differs from previously accepted theories, I might find it just as fascinating.

Last revised by Lesigner Girl, 11/19/2006, 5:37 pm


---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
11/19/2006, 5:31 pm Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
Macaroo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 01-2005
Posts: 83
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality



The reason I found the perceived age of the universe so interesting is because the general concensus was recently 4.5 billion years.

That's the estimated age of the Earth, LG. I think the previous estimate for the universe was around 10 billion years.

Mac

---
It is impossible to travel faster than light, and certainly not desirable, as one's hat keeps blowing off. ~ Woody Allen

11/25/2006, 10:34 pm Link to this post PM Macaroo
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


And here I thought the estimated ages were 4 billion for the Earth and 4.5 billion for the universe. Thanks for setting me straight, Mac. emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
11/26/2006, 12:35 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
rsine69 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 380
Karma: 13 (+14/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


Le said...Back to the matter of dark energy, I'm a bit confused by the idea that it has mass, yet could pass through other mass. If I understood how this works, and understood more about dark energy in general and how it differs from previously accepted theories, I might find it just as fascinating.

Well scientists believe that dark energy (in theory) consists of neutrinos which have neutral, that is, no charge unlike protons that have a positive electrical charge and electrons that have a negative charge that make up atoms of normal everyday matter. Because visible matter that we can see and touch are made up of atoms that are the result of the interaction between the positive and negative charged protons and electrons and because atoms are 90 percent empty space and because neutrinos have no charge, a neutrino can pass through it and hardly effect it. However, neutrinos do have mass and enough of them can have a significant gravitational influence.
12/2/2006, 11:54 am Link to this post PM rsine69
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


I almost understand it now that you put it that way. But I have to ask, does the dark energy theory have any more verifiable evidence to back it up than, say, the "theory" of gods pushing planets around? Maybe I'm just not understanding the theory well enough.

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
12/2/2006, 9:16 pm Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
rsine69 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 380
Karma: 13 (+14/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


I made a mistake. I thought dark matter and dark energy were the same but they're two different things.


Definitions of Dark Matter on the Web:

Georg Raffelt
http://eaa.iop.org/

Matter that is in space but is not visible to us because it emits no radiation by which to observe it. The motion of stars around the centers of their galaxies implies that about 90% of the matter in a typical galaxy is dark. Physicists speculate that there is also dark matter between the galaxies but this is harder to verify.
http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/glossary.html

Matter not visible to us because it emits no radiation that we can observe, but it is detectable gravitationally. A small fraction of it is baryonic, eg dim stars, cool gas, etc.
http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html

name given to the amount of mass whose existence, until now, has escaped all detection, but is deduced from the analysis of galaxy rotation curves.
http://www.cincymuseum.org/.../060805_space_glossary.asp

Matter in the galaxies...that can not be observed directly but can be detected by its gravitational effect (Stephen Hawking).
http://diabloblanco666.tripod.com/scienceterms.html

Term used to describe the mass in galaxies and clusters whose existence we infer from rotation curves and other techniques, but which has not been confirmed by observations at any electromagnetic wavelength.
http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/AT3/GLOSS_D.HTM

Matter that does not emit enough light or other radiation to be observed directly. Most of the matter in the universe is believed to be of this type. Cold dark matter had a low velocity compared to the speed of light during the epoch of recombination. An example would be elementary particles with mass about equal to that of a proton or higher. Hot dark matter had a high velocity (near the speed of light) during the epoch of recombination. An example would be light elementary particles.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/glossary.html

The undetected matter in the universe which is not luminous. We know of its existence because of how clusters of stars and galaxies rotate.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/museum/glossary.html

Unseen matter that may make up more than 30 % of the Universe. As the name implies, dark matter does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation, so it cannot be seen directly, but it can be detected by measuring its gravitational effects. It is believed that dark matter was instrumental in forming galaxies early in the Big Bang.
http://www.wonderquest.com/big-bang-definitions.htm

Matter in the cosmos that is undetectable because it doesn't glow. Dark matter, some of it in the form of as-yet-undiscovered exotic particles, is thought to comprise most of the universe.
http://www.vibrationalrelativity.org/glossary.htm

generally refers to undetected matter whose existence is needed to account for the motion of visible objects such as stars. Dark matter may account for 90% of the mass of our universe.
http://bell.mma.edu/~mdickins/Cosmos/GlossaryCosmos.html

(cosmology) a hypothetical form of matter that is believed to make up 90 percent of the matter in the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb or emit light) and does not collide with atomic particles but exerts gravitational force
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In cosmology, dark matter consists of matter particles that cannot be detected by their emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Estimates of the amount of matter in the galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


Edited to fix links

Last revised by Lesigner Girl, 12/5/2006, 3:04 am
12/4/2006, 7:36 am Link to this post PM rsine69
 
rsine69 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 380
Karma: 13 (+14/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


Definitions of dark energy on the Web:

An energy causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, detectable through its gravitational effects.
http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html

Unknown energy that may make up 65 % of the Universe. The energy is repulsive and shoves galaxies away from each other at an ever-increasing speed. Dark energy only shows up over large fractions of the observable Universe.
http://www.wonderquest.com/big-bang-definitions.htm

is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up. The existence of dark energy has been hypotesized to account for the recently observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. See NASA's description.
http://bell.mma.edu/~mdickins/Cosmos/GlossaryCosmos.html

In cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy which permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure. According to the theory of relativity, the effect of such a negative pressure is qualitatively similar to a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales. Invoking such an effect is currently the most popular method for explaining the observations of an accelerating universe as well as accounting for a significant portion of the missing mass in the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Just look up dark matter and dark energy on Google and you'll find a lot of sites dedicated to the subjects. Of course we can just forget about these theories, stop trying to figure out why the universe is the way it is and how we got here, abandon all scientific ideas and the need to learn more about the mysteries of nature and just say god is responsible but would you want to live back in the dark ages?


Edited to fix links

Last revised by Lesigner Girl, 12/5/2006, 3:05 am
12/4/2006, 7:47 am Link to this post PM rsine69
 
rsine69 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 380
Karma: 13 (+14/-1)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy


Edited to fix links

Last revised by Lesigner Girl, 12/5/2006, 3:06 am
12/4/2006, 7:53 am Link to this post PM rsine69
 
Lesigner Girl Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Minerva
Head of Runboard staff

Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 9606
Karma: 132 (+147/-15)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


Thanks for the extra info, Rick. emoticon I have to go to bed now, but I'll check it out when I have more time. emoticon

---
Runboard Knowledge Base
Runboard Support Forums
Find other message boards
12/5/2006, 3:18 am Link to this post PM Lesigner Girl Read Blog
 
PeriodicallyDemented Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Citizen

Registered: 06-2005
Province: Looking over your shoulder.
Posts: 61
Karma: 3 (+3/-0)
ReplyQuote
Re: Objective Reality


I think it's interesting from a future-possible anthropological viewpoint that one day, perhaps in the very distant future, our current science will be seen as the chalk-screechings of early humankind.

Religions seem to me to be metaphorically like an archaeological site, covered in the layers of ages, and each age leaving its mark in some way for future generations to discuss and squabble over. God remains the only constant in them, however twisted and misunderstood Its higher-order thinking may be.

While we can conjecture about the nature and existence of God, sentient observation shows us the reality of the universe. I think the two can and do fit together, but that is blind faith colliding with observable fact. For me, the most charming thought of all is that the universe isn't finished yet. Everything in it is a work in progress.

Except for George Bush, who is a work in egress. emoticon Sorry, couldn't resist that one. Cheaps shots are my best (some would say 'only') shots.

LG! I think of you often and miss you always. Read your mail. emoticon

---
Proudly forgetting to take my medication since 1932 ... or was it 1928 ... even though the voices keep reminding me.
12/17/2006, 11:05 am Link to this post PM PeriodicallyDemented Yahoo
 


Add to this discussion

Jump to Page:  1  2  3  4 



You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top

This board's time is GMT.