Do you believe?

[O'Rothlain]

Another one that blows me away is the fact that we have total eclipses the way we do.

We are a certain distance away from the sun so it looks a certain size in the sky and we have a moon that is just the right size and at the right distance to by the exact same size as the sun when it achieves totality.

If it was a tiny bit smaller or bigger or further away or nearer you wouldn't see the corona and diamond ring effects.

[/b]

It must be evolution or something silly like that, surely?

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

It must be evolution or something silly like that, surely?

[/b]

"Your Agnosticism must be a great comfort to you"

"Sing me one of those old Agnostic hymns"

 

[St Helens RLFC]

What a great thread this is.

 

[tituslechmakus]

I
I can only assume that I am one of these "religious people." I however have never stated that I do not believe in life outside our planet because it is a "illusion of the devil." In fact, I don't believe in it, because I don't. We are the only planet (obviously that we know of) in our own galaxy that can sustane life. ONLY. This is fact...we are "somehow" just perfectly far enough away and close enough to the Sun. Our Moon is just perfectly at the right distance to keep our rotation off axis which provides us with al the lovely things we enjoy. We have the perfect amount of light at daytime, and light at night time. Some how we live on this happen-chance of a planet that is perfectly suited to our every need. It's astonishing how well catered to we are here on earth.

sorry i disagree with this perspective . all what you say on this is because life develloped that way on our planet and fits with the conditions we have. but who could tell that for example on a 50°C planet with a gravity 6 times more than the one we have, life could not grow on a different way with another form ... that would be life but not as we know it !!!

Another one that blows me away is the fact that we have total eclipses the way we do.

We are a certain distance away from the sun so it looks a certain size in the sky and we have a moon that is just the right size and at the right distance to by the exact same size as the sun when it achieves totality.

If it was a tiny bit smaller or bigger or further away or nearer you wouldn't see the corona and diamond ring effects.

nop sorry also disagree !!!



the reason why you have a full sun eclpise is because you are at the right place at the right time for that ... otherwise you have a partial sun eclipse. a full eclipse is always localised on a small area on the earth surface its never for the full planet ... and if you live in this area then you'll be able to see the image up here

 

[O'Rothlain]

nop sorry also disagree !!!



the reason why you have a full sun eclpise is because you are at the right place at the right time for that ... otherwise you have a partial sun eclipse. a full eclipse is always localised on a small area on the earth surface its never for the full planet ... and if you live in this area then you'll be able to see the image up here

[/b]

Yes, but it wouldn't be possible if things weren't exactly, precisely, almost mathematically geniously perfect. Our moon is the perfect size and perfect distance from us to make it possible. Yes, you have to be in the right places, but the fact that it is possible at all is what is amazing.
Look at our ability (mankind) sense earliest times to tell time by using the sun moon and stars.

I'm not a big believer in happenchance. Things are not random. Study the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I believe it echos the idea that there was a creator.

 

[An Tarbh]

study and thermodynamics just gives me a headache, any chance of explaining it in simpler terms!!!

 

[O'Rothlain]

Uhm...okay...simple terms:
Things start out orderly and move towards disorder.

This idea (LAW) goes against the randomness of the world just being here, IMO.

 

[RC]

If we were to persue this subject matter with logic, if we looked at nature, like RBS and O'Ro are begging us to do, and adhere to that of the "laws of nature" then i ask you to look at 2 things:

The Circle
and
The Straight Line


The circle, the cylinder, however you want to view it is something that nature creates. Bubbles on a puddle on a rainy day for example. Some philosophers even scientists have long regarded the cicle as the "perfect figure", as the symbol of divine creation.

The straight line, however, is a very man-made notion. It epitomises us (there's a beginning and an end to us all) with our timeline's etc. It's finite and filled with clarity, but it's exactly what i just said: Man-made.

I'm just thinking logically. If the circle is nature epitomised then why can the universe not be cyclical?
I know that wasn't proposed before when we were talking about the curvature of space-time, but couldn't this be just as plausible?
To say the universe doesn't curve, but that it is just a big line (for arguments sake) would be a very narrow minded thought...quite that of the typcal human. It would be too man-made and the both the religious and aethiests out there can agree on this one together:

Man did not make the universe.

 

[shtove]

If you really want to put an end to the speculation about undiscovered forms of life, just create a baby. You'll be so f***ing tired looking after the thing that all speculation will end right there.

 

[RC]

:lol:

Fecking awesome!

 

[Commander Jaco]

I think its very much possible, we have barely explored our own solar system nevermind whats outside it.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

If we were to persue this subject matter with logic, if we looked at nature, like RBS and O'Ro are begging us to do, and adhere to that of the "laws of nature" then i ask you to look at 2 things:

The Circle
and
The Straight Line


The circle, the cylinder, however you want to view it is something that nature creates. Bubbles on a puddle on a rainy day for example. Some philosophers even scientists have long regarded the cicle as the "perfect figure", as the symbol of divine creation.

The straight line, however, is a very man-made notion. It epitomises us (there's a beginning and an end to us all) with our timeline's etc. It's finite and filled with clarity, but it's exactly what i just said: Man-made.

I'm just thinking logically. If the circle is nature epitomised then why can the universe not be cyclical?
I know that wasn't proposed before when we were talking about the curvature of space-time, but couldn't this be just as plausible?
To say the universe doesn't curve, but that it is just a big line (for arguments sake) would be a very narrow minded thought...quite that of the typcal human. It would be too man-made and the both the religious and aethiests out there can agree on this one together:

Man did not make the universe. [/b]

None of that has even the slightest bearing on what we are talking about.

 

[RC]

Really? Because i was under the impression we were talking about the universe and whether it's curved or not - so i just proposed a brief theory that it could be round.

<_<

Sounds like i'm on track....


Good response though.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Really? Because i was under the impression we were talking about the universe and whether it's curved or not - so i just proposed a brief theory that it could be round.

<_<

Sounds like i'm on track....


Good response though. [/b]

Trust me, it's not circular.

 

[RC]

Trust me...
[/b]

I giggled ever so gently when i read those words. You know, considering the closed minded responses you've been dishing out during this so called discussion.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

<div class='quotemain'> Trust me...
[/b]

I giggled ever so gently when i read those words. You know, considering the closed minded responses you've been dishing out during this so called discussion.

[/b][/quote]

Close minded, pah. Piffle.

there's no been any theories put forward....just vague concepts. Me and O'Ro have just took them on their merits.

 

[RC]

Ok, i'm going to try and put this theory across as best as i can. Now, i'm not a bright lad, and i'm certainly not a scientist of any calibre so i'm going to give the information as best as i can.

Einstein proved (thanks to the help of an Indian cosmologist, i believe) that mass can bend time-space.
This was proven when a telescope managed to pick up images, duing a solar eclipse, of a star that was currently situated behind the sun. It was said that the sun's mass was great enough to bend time-space so that the star could be seen, when theoretically speaking and breaking all previously known laws this should never have been the case.

This is where the original argument comes from: That a black hole - this monstrously huge mass of a vacuum - would also have this effect on the universe. The sun, as big as it is, bends time-space to a certain degree - but when taken into context the size of a black hole (which has the ability to swallow planets like we would a grain of sand) then the effect such a mass would have on the universe can be imagined.

The theory propsed is that once one enters in through a black hole naturally there should be "out" on the other side of this thing. Which i believe is known as a white hole. The connection between the black and white hole is known as the "worm hole". Now this is seen as the transportation, the thought that maybe something could travel through.

But that's besides the point. What has been claimed is that because of the black hole's mass it would have such a significant bend on time-space that what would appear at the opposite end (the white hole end) would be a point in the universe that is now significantly closer.

So to an extent, you have already been proven wrong. The universe is curved and Einstein proved it.
But, i don't have to throw my imagination that far to believe that if the sun can bend time-space by such a proportion then a black hole could do it to a far greater proportion.

You have to excuse my lack of extensive knowledge and how amateurishly i put across this idea, but it's the best i can muster. I want to try and clarify an issue that i see as being quite plausible, which you however see as a "vague concept". It's as good as i can do to try and not be vague; to try and bolster the idea with some facts and if you accept that it's not a "vague concept" but you still don't believe it, then i'll just have to concede that i personally (and, who knows, maybe nobody on this earh) could make you think otherwise.
And i respect that.

 

[RoyalBlueStuey]

Einstein proved (thanks to the help of an Indian cosmologist, i believe) that mass can bend time-space.
This was proven when a telescope managed to pick up images, duing a solar eclipse, of a star that was currently situated behind the sun. It was said that the sun's mass was great enough to bend time-space so that the star could be seen, when theoretically speaking and breaking all previously known laws this should never have been the case.

The theory propsed is that once one enters in through a black hole naturally there should be "out" on the other side of this thing. Which i believe is known as a white hole. The connection between the black and white hole is known as the "worm hole". Now this is seen as the transportation, the thought that maybe something could travel through.

But that's besides the point. What has been claimed is that because of the black hole's mass it would have such a significant bend on time-space that what would appear at the opposite end (the white hole end) would be a point in the universe that is now significantly closer.

So to an extent, you have already been proven wrong. The universe is curved and Einstein proved it.
But, i don't have to throw my imagination that far to believe that if the sun can bend time-space by such a proportion then a black hole could do it to a far greater proportion.

[/b]

It didn't bend space and time.....the huge gravity of such a vast object distorted the otherwise straight path of the light waves eminating from the distant object. It's the same phenomena that makes black holes black....they are so super dense and heavy that the light waves that pass near to them are sucked into it.

You can say that it's bending space/time but that's where people get over-awed by the conept...basically think of that grid as the surface of a pool table but where the sun is there is a big hollow/depression representing it's gravity well...if you took a pool ball (representing a light wave) and rolled across the upper rim of the depression/hollow/gravity well it'd curve round the lip...it's just like putting on an undulating green.

At least that's my interpretation of it. And of course you have that flat grid there in the diagram plus one for every conceivable angle of travel.....but that's it, I just can't see how there could be anything else.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Einstein proved (thanks to the help of an Indian cosmologist, i believe) that mass can bend time-space.
This was proven when a telescope managed to pick up images, duing a solar eclipse, of a star that was currently situated behind the sun. It was said that the sun's mass was great enough to bend time-space so that the star could be seen, when theoretically speaking and breaking all previously known laws this should never have been the case.

The theory propsed is that once one enters in through a black hole naturally there should be "out" on the other side of this thing. Which i believe is known as a white hole. The connection between the black and white hole is known as the "worm hole". Now this is seen as the transportation, the thought that maybe something could travel through.

But that's besides the point. What has been claimed is that because of the black hole's mass it would have such a significant bend on time-space that what would appear at the opposite end (the white hole end) would be a point in the universe that is now significantly closer.

So to an extent, you have already been proven wrong. The universe is curved and Einstein proved it.
But, i don't have to throw my imagination that far to believe that if the sun can bend time-space by such a proportion then a black hole could do it to a far greater proportion.

[/b]

It didn't bend space and time.....the huge gravity of such a vast object distorted the otherwise straight path of the light waves eminating from the distant object. It's the same phenomena that makes black holes black....they are so super dense and heavy that the light waves that pass near to them are sucked into it.

You can say that it's bending space/time but that's where people get over-awed by the conept...basically think of that grid as the surface of a pool table but where the sun is there is a big hollow/depression representing it's gravity well...if you took a pool ball (representing a light wave) and rolled across the upper rim of the depression/hollow/gravity well it'd curve round the lip...it's just like putting on an undulating green.

At least that's my interpretation of it. And of course you have that flat grid there in the diagram plus one for every conceivable angle of travel.....but that's it, I just can't see how there could be anything else.
[/b][/quote]
Yeah...I actually caught a show on the Discovery Channel where they "Discovered an Alien Spaceship" and began disucssing the parts in it. Now the show had the fictitional premise of discovering an alien spaceship, but it went on to logically talk about what it would take to travel in space, ect. ect. The closest star (sun) to our own solar system is like 43 billion light years away. This is the nearest place where other life could theoretically exist. please conceptualize that distance. Even if you could manage to travel the speed of light (at which according to einstien mass would becom ultimately large, meaning that the ship would swell to some ridiculous enormousity of size...wouldn't really survive that journey, would we?) it would take how many years?
The black hole/worm hole thing is, as to my understanding more like RBS has stated. Clever diagram too.

 

[melon]