Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One universe or many? Panel holds unusual debate
World Science ^ | March 30,. 2006

Posted on 04/02/2006 7:46:13 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last
To: GW and Twins Pawpaw

Me neither. Teach both views. Let the chips fall where they may.


121 posted on 04/04/2006 9:21:39 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
I think that if there was conclusive evidence for parallel universes or bubble universes or universes within black holes we'd still be saying, "well, what if..." In other words, it doesn't matter what is discovered or not discovered there will be room for more speculation. Even if we have the theory that explains everything it wouldn't stop people from speculating that everything is not explained... we would have to know the whole universe to feel certain.

And there is probably a reason why speculation draws us on so that we notice that we speculate about the fact that we speculate at all, which I'm speculating has to do with the fact that we are a speculating species... Ugh! Good Night, it late!
122 posted on 04/04/2006 11:57:00 PM PDT by Blind Eye Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
How does the Big Bang contradict Genesis' account of the creation of the Universe? Both stories seem to me to be absolutely identical.

The sequence of events are in conflict. Genesis says that the earth was formed before the sun and the stars, while Big Bang cosmology says that the earth formed after. And, of course, the Genesis claim of the universe forming as we currently know it in only six days is totally incompatible with the Big Bang Theory, which suggests 15 billion years.

Now, I know that many Christians claim that if you "interpret" Genesis the right way, then it will all fit. That's fine with me and only proves my previous point. Christians are so deeply invested in the Bible that they must believe it's stories are true despite any apparently contradictory evidence, but they are also modern, rational people who cannot afford to dismiss mainstream science. So they force a compromise that explains that the Bible means something totally different from what it is apparently saying. I understand this tactic well because I used it all the time, myself, when I was religious -- I had to in order to keep my sanity. (To be sure, though, not all Christians rewrite the Bible when it encounters a direct challenge from science. Creationists, for example, do seem to be comfortable dismissing mainstream science when necessary.)

This is why I have no doubt that most Christians will have little trouble accommodating a multiverse. Personally, though, I see serious conflicts between a multiverse theory and any form of structured religious belief. After all, if there is a universe for every possible outcome of a quantum event, then there would have to be countless universes where people who are Christian in this universe are atheist, or buddhist, or muslim, or something else. Also, are there universes where Jesus was never born? Wouldn't there have to be? I don't see how it can possibly fit, but I'm fairly confident that there will be plenty of people telling me that there is no conflict at all.

123 posted on 04/05/2006 1:51:52 AM PDT by BearArms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Got no problem with that either.


124 posted on 04/05/2006 7:34:58 PM PDT by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five [My grandkids are way more important than any lefty's feelings!])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BearArms

What happened to the fundament?


125 posted on 04/05/2006 7:36:17 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Sort of a science thread, but with a bit of bloodbath thrown in for good measure.


126 posted on 04/11/2006 3:30:20 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Stealing Energy from a Black Hole
by Vanessa Thomas
XMM-Newton observed the x-ray spectrum of iron gas whirling in the black hole's accretion disk. The researchers reveal that the energy output was too great to simply be the result of matter being crushed and falling into the black hole. They add that the observed light was stretched to extreme lengths by gravity. This observation indicates that the emitting gas must be exceptionally close to the black hole, where gravity's influence is greatest. According to theory, the supermassive black hole must be spinning to let material get that close before being swallowed.
Unveiling the Flat Universe
by Diana Steele
In Einstein's general theory of relativity, space curves around massive objects. In a closed universe, there is enough mass and energy so that space as a whole curves until parallel lines will eventually meet. An open universe, which has much less mass and energy, curves in the opposite direction, and parallel lines seem to diverge. Hot and cold spots about 1° across mean that the microwaves in the background radiation would remain parallel almost all the way across the universe. There's just enough mass and energy to keep the universe flat. With flat, Euclidean geometry, parallel lines don't curve in either direction.

127 posted on 04/11/2006 3:32:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
An open universe, which has much less mass and energy...

Excuse me, this is pretty stupid. An open universe would have the mass going to infinity, therefore would change itself in a close universe (!). The universe is closed. Period. Correct me if I'm wrong.

128 posted on 07/28/2006 12:11:00 AM PDT by mcris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Physicists in this field found that a system of subatomic particles can exist in many possible states at once, until someone measures its state.

Who measures (sic!) its state? God? Or just anybody? This is a dumb affirmation seen by miles far away. So much with the modern physicists!

129 posted on 07/28/2006 12:24:09 AM PDT by mcris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

my favorite universe is the one where Spock has a beard.


130 posted on 07/28/2006 12:26:25 AM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcris

I'll try to get back to you in three and a half months.


131 posted on 07/28/2006 9:48:25 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Thursday, July 27, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Yes please, I welcome your judgment. "Science above all" ;-)
132 posted on 08/12/2006 12:23:47 PM PDT by mcris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: mcris

:') The multiverse is familiar from my wasted youth (dungeons and dragons, and some low-end fantasy fiction and science fiction).


133 posted on 08/12/2006 5:24:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Thursday, August 10, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson