Bang, bang

Discussion in 'Science' started by (original)late, Jun 6, 2020.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand the observable horizon...I think. Basically it means we can't detect anything that is such a distance from us that during our 13-14 billion years of existence, light/radiation traveling at the SOL, did not have time yet to arrive at us...so we can' see it??

    I don't believe, just because we call it a 'horizon' or 'observable', that it indicates the 'edge' of the Universe. I think whatever system we are in is infinite no matter which direction we look/travel. There is no end, no edge...just more of the same. I don't see a reason for multiple universes...just one infinite system...
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same here. It is cool to think about.

    My own view is that we are going to find the speed of light as a hard limit. Thus if there is an intelligent life form out there somewhere it probably won't make any difference. The time required for communication (let alone travel) will make it pretty much irrelevant.

    And, I don't belive it would have an impact on religion, either. I know of no religion that suggests there is intellient life on only one rock.

    I'm not opposed to searching though!
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you recall the Voyager space craft?

    What would another technologically advanced civilization realize if one of those Voyagers turned up in their vicinity?

    That they are NOT the ONLY intelligent species in the universe.

    The odds of that happening are exceptionally small but what if we were to encounter alien technology in space?

    We would realize that we are not alone either.

    So while this might never happen there is always a possibility that it could because if we sent out the Voyagers then other technologically advanced civilizations could have done the same thing.

    As Neil Degrasse Tyson points out nothing in the universe is unique so it is unlikely that our intelligence and space faring is unique.
     
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that we are not aware of any 'visitors' to Earth or within our detection range, kind of tells me living beings around the Universe are basically relegated to their rock or within close proximity. Whether ET's are very much like humans, or even if they have completely different physiologies, all of them probably experience the same as us; maybe visiting a local moon or perhaps exploring a nearby planet and even some very small-scale colonization. And I suspect they do exist, but stuck dealing with the vastness of space-time and all the dangers.

    Religion is too closed-minded to be involved although I believe many religious people are curious...
     
  5. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I am aware of the Voyager space craft. Not only is it great to have those craft heading 'out there', it's also amazing they held together and can still communicate. Considering it has taken ~43 years just to travel to the edge of our Solar system, and how many thousands more years before it arrives at the next star, what will be left of Earth if/when someone detects one of the Voyagers?

    I agree with Tyson...we're special but we're not unique...
     
    Derideo_Te and WillReadmore like this.
  6. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The multiverse theory.
    I like the options :)
     
  7. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There will be another Hitler and he will likely be Chinese and there will be another Hitler in the west and he will likely be of European descent and they will likely consume the majority of mankind.

    The worst part is that the majority of mankind will have made this possible!
     
  8. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Karl Popper said it best:

    If something cannot be disproven then it is not science.

    Religion and science are mutually incompatible.
     
  9. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes they do. I have explained them already.

    Science is not observations. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

    Define "supernatural". How does it differ from "natural"? Religion does not require any god(s)... I have already explained why this is.

    There is no "logic of science" nor is there a "logic of religion". Logic is logic, regardless of where one makes use of it. Both religion and science stem from a theory which begins as a circular argument. I have already explained how this is logically so.

    Religion is not safe from opposing arguments. Opposing arguments are made all the time. Religion simply cannot be proven/disproven. Religion can only ever remain a circular argument. I have already explained this.

    Logic is not evidence based. It is based on axioms, and proofs extend from those axioms. Logic is a closed functional system, unlike science, which is an open functional system.

    Science is based on the ability to predict nature (through the use of falsifiable theories). Science does not make use of supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence. That is what falsifies theories.

    I've already explained to you how religion and science differ from one another, yet how they start with the same logical framework.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,488
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That set is the product of science.

    Science has to include the methodology of creating those theories. That methodology includes the use of the knowledge represented in those theories, but it also has to include how theories are created, supported and destroyed, how conclusions are reached, etc.
    By supernatural I mean that which we don't have the capability to meaningfully examine. An obvious example is anything related to god. But, it also includes stuff like what is outside or before our universe, what was t=0 of our universe, etc.
    Well, both systems have predicates. Science is predicated on our ability to observe. Religion (certainly any religion that includes a god) is predicated on the existence of that god. While logical statements may often look the same, mixing statemets from a system founded on the existence of god and statements from a system that is founded on observation alone is going to fail.

    We see this happen with ID, for example. The logic may look the same, but the system that assumes god and the system that restricts to observation are in serious conflict on the central issue.
    Religion can be totally safe from science. Once one accepts an active god, one can theorize that god creates gravity by moving mass in a way that happens to conform to what we see. There is NO possibility of science faslifying that. "theory". More generally, "god did it" is ALWAYS an irrefutable "theory" for those things we don't know.

    I don't see that as circular. Our systems of logic do have predicates. Suggesting that as the definition of circular ignores the other definitions of circular, I think.

    The predicates are so important that I think they have to be addressed directly - not by smply claiming circularity.

    In math, this is highly formalized, obviously. Is a group "Abelian"? Etc. Even though the natural sciences are ope we do have to be careful with the foundation of our system.
    Yes. But, one still has to address the elements in the logical statements. One can't advance science using logic without evidence. One can STUDY logic without reference to evidence, but science is based on observation.
    I have only one point to make here. If there are no confirming cases, then the theory is clearly totally worthless.

    The objective is to describe how this universe works. If there are no confirming cases then it's clear that any theory without confirming cases is worthless in furthering that objective.
    Well, they don't start with the same foundational assumptions.

    So, even if the logic looks familiar, it is a very different system - a system where the mixing of the parts is not generally justified.
     
  11. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    M theory suggests that the Big Bang was the beginning of an endless series of big bangs.

    Supposedly these last about a trillion years.

    Who knows?
     
  12. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,787
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ya..... I don't think so.
     
  13. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It’s just a theory but supposedly the math bears it out. I was trained as a chemist so it’s not really my area.
     
  14. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,782
    Likes Received:
    14,565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or provable theories that result from observations.
     

Share This Page