The first two are the proof that the universe is flying apartOriginally Posted by Mentor
. Normally I like to think of it as expanding, kinda puts a less pessamistic view of the universe (lol).
Results 331 to 340 of 463
Thread: Does God Exist?
-
-
Background radiation is residual radiation left over from the big kaboom. Redshift is indeed just proving the universe is flying apart or expanding as you put it Originally Posted by .Sarcastix.
The first two are the proof that the universe is flying apart. Normally I like to think of it as expanding, kinda puts a less pessamistic view of the universe (lol).
Although explosions do tend to cause such effects and are by far the most likely cause. That combined with the left over radiation leads to the big bang hypothesis. If something comes up and turns that on its head, all that will happen is a new hypothisis will be created to take this in to account as well
-
Then explain Population II stars? Originally Posted by Mentor
-
God did it is hardly an explanation, but the type III star hypothesis is one option, feel free to read up on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity Originally Posted by Dentafrice
-
I never once said that god was the reason. Originally Posted by Mentor
Population III stars:
They can't explain Population II, so they go and make a hypothesis of Population III stars to explain Population II stars, yet we have found Population II stars, not Population III stars, so when we find a Population III star, I'll believe it..are a hypothetical population of extremely massive and hot stars with virtually no surface metals
They "think" that some stars could be Population III stars, but of course that is skeptical. That's like driving while you're looking through a straw.
As well, as the fact..
That the farthest object that is seen in the sky.. by the Hubble and the Keck Telescopes, is 13 billion light-years away.. and it is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old.
It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material form the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars, and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.
But the problem! We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years away.. not as it is today.. and where it is today.. but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years away from earth.
Basically, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth, only 750 million years after the Big bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time.
That requires the galaxy in question, to travel more then 17 times faster than the speed of light (the speed of light, being a speed limit which according to the Big Bang Supporters, was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old).
For 3 seconds, the universe was "ruleless", with no laws of motion, no laws of gravity, no laws of anything.. nor any set limits, such as the speed of light or sound.
-
There was no "kaboom", the term "Big bang" was originally a term used by those in support of the steady state universe, it was means to criticise the idea, what the "big bang" is is simply the cosmic expansion from a singularity. The term just stuck and it's implied false meaning did too. Originally Posted by Mentor
</nitpicking>
-
I think beliving in God or not has alot to do with your upbringing. Your gonna belive what your parents belive. Because my parents (despite being christian) let me chose my own path I do not believe in God. If your parents take you to church and christen you 2 days after you were born your more likely to be christian. I just think it's a bit coincidental how all the miricles happened about 2000 years ago and none happen now.
-
His attack on god was basically a way to justify what it he was about to say, rather to piss you off then actually say that there is no explanation. Originally Posted by Dentafrice
Population II starts are the second generation stars, born from the left overs of Population III stars, either from after they have exhausted their own components and whats lefts after they turn supernova and whatever, or from what was left after they began to merge into operational stars.
Population II stars cannot theortically exist for the period of time that they seem to be, essentially because we know from actually recorded proof that stars cannot exist for that long, not from actually watching the entire lifespan of a star, but from observing the different stages, radiation and reaction, also viewing a star turn supernova helps too. Although all of this actually happened some time ago considering the time it takes for light to travel, it gives us the observation we need to make these theories.
Population III stars are considered low-metal stars, the theory behind it is that Population II stars can be observed releasing elements which have undergone nuclear fission and their original elements all point to the heavier metals which would have only existed at that time, the belief behind this is that newer elements are being created by these stars, meaning that they were originally made from the heavier metals otherwise there would be no nuclear fission taking place. Therefore the Population III stars were made from the very few heavy metal elements that existed. The belief behind Population III stars is that the universe does not fit without them, thats why we look for proof and thats why we found it from the background radiation and red-shift, every star which exists and has existed excretes/d radiation and light, the radiation can show us what the star was made of and what it made and the red-shift can tell us the stage it is at or whether or not it has died. This points to the belief that Population III stars have existed, Population II stars don't need this proof because they already exist, we just have the theories to why they exist.
Why would the galaxy have to travel, considering we are 13 billion light years away from it, this planet was formed 13 billion light years away from that galaxy, it wouldn't have to travel to get that far away, because we've always been that far away. The belief that it wouldn't take 750 million years to form a galaxy is confusing because as you've said 3 seconds after the big bang was a jumble of the known laws of the universe, but considering the immense energy and pressure, its beleived that stars and galaxies were popping up at an insane rate during the first few million years or so after, whats amazing is that it has survived for the light to travel 13 billion light years to us and still appear as a galaxy.Last edited by RandomManJay; 20-08-2009 at 09:15 AM.
-
Stars are just the result of lots of matter in one place, with the entire universe crammed together, there was definitely a bang Originally Posted by DrLacero
There was no "kaboom", the term "Big bang" was originally a term used by those in support of the steady state universe, it was means to criticise the idea, what the "big bang" is is simply the cosmic expansion from a singularity. The term just stuck and it's implied false meaning did too.
</nitpicking> It stuck because its actually a pretty good explication of what happened - the loaf of bread ideas more technically accurate maybe, but the general concepts the same, a bakeing bread is duller than a huge explosion
Firstly - yes thats exactly right. Same way the hypothesis that a force now known as gravity was what made things fall. We investigated the hypothesis, tested it and turns out it theres something there - that said are knowledge of how gravity works is pretty limited, we know far more about evolution after all. But of cause, could say, well it must be magic, god did it. Not like understanding gravity is at all useful *cough* Originally Posted by Dentafrice
Also population III stars as hypothesized could only exist in the very early universe, so none around today. we'll need to vastly improve are imaging capability's to see far enough in to space for any traces of em to be seen. That said, give it a decade "/
No, quite categorically they said they could not exist in the universe today - The hypothesis's relating to the core functionality of gravity are far easier to dispute as its even harder to test.They "think" that some stars could be Population III stars, but of course that is skeptical. That's like driving while you're looking through a straw.
With a lifespan of "their lifespan would be extremely short, certainly less than one million years" and a near infinite universe to search though, what is even remotely surprising about that?? Thats like finding a needle in haystack larger than a few million milkyways(as in the universe)?As well, as the fact..
That the farthest object that is seen in the sky.. by the Hubble and the Keck Telescopes, is 13 billion light-years away.. and it is assumed to have been created when the universe was just 750 million years old.
Tis a big place the universe, most of it empty.
Stars started forming roughly around 155 million years after the big bang. These stars were huge, not the type we see today, they created the materials that went on to form galexys and solar systems, from the emmence and frequent blasts a(they only last about a million years before going nova and are 1000's of times bigger than stars today)It would take at least that long (if not longer) for the material form the theorized Big Bang to coalesce into stars, and for those stars to form a rotating galaxy.
... wat?But the problem! We are seeing that object 13 billion light-years away.. not as it is today.. and where it is today.. but as it was and where it was, 13 billion years ago, 13 billion light-years away from earth.
Basically, for this galaxy to lie 13 billion light-years away from Earth, only 750 million years after the Big bang, it would have had to travel 13 billion light years in just 750 million years' time.
That requires the galaxy in question, to travel more then 17 times faster than the speed of light (the speed of light, being a speed limit which according to the Big Bang Supporters, was in effect from the moment the universe was 3 seconds old).
Speed of light = relative and sorry to say the earth is not the center of the universe, were moving away from everything else just as much as its moving away from us.
13 billion years ago the star we see as there was there and emmited light, where we are now that light is finally reaching us and we are seeing it. How from that you deduced that the star needed to be 16 billion lightyears away from where earths was then is unintelligible, this galaxy likely wasn't even formed at that point, never loan the earth?
Not ruleless, but in conditions where the normal rules would not apply. Much like in quantom mechanics now where similar extreams can be seen.For 3 seconds, the universe was "ruleless", with no laws of motion, no laws of gravity, no laws of anything.. nor any set limits, such as the speed of light or sound.
-
Gonna pop my noodle in here and say atheists and theists are all idiots because they have no proof one way or another.
Strong Agnosticism for the goddamn win. Don't accept either view until one is proven right.
visit my internet web site on the internet
http://dong.engineer/
it is just videos by bill wurtz videos you have been warned
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts