Debate the origin of the Universe..

2009-09-26 18:13:23

#26

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7079|Canberra, AUS

burnzz wrote:
Ioan92 wrote:
Another reasons that I found on the Internet are the following:
okay . . . the definition of theory is (it would so much be moar fun to insert kanye meme here)

Big Bang, infinite theory, whateva - i'm not going to put one leg into yesterday, one leg into tomorrow, and piss all over today.
AA didn't teach me how not to drink (cheers!) but it damn sure taught me how to live in the moment.

if there's a God, who can replay my life on the Jumbletron, and has the power to judge me, well, i can live with that.
if there's not, and this life is the end, well i can live with that.

if, the wheel of karma turns and based on my life i be re-incarnate as another being, well i can live with that too.
i guess my reply to the posters and the thread is "can you not enjoy life, the universe, and everything?"

i look up at the sky and do not wonder what my reward in heaven will be, but am happy with the reward that the heavens are to me.

'Cos some of us like to find out why things are? We wouldn't have got very far as a society without such questions.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-26 18:15:06

#27

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6849|The Land of Scott Walker

None of us were there ... so it could be:

A. God
B. God by Big Bang theory
C. God by misc theory
D. Big Bang theory
E. Misc theory
F. All the above
G. None of the above
H. Other

/end

2009-09-26 18:18:01

#28

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7079|Canberra, AUS

At current in terms of scientific understanding the limit is 1 Planck "second" after whatever happened there. Beyond that is pure theory, conjecture and fancy.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-26 18:21:38

#29

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

Hakei wrote:
Let's all google the universe and find the wikipedia article so we can pretend we have a clue what we're talking about.

I saw a promo for next week on the show The Universe.. cosmic collisions. It's almost as if they were eavesdropping on our irc last night.

Hakei wrote:
Lol, colliding galaxies don't do much man :p

bahh, I just looked it up online but it said it was going to be "The Search for Cosmic Clusters". Maybe it was another show . Tuesday is space Tuesdays on the History channel.

Edit.. yep that was it,

It should be a good one.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-26 18:24:04

#30

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6901

Spark wrote:
'Cos some of us like to find out why things are? We wouldn't have got very far as a society without such questions.

i agree, and leave that endeavor to mind more complex than mine, and people who post on forums using bold text.

2009-09-26 18:28:26

#31

NooBesT: Pizzahitler; +873|6873

There's not much point in debating something only a few people in the whole world have understanding of.

2009-09-26 18:38:52

#32

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7079|Canberra, AUS

Lol, colliding galaxies don't do much man :p

Um... They do. They go all funny shaped then basically rip each other to shreds

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-26 18:49:27

#33

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6933|Global Command

NooBesT wrote:
There's not much point in debating something only a few people in the whole world have understanding of.

We can try to explain in language that we create to explain things we can see.

We can not see all, detect all or analyze all. We cannot count the number of species of animals on our own planet, or explain for certain how the oceans formed, or travel beyond the Moon or explain for certain what the Earths core is made of.

But we can tell what happened ten billion years ago when the universe was formed

2009-09-26 18:50:23

#34

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:
Lol, colliding galaxies don't do much man :p
Um... They do. They go all funny shaped then basically rip each other to shreds

you betcha

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-26 18:52:31

#35

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6933|Global Command

Lai wrote:
ATG wrote:
We will never know, period.
I think that is just a lame excuse for religion.

Not that there aren't any good "excuses" for religion, but discarding the possibilities of ever finding such a thing out, just like that, isn't one of them.

You carry on as if I said God did it.

We can try to know God, but we will not really know until we die.

God and the explanation for the universe are unknowable.

2009-09-26 19:41:20

#36

Hakei: Banned; +295|6399

Spark wrote:
Lol, colliding galaxies don't do much man :p
Um... They do. They go all funny shaped then basically rip each other to shreds

No, they do not.

Most galaxies have enough speed to be able to pass straight through each other with no interaction. Rip each other to shreds? What does that even mean? If in a case where both galaxies are of the same size they'll usually pull back into each other several times before eventually combining.

2009-09-26 19:42:24

#37

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6901

you are, an idiot.

2009-09-26 19:48:29

#38

Hakei: Banned; +295|6399

What a clear, logical, thought out and intelligent post.

Last edited by Hakei (2009-09-26 19:49:00)

2009-09-26 19:51:30

#39

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7111|67.222.138.85

ATG wrote:
God and the explanation for the universe are unknowable.

No. What happened before the Big Bang (if such an event occurred), that is unknowable. God is "unknowable" in the same sense that the Easter Bunny is unknowable.

2009-09-26 19:56:38

#40

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7111|67.222.138.85

Hakei wrote:
What a clear, logical, thought out and intelligent post.

It's difficult to argue with what you wrote. I don't know how you got such a severe misconception.

http://www.google.com/search?q=galactic … =firefox-a

2009-09-26 20:06:44

#41

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

Hakei wrote:
If in a case where both galaxies are of the same size they'll usually pull back into each other several times before eventually combining.

You mean like in the case of Milkomeda? With a smaller galaxy one usually becomes the satellite bitch.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-26 20:08:30

#42

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7079|Canberra, AUS

Hakei wrote:
Spark wrote:
Lol, colliding galaxies don't do much man :p
Um... They do. They go all funny shaped then basically rip each other to shreds
No, they do not.

Most galaxies have enough speed to be able to pass straight through each other with no interaction. Rip each other to shreds? What does that even mean? If in a case where both galaxies are of the same size they'll usually pull back into each other several times before eventually combining.

Tidal forces.

"Rip each other to shreds" basically means that stars are basically ripped away from the galaxy a la http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/sc … c0615c.jpg - note the thin 'arms' of stars trailing off both galaxies.

Mind you in terms of star production, galaxy collision is v. productive - all those gravitational "currents" and what not is very effective at getting gas clouds to coalesce.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-26 20:21:13

#43

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

Spark wrote:
"Rip each other to shreds" basically means that stars are basically ripped away from the galaxy a la http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/sc … c0615c.jpg - note the thin 'arms' of stars trailing off both galaxies.

Antennae Galaxies

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-27 00:27:51

#44

Ioan92: Member; +337|6127

Except those galaxies don't look like they're colliding:

NGC 7603:

https://pagesperso-orange.fr/lempel/ngc_7603_RS1r.jpg

NGC 4319:

Also, how can galaxies collide if space is expanding. They're moving away from each other.. :s

Last edited by Ioan92 (2009-09-27 00:30:27)

2009-09-27 00:47:46

#45

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

Really? It looks like it to me. It's a well documented and observable phenomenon.

The existence of gravity and merging galaxies does not negate an expanding universe on the whole.

You're coming off a bit flat earthish tbh.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-09-27 01:10:08

#46

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7079|Canberra, AUS

The Antennae certainly seem to be colliding with me... plus, all your galaxies are really one small galaxy being swallowed by a much bigger one, hardly a 'collision' in the same sense of the word, as the big galaxy barely feels the gravitational effects of the small one and the small is much too small for any deformities to really be noticed..

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-27 01:11:05

#47

liquidat0r: wtf.; +2,223|7031|UK

@Spark: Stop posting in bold, it's annoying.

Kmarion wrote:
What about The Big Rip, The Big Freeze, and The Big Crunch?

Or indeed the Big Bounce. heh

ATG wrote:
God and the explanation for the universe are unknowable.

I don't think it is "unknowable". I simply think that it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out.

2009-09-27 01:22:34

#48

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6398|Truthistan

If I have this right, a couple of astronomers just threw water over the red shift theory which astonomers used to measure distances in the universe. So either red shift is wrong, or there are exceptions to the red shift theory that need to be explained.

But, just because the tool you used to measure turns out to be faulty doesn't debunk the big bang theory. It just means what was being shown as proof of the big bang is now not so certain.

2009-09-27 01:26:21

#49

Hakei: Banned; +295|6399

Well one thing that opposes red shift is meta-materials, they show opposite behaviour when they move away from you (Blue shift)

Not sure if it's explained scientifically, but it's interesting.

2009-09-27 01:27:51

#50

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7005|132 and Bush

One youtuber made a good point..

If someone had real evidence that actually invalidated the big bang, they'd be either stupid or crazy not to have it published in a well respected peer reviewed publication. refuting such a widely accepted and well supported theory would get them incredible amounts of fame, respect, and grant money for more research. add in the fact that it would revolutionize cosmology and be an incredible help to our understanding of the universe, and i can't imagine why anyone wouldn't publish it.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

BF2S Forums Debate the origin of the Universe..

burnzz wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Spark wrote:

NooBesT wrote:

Spark wrote:

Lai wrote:

ATG wrote:

Spark wrote:

ATG wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Hakei wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

Board footer