Regular Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


bornagainathiest last won the day on February 23

bornagainathiest had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,728 Holy Cow!

About bornagainathiest

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    In a Mirror universe!
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Spelunkering, Micro-Breweries, Steven Erikson, the Ring Cycle (not Wagner, the other one), StarFleet Battles, D.B.A. (Dead Boring Armies) and D.B.M. (Dead Boring Maneuvers) and SETI.
  • More About Me
    ---------------------------------------------------------- # 82

    Well, it looks like I ate the BIG M.A.C.
    If he shows up again, that doesn't mean he escaped.
    All it means is that I DID eat him (and shat him out dead) but he's just too stubborn (and too stoopid) to notice!

    Mister Pappy → bornagainathiest
    Great work exposing Rayskidude. I want to personally say thank you.
    Oct 28 2010 06:18 PM
    It looks like this Lion ate Thumbelina too, but she will NEVER, EVER admit the fact! ;)
    And the troll.. formerly known as JayL! :)
    (Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial Pages)
    (Daniel Eisenstein's non-technical explanation of BAO's)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Eternally-Existing Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe. Linde. 1987) (As above.)
    (From Big Bang Theory to a Theory of a Stationary Universe. Linde, Linde & Mezhlumian. revised 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Past and Future. Aguirre. 2007)
    "In particular, I will argue that given eternal inflation, the universe may be free of a cosmological initial singularity, might be eternal (and eternally inflating) to the past, and might obey an interesting sort of cosmological time-symmetry."
    (Eternal Observers and Bubble Abundances in the Landscape. Vanchurin & Vilenkin. 2006)
    (Eternal Inflation, Bubble Collisions and the Persistence of Memory. Garriga, Guth & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Prediction and Explanation in the Multiverse. Garriga & Vilenkin. 2007)
    (Boltzmann brains & the scale-factor cut off measure of the multiverse. De Simone, Guth, Linde, Noorbala, Salem & Vilenkin. 2010)
    (Probabilities in the Inflationary Multiverse. Garriga, Schwartz-Perlov, Vilenkin & Winitzki. 2005)
    (Eternal Inflation, Global Time Cutoff Measures & A probability Paradox. Guth & Vanchurin. 2011.)
    (Inflation Without a Beginning: A Null Boundary Proposal. Aguirre & Gratton. 2003)
    (Steady-State Eternal Inflation. Aguirre & Gratton. 2002) Geosdesically Complete. (Linde) (2008)
    (Determining the Outcome of Cosmic Bubble Collisions in Full General Relativity. Johnson, Peiris & Lehner. revised 2012)
    (Hierarchical Bayesian Detection Algorithm for Early-Universe Relics in the Cosmic Microwave Background. Feeney, Johnson, McEwen, Mortlock & Peiris. 2012)
    ------------------------------------------------------------ (Physicists Linde and Vanchurin Calculate Number of Parallel Universes. 2009) (Understanding Alan Guth's Inflationary Cosmology. 2013) (Eridanus)
    (Simple But Challenging: The Universe According to Planck. 2013)
    ------------------------------------------------------ (Origin of Life) (#39) (#54) (#72) (#84) (#76) (#119 & #120) (#130) (#185 & #186)

    Evidence is not contingent upon an explanation, a valid and plausible explanation is contingent upon evidence however.

    Isa 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Note that to purposely cause disaster is to generate suffering, so translating "ra" as something besides evil just moves the problem a step back without solving it.

    ”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?” (Lam. 3:38).

    ”...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings” (Jer. 26:3).

    ”...all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin” (Jer. 36:3).

    ”I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts....” (Ezek. 20:25-26).

    ”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).

    ”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

    See also: Jer. 11:11, 14:16, 18:11, 19:3, 19:15, 23:12, 26:13, 26:19, 35:17, 36:31, 40:2, 42:10, 42:17, 44:2, 45:5, 49:37, 51:64, Ezek. 6:10, Micah 2:3, 1 Kings 21:29, 2 Chron. 34:24, and 2 Chron. 34:28
    26 May 10, p.30
    --------------------------------------------- #61
    The three main principles upon which modern cosmology is based are:

    1. The universal physics principle – the laws of physics are the same everywhere and everywhen;
    2. The Copernican principle – the Earth is not in a special location within the Universe; and,
    3. The Cosmological principle – at any given time the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic (uniform in all orientations) at large distances.
    "All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."
    David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84.
    By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.
    At the beginning of the century many people tried to find a stationary solution of the Einstein equations, with the hope that General Relativity would resolve the inability of Newton’s theory to provide us with a stationary cosmological model. Einstein even introduced the cosmological constant into his theory for this purpose. The non-stationary character of the Big Bang theory advocated by Gamov on the basis of Friedmann cosmological models seemed very unpleasant to many scientists in the fifties. Then, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background turned the situation upside down. Physicists began to treat with contempt any attempts to find stationarity (remember the ‘steady-state’ model). After several decades of the reign of the Big Bang theory, the inflationary scenario appeared, which solved many of the intrinsic problems of the Big Bang cosmology and apparently removed the last doubts concerning its validity. However, it was realized soon afterwards, that inflation is even more dynamic than the old Big Bang theory.
    In inflationary cosmology, in addition to the ordinary classical evolution of the Universe governed by the Einstein
    equation, quantum mechanical evolution proves to be extremely important, being responsible for the large-scale
    structure formation and even for the global structure of the Universe. This quantum mechanical evolution can be
    approximately described by stochastic methods, and some of the solutions of the corresponding stochastic equations
    prove to be stationary! Surprisingly enough, after the dramatic development of the Big Bang theory during the last
    ten years, we are coming now to a new formulation of the stationary cosmology, on a new level of understanding
    and without losing a single achievement of our predecessors. The observable part of the Universe can be very well described by the homogeneous isotropic Big Bang model. However, on extremely large scales (far beyond the visible
    horizon) the Universe is very inhomogeneous. On even larger scales this inhomogeneity produces a kind of fractal
    structure, repeating itself on larger and larger time and length scales. The statistical properties of this structure are what we have found to be stationary.
    Prevalence of Earth-size planets orbiting Sun-like stars (go to PNAS.ORG and search for 'Earth-size'
    True, Hebrew dates to about 900 BC. The Old Testament dates to the Babylonian captivity period or was at least redacted and edited in that period.

    Abram would have spoken a Nilo-Saharan language, he may have been familiar with Kushitic Akkadian of the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley from his childhood, and the Proto-Arabic spoken in Canaan.

    All of the earlier historic material, going back to Adam, would have passed through perhaps many developing languages over long periods of time. Genesis exhibits multiple stories overlaid onto each other.
    Our Cosmic Habitat

    Martin Rees

    Chapter 9 : The First Millisecond

    Page 127

    "An absolute limit to any credible backward extrapolation is set by quantum theory. The key concept of this theory is Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, [or uncertainty principle] which tells us that the more accurately you want to locate or localize something, the more energetic are the quanta - the packets of energy - you need. There is a limit when the nergy is so concentrated that it risks imploding into a black hole. This limit is the Planck length: it's value is 10 -33 cm - smaller than a proton by about 19 powers of 10. This miniscule length, divided by the speed of light, defines the smallest measurable time interval, the Planck time, about 10-44 seconds."

    Page 132

    "Within about 10-36 seconds - a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - a microscopic patch could have inflated large enough to encompass everything we now see, and to establish the fine-tuned balance between gravitational and kinetic energy."

    Page 133

    "Inflation, once started, is likely to overshoot, leading to a flattened domain extending much further than the 10 billion light-year dimensions of our observable universe. The distance to the "edge" could be a number with millions of zeros."

    "In this expanse of space, far beyond the horizon of our observations, the combinatorial possibilities are so immense that close replicas of our Earth and biosphere would surely exist, however improbable life itself may be. Indeed, in a sufficiently colossal cosmos there would, somwhere, be exact replicas not just of our Earth, but of the entire domain (containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars) that lies within the range of our telescopes."
    ----------------------------------- (#9, Shernren) B.A.O.s
    ------------------------------------- (Distinguishing between inflationary models using Planck CMB data)
    (Sean Carrol)
    ------------------------------------- (Higgs analog in superconductors)
    Did the universe have a beginning?
    Vilenkin & Mithani, 2012.
    What can the observation of nonzero curvature tell us?

    Alan H. Guth and Yasunori Nomura
    Phys. Rev. D 86, 023534 – Published 30 July 2012
    An ancient extrasolar system with five sub-Earth-size planets
    Guth/Albrecht/Steinhardt/So_Young Pi/Bardeen/Turner
    --------------------------------------------------- Flat Earth Debunked

    (# 177)
    Questions For Christians # 59 (Ficino)
    Christians, What Would Make... # 52 (TrueScotsman)
    Babies are made by God using knitting to put them together (Ps 139:13)
    Gravity works because Jesus holds things together (Col 1:17)
    Germs don't exist. Diseases are caused by demons. (many verses)
    Rainbows are caused by God putting a rainbow in the clouds, not by the refraction of sunlight. (Gen 9:12)
    Eagles catch their young with their wings if they fall out of the nest. (Deut 32:11)
    Bats are birds and not mammals. (Lev 11:13-19)
    Intellectual dishonesty is the classic DNA of the xtian cultist especially of the apologist.

    I would hate a god like you describe. I would hate such a puppet master.
    God expressed more love and compassion than any being in the universe by granting us free will.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ New Jerusalem on Mars
    Contrasting vs. Opposing
    Why? Because we are fundamentally emotional beings, and logic and reason is something which has evolved later. Every higher order animal, monkey, dog, cat, bird, is driven by fear, or trust. You can make animals trust you or fear you, and they will respond accordingly. They have other emotions too, since our basic emotions are controlled by the amygdala, which we share with them. Hormones, emotions, etc are controlled by that lower level brain. While the higher functions, like thought, comprehension, logic, reason, language, are controlled and maintained by the higher, later evolved brain.

    So why are they different? Because one is from our past evolutionary brain structure, while the other has evolved later. Basically, emotions are illogical since they're not part of the higher brain functions.

    What other would you expect???

    Do you mean that emotions somehow prove God, or can be used as logical arguments? I don't know where you want to take this, but consider that we are driven by reason AND emotions. Some people trust their emotions more for their decisions and way of life, while others focus more on reason and rational thought. The dilemma is when someone is thinking that emotional arguments are the proof for something, and sneer at logic and reason. Proof is a concept that is defined by logic and reason, so to hijack that concept into emotional reasoning is dishonest. Emotions don't prove anything, they can be real for sure, but they don't prove squat.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Beer. Not just for breakfast - anytime!

Recent Profile Visitors

6,642 profile views
  1. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    OC's assertion violates the Copernican Principle, Josh. Yes. And it's only the location of a given observer (us or them) that decides where the line of demarcation between physical and metaphysical is drawn. Two observers, both just within the radius of each other's observable horizon will declare both themselves and each other to be physical. Two observers, both beyond the radius of each other's observable horizon will declare themselves to be physical, but each other to be mere metaphysical constructs. This is the kind of nonsense that results from taking the edge of one's observable universe as a true edge of reality. Yes. As you travel through space, aliens living on planets ahead of you would change from metaphysical to physical as the leading edge of your observable horizon moves with you. They would 'pop' into reality as your horizon swept over them. Likewise, aliens living on planets behind you would cease to be physical as the trailing edge of your observable horizon moves with you. If you looked into your rear-view mirror you'd see them blink out of existence as your horizon swept over them. This is also the kind of nonsense that results from taking the edge of one's observable universe as a true edge of reality. OrdinaryClay doesn't play by the rules of the CP, remember? According to those rules ALL observers, ANYWHERE in the entire universe must be on an equal footing. But OC violates that by making us the physical center of reality. For the record, he denies the possibility of intelligent alien life. He firmly believes that life cannot arise naturally, anywhere in the universe and has done so only once, here on Earth because God supernaturally caused it to do so. Yes and No. The only fixed point in space OC cares about is this one. The planet Earth. So to him, everything beyond our visual horizon is metaphysical, not physical. No other fixed point in the observable or entire universe is of interest to him. Oy vey!
  2. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Thanks, D. In connection with your point... This is a major problem for theists, like OrdinaryClay. Provided that he samples only the observable universe, he then has a known volume of space within which to point out the many (apparent) examples of fine-tuning. From this (apparent) abundance of examples he then goes on to conclude that these examples indicate the hand of God. His God, specifically. The God of the Bible. Quite why another God isn't indicated isn't explained by him. But OC is no fool. He knows that the fine-tuned universe argument only works if you have a known volume of space to work with. That's why he applies his false and arbitrary cut-off of the edge of the observable universe - deeming anything beyond that limit to be a metaphysical construct. Since the fine-tuning argument deals only with the physical, he's succeeded in dividing reality up into two regions. The physical observable universe and the metaphysical entire universe. Discarding the metaphysical he then samples only the known volume of the observable universe. However, he falls foul of the Laws of Energy Conservation and the Copernican Principle, by carrying out this sneaky maneuver. And there's another stumbling block for him, D. His own support for this... He uses the conclusion of this paper (that Inflation is not past-eternal) to insert his God into that gap and claim that the Inflation couldn't have begun naturally, but required a supernatural beginning. (Once again, quite why this supernatural initiator of Inflation has to be the God of the Bible is not explained by him.) Alas for OC, that paper properly and rightly conforms to the Laws of Energy Conservation and the Copernican Principle. Which impales him on the horns of a dilemma. He can't continue to support that paper while maintaining his observable-universe-only line of demarcation for the fine tuned universe argument. These are two mutually incompatible positions. He is contradicting himself. Anyway, back to the Measure Problem. Since using only observable universe as a sample for the fine-tuned universe argument is ruled out, the only other viable option is to use the entire universe. But as you point out... we don't know the real extent of it. Therefore, no measure of the likelihood of any event or any physical phenomenon is possible. Without such a measure it's not possible to say if any given region of the entire universe is any more finely-tuned for life than any other other. Nor is it possible to say that we inhabit the best-tuned region. There could be others that are far less hostile to life. In short, without a viable method of evaluating the odds, no argument for fine-tuning can be made at all. Game over! Thanks, BAA.
  3. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measurable properties? Exactly. But we don't need to assume everything about the way light and matter move through space. Some things we can (and have) tested, here in specially equipped labs on Earth. Other tests have been done in orbit or on the Moon. Further tests have been and are being done by probes to all of the planets and also by the Voyager spacecraft, which are now well beyond the edge of the solar system. Astronomers carefully monitor events in deep space via their telescopes. All of this data goes into our understanding of the nature of the 'void' of space. This understanding is still in it's earliest stages and we have much to learn. However, there have been some notable successes. In certain situations we can make predictions about what we expect to see when certain events occur thousands and even billions of light years away. Here are two of my favorite examples of spectacularly-confirmed predictions. In 1987 John Bahcall predicted that 'a few dozen' neutrino particles would detected from the supernova (a kind of exploding star) that occurred 168,000 light years away. In all, 24 neutrinos were detected. So his understanding of the measurable properties of space was right on the money! In 2014 the light of this supernova was seen to have been distorted and split into four different images, in a similar way to the 'horseshoe' galaxy image I posted earlier. Three different teams of scientists (Jauzac, Diego and Grillo) calculated exactly how space was being warped and then predicted when (approximately) and where (exactly) a fifth image of that explosion would appear in the sky. Please scroll down to page # 6 of this pdf file and look at figure # 3. There you will see two red circles (Jauzac and Diego) a green circle (Grillo) and a red cross ( + ). The circles are where each of three teams predicted that the fifth image of the supernova would appear. The cross is where it actually appeared. As you can see, all three circles overlap, meaning that all three teams got it exactly right. So, their understanding of the measurable properties of highly-warped space, across a distance of 9.34 billion light years, was spot on! Thanks, BAA.
  4. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Does the "space" have different properties? Or do we know this? Or am I thinking off path? So far as we know space has certain different properties that can be seen under special conditions, but never on Earth. Although we can't see inside a black hole we believe that inside one of these bizarre objects, space itself becomes infinitely compressed. Right down to no size at all. Nothing. Zip. Nada. At the other end of the scale galactic clusters are moving apart more and more quickly. As I mentioned before, the fabric of space itself (whatever that is) is opening up between these clusters, causing each one to move away from it's neighbors. The view from any location would look the same. Go a hundred trillion light years in any direction and every galactic cluster would seem to be moving away from wherever you are. It looks as if you are stationary and that everything is moving away from you. In reality, everything is moving away from everything else. This is the expansion of the universe. The very same expansion that is carrying galaxies along for the ride and beyond the visual 'edge' of the observable universe. So, space does indeed have some special properties. It can be bent, warped and distorted. It can be crushed and compressed to nothing. It can be stretched and stretched and stretched some more, without breaking or rupturing. It can expand faster than the speed of light. Waves and ripples of gravitational energy can pass through space, just as sound waves pass through air. We know some of these things by having seen them happen and we can infer some of these other things because of what our theories tell us. Here's an example of space being warped by the intensely-strong gravity of a massive galaxy. The light from a blue-white galaxy behind the yellow-colored one is being distorted into a horseshoe shape. Here's a link to the LIGO facility. These scientists listen in to the ripples and waves of gravitational energy travelling through space. Here's a link to the Event Horizon Telescope. Sometime soon (possibly in a few months) they'll announce if they've been able to image the ultra-massive black hole that sits at the center of the Milky Way, our home galaxy. Of course they can't see inside the damn thing because it doesn't give off any light and it swallows all light entering it. But they hope to see the effects it has on it's surroundings. Time will tell. So in conclusion End, space has different properties... but only in extreme conditions. Thanks, BAA.
  5. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Back at last! Thanks for your patience, btw End. Now for your questions. But when we define "universe", are we not defining the scientific constants, to the best of our ability, within that definition? Yes, just so. On Tuesday (my 2nd post) I referred to the observable universe and the entire universe. We can see these scientific constants in action within the observable universe, but we can't say for sure if they hold good elsewhere, in the wider, entire universe. Scientists measure these constants and then use that data to build up a working definition of what the universe is. This definition works in two different ways, on two different levels. The observable universe is defined as everything that is visible to us. The scientific constants at work within the observable universe are part of our definition of it. This definition is based on direct knowledge that can be tested. Our definition of the wider, entire universe uses what we know about the observable universe as it's starting point and then infers that what is true here should also be true elsewhere. These inferences cannot be directly tested. However, scientists employ the Copernican Principle to justify their use of inference about what they cannot see and cannot test. I can explain further if you'd like, End. Please lmk. Thanks, BAA. p.s. I'll deal with these points... Does the "space" have different properties? Or do we know this? Or am I thinking off path? Edit: Wouldn't we assume because light travels x speed and matter moves at x speed, then the "space", the "void" has some measureable properties? a few hours. Please maintain a holding pattern.
  6. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    You're welcome, Realist.
  7. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Please hang in there,End. I'll get back to you with answers, asap. Promise! BAA.
  8. Serious question, Kris. Between 1346 and 1353 God saw fit to kill up to 200 million people in Europe and Asia in a particularly agonizing and drawn-out way. So was this natural disaster caused by the United States trying to divide up the land of Israel?
  9. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    No problem, KC. End3 raised two very good points ...points that deserved decent answers. I'm glad that my replies were of help to you! Cheers, BAA.
  10. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Second answer. What appears to us as the edge of the universe isn't a real, physical boundary. It's just a visual horizon beyond which we cannot see. It's no more of a boundary or edge than the horizon in this pic. Ok, we know that the line of the horizon, between the sea and the sky isn't the actual edge of the world. It's an observed edge. In a similar way, what we casually refer to as... "the edge of the universe" ...isn't an actual edge. It's an observed edge. That's why astronomers talk about two different things. The observable universe and the entire universe. The first one is all that we can see. The second one is everything else that we cannot see ...but which we infer to exist. The observable universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years across. Nobody knows for sure what the real size of the entire universe is. It could be a thousand or a million times larger than the observable universe or it could be infinitely large. Nobody real knows. And that's why we can't really say anything about the true volume of the entire universe. To say if the volume of something is larger today than it was yesterday we need to know the difference between yesterday's volume and today's volume. And we can only do that if we can assign a value to these two figures. But since we can't see the actual edge or boundary of the entire universe (if there is one) we can't say anything meaningful about the difference between yesterday's volume and today's volume. Here's a pic that might help explain the problem. If our observable universe occupies only a tiny portion of one of the squares in the grid how can we possibly know anything about the entire volume of the sphere? The volume of the smallest sphere and the largest one would appear exactly the same to us. We have no direct information about the entire whole to tell us if it's expanding or not. So all we can safely say is that we see space expanding within the observable universe and we infer that it's also expanding elsewhere, beyond our visual horizon. And this is where OrdinaryClay's assertion falls down. He claims that anything beyond our visual horizon (outside the observable universe) isn't real. Isn't' physical. He says that what we infer to exist beyond that horizon isn't real. But if we take his logic and apply it to the galaxies that are being carried over that horizon, then by his faulty logic these galaxies were real yesterday - but aren't real today. They've ceased to be real. They've ceased to exist. So his assertion and his logic are nonsensical. By his broken logic, our observable universe has been 'leaking' galaxies for millions of year! This is a total violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. According to that fundamental Law of Physics neither matter nor energy can be destroyed in this way. Yet that is the illogical conclusion of his argument. That's why this thread is about the leakiness of his argument. Thanks, BAA.
  11. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    Posted 3 minutes ago 4 hours ago, end3 said: Pretty mind bending stuff at the observable edge....light can't outpace the expansion? I don't have any acid to drop to open my mind that far... Here's a question please. If there is expansion, wouldn't we assume that the greater volume....that this would mess with the conservation aspect? Ok End, I'll answer both of your points. In two posts. First, no acid is necessary. All you need is to understand this. As far as we can tell, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light through space. But space itself can expand at any speed. It can even expand f-a-s-t-e-r than light can travel through it. So, when we see distant galaxies moving away from each other what's happening is that space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies along for the ride. The galaxies aren't moving through space faster than light, because (as far as we can tell) that's impossible. This explains how a very distant galaxy can (from our p.o.v.) outrace the light of it's stars. Usually some of that light would be headed our way. But if the galaxy is being carried away from us by the expansion of space at more than the speed of light, then beyond a certain distance we'll never see any of that light. To us, that galaxy has disappeared forever over our visual horizon. Please understand that I'm not saying that the galaxy itself is travelling faster than light. Nor am I saying that it's light is travelling faster than light-speed. No, in both cases. What I'm saying is that the space between us and that distant galaxy is expanding faster than the speed of light. That's the all-important difference. I can illustrate this tricky notion with an Earthly analogy. Imagine a plane flying over the Atlantic, from New York to London. It's maximum rated speed is 500 mph. So, according to it's design and the power of it's engines it cannot exceed 500 mph. That's it's absolute limit. 500 and no more. So it takes 7 hours to fly the 3,500 miles between NY and London. (3,500 divided by 500 = 7) But, there is a way that the plane can (theoretically) travel at... 750 mph! How? Here's how... "The wind speeds are greatest where temperature differences between air masses are greatest, and often exceed 92 km/h (50 kn; 57 mph) to over 398 km/h (215 kn; 247 mph) have been measured." If the plane flies into the jet stream (which blows from west to east), it's speed can be accelerated by those fast-moving winds. The plane itself isn't causing itself to move any faster than 500 mph. Instead what's happening is that it's combined max speed (500) and the velocity of the jet stream (250) are being added together, yielding a greater speed relative to the distance between NY and London. That distance hasn't changed, but now we can calculate a new time for the journey. 3,500 divided by 750 = 4.6. That's 4.6 hours and not 7. See how it works, when it comes to the speed of light and distant galaxies? Neither the galaxies, nor their light can travel any faster than the universal speed limit of light-speed. But these galaxies aren't causing themselves to move through space faster than light. The space itself between them and us is expanding faster and faster, adding up to more than light speed. So the distance between them and us is increasing faster than their light can cross it. To us it looks as if they're barrel-assing away from us under their own steam. But it taint so! Thanks, BAA.
  12. Is The Fine Tuned Universe (Argument) Leaky..?

    If you refer back to this thread...'ll see that the Christian OrdinaryClay (henceforth, OC) writes this. The multiverse theories are unavailable to experimental verification because by definition we cannot observe between universes. So their empirical verification is outside science. This is explained in the book reference I posted earlier. I responded to OC's claim like this. Smolin is a clever man and would never propose something that violates the Laws of Energy Conservation. But what you've described in this thread does exactly that. The visual horizon which demarcates the edge of the observable universe is not a fixed barrier across which nothing passes. Quite the opposite. Since space is expanding and carrying galaxies with it, every day entire galaxies disappear over this 'edge' and vanish from the observable universe. By your logic, these galaxies cease to be physical objects and become metaphysical constructs, beyond the reach of science. If that's so, then according to you, the universe is leaking energy like a sieve. But that would be a complete violation of Energy Conservation. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. But by asserting that these galaxies cease to have a physical existence... you are destroying energy. Where is this energy going to, OC? Needless to say, OC did not deign to answer me. . . . Now to the crux of the matter. The validity of the Fine-Tuned Universe apologetic argument rests upon the definition of the word, 'UNIVERSE'. Since the argument claims to be a properly scientific one, it's definition of the universe must be a properly scientific one. Such a definition cannot treat the observational edge of the universe in the way that OC does - as a physical boundary. That is totally improper. For the reasons I described. So where does this leave the Christian supporters and promoters of the Fine-Tuned Universe argument? In short, up the creek. Why? Because of this... (In case this link doesn't work, please Google, 'The Measure Problem in Cosmology, and follow the Wiki link.) Within a finite volume of space it is possible to assign a probability of an event occurring. Within an infinite volume of space it is impossible to assign any probability to any event - because infinity cannot be meaningfully divided by any positive integer. Within an unknown volume of space it is impossible to assign any probability to any event - because the values involved are unknown. Since cosmological science denies a finite volume of space for the Fine-Tuned universe argument to work with it therefore follows that this argument cannot be made. Thanks, BAA.
  13. Hello and welcome. I reckon I've identified a serious flaw in this argument. It's used by Christian apologists to (allegedly) demonstrate the existence of the God of the Bible. But before I go any further, I'd like to make three polite requests of you, my fellow members. Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the workings of the Fine-Tuned Universe argument. Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the basic workings of science and the scientific method. Please do not participate in this thread if you are unfamiliar with the basics scientific concepts underpinning the expansion of the universe. In making these requests I mean no offense and I am not trying to put anyone down or to be elitist. If possible, I'd like this thread to be where my claim about this flaw can be rigorously checked and tested by those members who are familiar these three things. The need to explain the workings of any of them would (imho) slow the pace of this thread down to a crawl. I hope you can appreciate and understand where I'm coming from on this. If this pans out we Lions will have gained a new and powerful weapon to use in demolishing that particular apologetic argument. Thank you for your cooperation in this. BAA.
  14. social media bible numerology

    Try tell that to Harold Camping. Oh, wait...