Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Big Bang theory and matters astronomical

Jump to new
Further to that Square Kilometre Array SKA post,
or for the Australian SKA Pathfinder (ASKAP) telescope ...

CSIRO are looking at questions to be addressed.
amongst the favourites are
EMU
and
WALLABY :-

http://www.ska.gov.au/news/Pages/CSIROsetssciencepathforASKAP.aspx
“An international panel of expert astronomers picked the 10 top projects that will take advantage of ASKAP’s huge survey speed and large field of view,” Dr Lewis Ball said.
A breakdown of the 10 projects illustrates the international interest in the ASKAP program.

The projects represent 363 unique authors from 131 institutions. The breakdown of unique authors by region was 33 per cent Australia and New Zealand, 30 per cent North America, Europe 28 per cent, 9 per cent rest of world.

Two of the top 10 projects are an Evolutionary Map of the Universe (EMU) and the Widefield ASKAP L-Band Legacy All-Sky Blind Survey (WALLABY).

EMU is a deep survey for star-forming galaxies and active galactic nuclei, designed to trace the evolution of star-forming galaxies and massive black holes through the history of the Universe.

WALLABY is a survey for galaxies containing neutral hydrogen gas over 75 per cent of the entire sky, and is aimed at improving our understanding of galaxy formation.

Other Survey Science Projects will study variable and transient radio sources, the interstellar medium of our own Galaxy, magnetic fields in space, and pulsars.

A complete list of the projects can be found at: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/news/press/askap_survey_science.html
Click to expand...

PS
I spose if the Kiwis won the SKA project, we'd have the
MOA
and
KIWI projects ...

MONITORING OF ASTEROIDS,
and
KILOBYTE INTELLIGENCE-WEIGHTED IMAGINATION projects :2twocents
 
Just imagine the the visible universe as we know it was actually formed from a larger celestial body from a larger universe. A bit like the Matryoshka dolls (Russian nested dolls). So this universe is actually what we see as a galaxy, existing within an even larger universe. That's big. :D
 
wayneL said:
Dawkins, like many scientists, makes a number of assumptions that are not able to be proven or disproven. It is these assumptions that make his and others views theory and not physical law.

Is Dawkins and his group correct? He presents a convincing case, as do competing theories. He has also used the media to maximum effect which lends undue credibility to his arguments. Notably, there is no critical debate allowed on MSM, or it is a biased hatchet job.

Overall, Dawkins is a self obsessed w@nker prone to tantrums if questioned.

But he's still interesting. I will always listen to what he has to say, likewise I'll listen to other, less media savvy scientists/philosophers as well.

I will not be sucked in by doctrine however, and that's what the current mainstream theories are, in the same way that religions are doctrines.

You can huff and puff until the cows come home, but I will remain open minded and critical of every theory where deserved, including my own.

In particular, Big Bang just sucks, you have all sorts of concept's invented over the years in order to salvage the theory. Therefore, it is just BS, no better than Genesis.
Click to expand...



You are making some pretty big statements here.
1. That Dawkins et al make assumptions that can neither be proven nor dispoven. If you provide examples of these maybe we can debate the voracity and integrity of assumptions utilised to create falisifiable models, which is essentially the heart of the scientific model.

2. Scientific theories are completely different in every regard to religious doctrines. There is a lot of literature available out there that discusses this point though a great place to start would be by reading the work of Victor Stenger a physics PhD and prolific writer. Dont take my word for it though I am happy type out some relevant chapters and email them to you.

3. You obviously have never done a great deal of reading on ther origins of the universe to make a statement like "the big bang sucks". Do you understand the falsifiable nature of theoretical science? Do you have a solid foundation in newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory through which you can accumulate and analyse verifiable and reliable data in order to create you own theory of universal orgins? Do you understand the process of quantum tunelling? Are you aware of up to date research regarding the creation of matter around black holes (hawking)?

4. All kind of concepts invented over the years to slavage the theory? Are you serious? Care to give examples? Do you understand the difference between doctrine and falsifiable critical science? Do you think that because new evidence is accumulated and an idea has to be extended or changed to accomodate and explain this information that all previous ideas on this issue were wrong?

5. I'm not meaning to get stuck into you but your post reeks of religious fervour and misinformation. It has been the modus operandi of religious scholars over the years to attempt to critique verifiable science by utilising imperfect logic at the same time as offering absolutely no evidence or examples to back up their claims.

Just because you can't see the answer doesn't mean therefore the answer is not there.
 
A recent survey by NASA has found that Earth sized planets are more common within close orbits than the larger gas giants in the Milky Way. By their extrapolations 23% of Sun-like stars would host Earth-sized planets, with an estimated 46 Billion Earth-sized planets within the Milky Way.

If there is only a 1 in a billion chance (1:1,000,000,000) of life taking hold on a planet, then by those numbers there would be 46 other instances of life within the Milky Way. If life is much easier to initiate then the Milky Way would be literally teeming with life. It's a nice thought.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-357
NASA said:
The astronomers extrapolated from these survey data to estimate that 23 percent of sun-like stars in our galaxy host even smaller planets, the Earth-sized ones, orbiting in the hot zone close to a star. "This is the statistical fruit of years of planet-hunting work," said Marcy. "The data tell us that our galaxy, with its roughly 200 billion stars, has at least 46 billion Earth-size planets, and that's not counting Earth-size planets that orbit farther away from their stars in the habitable zone."
Click to expand...

To go a little further and to place the whole life in the universe possibility in context. Firstly have a look at the image at the end of the post. This is the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image. It represents a long exposure image taken of a section of dark sky. That section of space revealed around 10,000 galaxies. Those dots in the image are not stars they are individual galaxies (actually the few that have the cross shaped flares are actually stars within the Milky Way). Each of those galaxies has an average of around 100 billion stars each (100,000,000,000). So that image contains about 1000 trillion stars (1,000,000,000,000,000) and using a 1 in a billion chance that gives 1 million instances of life.

Now this is when the numbers get boggling. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image represents a section of the sky that would be covered by a 1mm by 1mm piece of paper held 1 metre from your eye.

one of the issues of these exercises is that imagining very big numbers is very hard, but using sand is a good analogy. Beach sand has an average of 8 grains per cubic millimetre. There are 1000x1000x1000 millimetres in a cubic metre so therefore 1 cubic metre contains 8 billion grains of sand. If 1 star = 1 grain of sand then it would take 25 cubic metres of sand just to represent the Milky Way. You can carry on the exercise from here.
 

Attachments

  • HUDF.jpg
    HUDF.jpg
    82.9 KB · Views: 101
derty said:
A recent survey by NASA has found that Earth sized planets are more common within close orbits than the larger gas giants in the Milky Way. By their extrapolations 23% of Sun-like stars would host Earth-sized planets, with an estimated 46 Billion Earth-sized planets within the Milky Way.
Click to expand...
The 'chance' due to sheer numbers is thought provoking. Considering the evolution of life elsewhere and the infinite possible paths the evolution could have taken. No wonder the movie fellas come up with such imaginative anatomical distortions. Maybe the 'Hundredth Monkey' effect? ;)
 
Just thinking the Universe could be moving toward life on a hard-for-human-brain to comprehend time frame. That being the alignment of all the right factors for life to exist.
 
Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

For the average person, repeated instances of precision indicates an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. Precision leaves no room for error or for surprise results. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms””from which the Earth's elements are made””are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopdia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography)



QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?


NOTE TO MODERATORS: I have debated this topic elsewhere as I find the topic meaningful. I thrust that is not against forum rules, especially since I actively debate the topic. In other words, I do not simply post threads and disappear.




________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Accident or Design ?

Whatever you want

:D

Seriously , see threads "Religion, Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy etc"
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Alter2Ego said:
NOTE TO MODERATORS: I have debated this topic elsewhere as I find the topic meaningful. I thrust that is not against forum rules, especially since I actively debate the topic. In other words, I do not simply post threads and disappear.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market? If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Is this one of those long bows being drawn to justify the existence of some invisible Skylord by looking at natural tessellations and pondering how our navels all look similar?

Even chaos fits a pattern and is predictable, so what part of established religions offers a guide to decrypting the secrets of the nucleosynthetic universe I'm wondering. Afaik religions work on the spiritual and moral guidance issues to keep the tribe together and servile?

Why does society still get polluted by the Uriah Heeps in every generation if religion was doing its job to make everything sweet and harmonious.
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Tisme said:
Is this one of those long bows being drawn to justify the existence of some invisible Skylord by looking at natural tessellations and pondering how our navels all look similar?

.
Click to expand...

yes, I believe it is, considering the quote in the signature block.

The argument from precision has got to be one of the least convincing arguments, however it is one that apologists use to quite successfully to trick people into thinking the universe is designed. A lot of it is basically an argument from ignorance.
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Joe Blow said:
I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market? If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.
Click to expand...

I was about to suggest moving this new thread into one of the many religious/philosophical topics and leave it to the flat earthers to slug it out. Seeing you have already taken note and denied the OP membership, why not simply remove this thread instead.
 
Re: Our Fine-Tuned Universe: Accident or Design?

Joe Blow said:
I am familiar with your user name from another U.S. based political forum, and your agenda. This is an Australian based stock market forum. Do you have any genuine interest in the Australian stock market? If you are here for the sole purpose of discussing religious topics then I am sorry but I'm going to have to decline your membership.
Click to expand...

ALTER2EGO -to- JOE BLOW:

I did not see anything in forum rules saying "genuine interest in the Australian stock market" is a prerequisite to posting in the General Chat portion of this website. I was under the impression that General Chat is for anything that has nothing to do with stocks.

There are other people here that are willing to debate this topic. So long as people are respectful towards one another during their debates, YOUR personal rejection of religion is no excuse to attempt to control other people's freedom of speech simply because you hold the ban stick. Besides, everyone here knows there are threads in the General Chat area by others who do not have "genuine interest in the Australian stock market". So why the double-standards? I see hypocrisy.


If you have a Religion section to this forum, feel free to simply move my thread to that section of the website so that I can proceed with the debate.


That said, I am removing my avatar in light of your present threat to ban my account.



________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
 
Top