What are the questions science cannot answer?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mind Over Matter, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    An origin is not a supersticious premise, nor the factor of a duality. Unless you can explain how any action can occur with an absolute ONE and nothing else? It's antithesis is supersticious, non-scientific voodooism.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    I never said or implied that. The infinity is only relevant to the universe, which is finite from all perspectives. An infinite is not subject to changes. Even light, which is ageless, is subject to changes - it had a beginning point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    IMHO, the BB could have only occured with a duality at its beginning [no action is possible with one], and an external, pre-uni force triggering it's bang. Further, the way the BB expanded into a complex construct, says there was a pre-uni directive program. Its exactly akin to the chip in your mobile; in fact the chip mode must be an emulation of this original feature which initiated the universe at large - more so than not so.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Joey, Joey, Joey... it's getting harder and harder to understand your gibberish. You don't know ANYTHING about cosmology or astrophysics. You're still pulling numbers out of your ass and stringing them together in meaningless ways. The current rate of star production is 4 per year, but those are second generation stars. During the first generation the gas density was much higher, it was virtually all hydrogen, and the rate of star formation was far higher than today. OTOH, I've seen estimates of current star production that go as high as 10 a year.

    There are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy. At about 10 a year for 13.7 billion years, can you do the 'maths'?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    Correction. If time is part of this finite universe, it cannot have also existed in another universe. I thought you agreed that a finite universe never existed once, including everything contained in that universe. This thus includes time!
     
  9. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    There's no satan - only satanic deeds.
     
  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Why wouldn't another universe have it's own time dimension. Just because this universe has a time dimension does not preclude other universes from having a time dimension.

    BTW, your garbage about a finite universe never existing once and everything thing yadda yadda yadda is just garbage.

    Answer a direct question.

    Have you ever taken and successfully passed any course in physics past the high school level?
     
  11. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Fascinating.
     
  12. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289


    The uni is stationary and motionless, actually. The space that moves neutralises all movements - including revolutions and rotations. The space in turn is neutralised, resting on nothing that moves!
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    What a facinating disregard for physical reality you have.
     
  14. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    That makes it all the more improbable. I used much lower figs than 10 a year!
     
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    What is improbable? 10 a year for 13.7 billion years gives a population of 130 billion stars, a third larger than the Milky Way Galaxy, but just about the size of Andromeda.

    Now, lets take it very slowly so you understand. I just did some simple multiplication and demonstrated that the current rate of star production over a period of 13 billion years can easily produce the current number of stars in our galaxy.

    In what way is this improbable?
     
  16. IamJoseph Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,289
    You have taken the lowest possible estimation, and where the small, unmatured stars are not included. These figs says the 13.4 B age does not support the premise of stars representing a graduation from the BB:


    All agree the stars are unaccountable - a stat which is first mentioned in Genesis! It is significant.
     
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Small, unmatured stars? Do you think stars are like fruit? The Sun as an avacado? Do you know anything about stellar evolution? No, I didn't think so.

    The figures say that a modest rate of star formation over thirteen billion years is all it takes to account for all the stars today.

    You're a true Renaissance man, ignorant in many different fields at once.
     
  18. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Uncountable is not the same as unestimatable.

    The Milky Way galaxy has about 200 billion stars, plus or minus a sizeable error factor. They were not formed at the rate of 4 per year, or even 10 per year. In the early stages of star formation, the rate was many, many times that. As the 'fuel' for star formation is used up, the rate of star formation gets less.


    Joe
    I see you are continuing to assert that no action is possible with only one component. Another example of ONE is spontaneous nuclear fission. The decay of radioactive elements is actually uninfluenced by anything other than the atom that splits. If a Uranium 235 atom decays, it does so spontaneously. It is due to neutron 'tunnelling' which is uninfluenced by anything other than the neutron itself, and the random events caused by quantum action. In other words, an action done by ONE.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Dude, what have you been smoking?
     
  20. Yellow Jacket Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    198
    trying to decide if he really believes the crap he says or if he's just saying stuff to get a rise out of anyone he can. Undecided at the moment....
     
  21. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    Some quasars are that old.

    BB wallahs think they are the only ones who know. Huh.

    If BB is so hot then why can't it explain what banged or why it banged??

    Standard BB!! It can explain a lot, not all. Mind you, cyclic model too explains all that BB can more. For example how or what banged or why it banged. How and why that initial ball is there in the first place.

    What happens to a galaxy that goes luminol. Surely, it does not vanish without a trace.

    My Q was: What would see from a point 10 blyrs away? That is where your extra mass is.

    Do you contradict the BB prediction that universe will always appear to be 13.7 blyrs old? Can it be so even?
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2010
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    In other words...:
    rcscwc: "I paid zero attention to anything anyone said and I don't care to know anything more than whatever I make up."
     
  23. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    How do you know there were no photons 20 blyrs ago? Conjectures.

    Farthest visible limit of universe will always be 13.7 blyrs away. What expl;ains why we cannot see galaxies beyond that?

    Btw, universe would be 13.7 blyr old if and only if it started expanding at luminal speeds. Else it would take more time than 13.7 byrs to be that big.
     

Share This Page