A little perspective on the universe

[TK73]

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html

[Johnny SixPack]

Feelin' existential tonight, TK? 

Cool link though.

Funny how the the layouts of the smallest parts have a lot in common with the largest.

[Telvis]

That's pretty wild.  Just when I was feeling really small...I started feeling very large.

[BigBlockSam]

reminds me of the scene in animal house when there smoking pot in the bathtub and the guy is explaining about how there are little universe's in every cell in our finger nails, wow man like deep, pass the dooby.  

[Khyron]

size isn't everything! 

[Johnny SixPack]

size isn't everything! 

And he'd know.

[Orange_Crush]

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

[4402tuff4u]

It's just amazing and mind boggling how insignificant we really are in our universe. In comparison, we are just a part of a single sand grain in the whole Sahara desert. And then again, we have multimillion organisms living in our bodies.   

[RD]

here is a concept that I thought up in one of my many drunken stupors with my other engineering friends while in the Army.

Everything we know has a boundary.  The town you live in has a city limit.  The county has a line.  The state has a line.  The country has boundaries either with other nations or natural objects.  The Earth's boundary is the last layer of atmosphere.  The Solar System's boundary is the orbit of the last planet. The Milky Way Galaxy's boundary is the last planet's orbit of the furthest solar system that is controlled by the galaxy's gravitational force in all directions of the center of the galaxy.  So, if everything has a boundary that we know of (to include ourselves... our skin is our boundary), then should not the universe have a boundary also?  The key question is that if the universe does have a boundary, then what lies outside of it? 

If you didnt feel small already, I am sure this helped.

[Telvis]

It's just amazing and mind boggling how insignificant we really are in our universe. In comparison, we are just a part of a single sand grain in the whole Sahara desert. And then again, we have multimillion organisms living in our bodies.   

I have a multimillion organisms living in my body...Their universe is constantly expanding..

[greenpigs]

Were all gonna die.


Thats my perspective on the universe.

[Orange_Crush]

here is a concept that I thought up in one of my many drunken stupors with my other engineering friends while in the Army.

Everything we know has a boundary.  The town you live in has a city limit.  The county has a line.  The state has a line.  The country has boundaries either with other nations or natural objects.  The Earth's boundary is the last layer of atmosphere.  The Solar System's boundary is the orbit of the last planet. The Milky Way Galaxy's boundary is the last planet's orbit of the furthest solar system that is controlled by the galaxy's gravitational force in all directions of the center of the galaxy.  So, if everything has a boundary that we know of (to include ourselves... our skin is our boundary), then should not the universe have a boundary also?  The key question is that if the universe does have a boundary, then what lies outside of it? 

If you didnt feel small already, I am sure this helped.

Well, this is an oversimplification but, scientific thought concedes that the universe does, indeed have a boundary.  The universe as we know it is contually expanding.  If it was infinite, then it could not expand.  The universe as we know it began with the big bang and has been expanding ever since sooooo...if you really want to blow your mind...think about what was here BEFORE the big bang.

[dodgecharger-fan]

here is a concept that I thought up in one of my many drunken stupors with my other engineering friends while in the Army.

Everything we know has a boundary.  The town you live in has a city limit.  The county has a line.  The state has a line.  The country has boundaries either with other nations or natural objects.  The Earth's boundary is the last layer of atmosphere.  The Solar System's boundary is the orbit of the last planet. The Milky Way Galaxy's boundary is the last planet's orbit of the furthest solar system that is controlled by the galaxy's gravitational force in all directions of the center of the galaxy.  So, if everything has a boundary that we know of (to include ourselves... our skin is our boundary), then should not the universe have a boundary also?  The key question is that if the universe does have a boundary, then what lies outside of it? 

If you didnt feel small already, I am sure this helped.

Well, this is an oversimplification but, scientific thought concedes that the universe does, indeed have a boundary.  The universe as we know it is contually expanding.  If it was infinite, then it could not expand.  The universe as we know it began with the big bang and has been expanding ever since sooooo...if you really want to blow your mind...think about what was here BEFORE the big bang.

But every boundary that is stated above is defined by man based on our limited knowledge and perceptions.

The city has a limit because polito-economical forces say so. Same with county, state, country etc...

Why does the Earth stop at the outer atmosphere? What's on the other side? Not Earth?

When cross the county line you're in another county. So, where are you when you move outside of the Earth's outer atmosphere.

Space? As defined by who? Man.

According to you, we say there is a boundary to the universe because it is expanding and we say we can prove it with scientific evidence. Fine. How do you measure this evidence? With a device that you made to measure it, huh?  Well, that's convenient.

As for skin, who says we aren't actually part of our surroundings.

When I breathe out, molecules from inside my body go with the expelling air. Is that part of me or not? Do that mean that "I" stop where my skin stops?

Who's to say? Well, we're to say, but who the hell are we, anyway?

So, not only are we insiginificant, we're also the most arrogant species in the Universe.... as far as anyone can say.


I'm not knocking what you guys have said, I'm just presenting another angle on the subject. Hopefully, one that freaks y'all out even more.


*Passes*

[dodgecharger-fan]

Oh, and one of my favourite concepts that plays into my idea of no boundaries is that while we can measure the things that we can measure with the things that we made to measure them with, what if there is stuff that we can't measure because we simply do not even know they are there?

Consider some of the lifespans of species in the world. The gastrotrich lives for as littel as 3 days.
Who's to say there isn't something that lives shorter that we just haven't found yet.

Take that one step further and say that there are things being born, living their lives, and dying right in front of us, but it happens so fast that we can't even perceive that they were ever there. You say they're not there because we'd be able to measure them somehow. Well, how? You don't what it is that you need to measure, right?

So, what if these things were actually part of what we are made of? Where's the boundary then?

[Ponch ®]

As the universe becomes infinetly larger, it also become infinetly smaller.

think about that one.

[4402tuff4u]

I know what you mean. I always tell my buddies not to flatulate inside my house, I don't want any part of them to remain in my home.

[Orange_Crush]

Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:


"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.

--The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy

[TK73]

Simply because man can not understand the nature of the universe does not imply that a "god" exists...

[Johnny SixPack]

Simply because man can not understand the nature of the universe does not imply that a "god" exists...

How believable is evolution if it took 4.55 billion years to finally create a species that can mass produce toilet paper and internet porn?

Maybe there is a God.

[Orange_Crush]

Simply because man can not understand the nature of the universe does not imply that a "god" exists...

Ever read the Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy?  I recommend you do...Probably one of the greatest books ever.

[Headrope]

Great. I thought I had finally figured out how many licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop. But now I don't know if I reached the center, or just the beginning of another outer.

[TK73]

Simply because man can not understand the nature of the universe does not imply that a "god" exists...

Ever read the Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy?  I recommend you do...Probably one of the greatest books ever.

nope...

[CaptMarvel]

Simply because man can not understand the nature of the universe does not imply that a "god" exists...

Simply because men cannott understand the nature of GOD, does not prove that he does not exist...put that in your extistential belly button contemplating pipe & puff on it!   

[TK73]

I suppose what it comes down to then is that nobody knows...  I suppose I am officially an agnostic;

"Agnostic
One who does not know. [Based on Gk. gnosis, knowledge; with a-, negative prefix. Coined in 1869 by Thomas Henry Huxley, father of British novelist Aldous Huxley... Huxley tired of being called an athiest, one who denies the existence of God, and labeled himself an agnostic to indicate that he had no evidence on which to affirm or deny that existence.]"

A Browwsers Dictionary, John Ciardi 1980

[CaptMarvel]

I suppose what it comes down to then is that nobody knows...  I suppose I am officially an agnostic;

"Agnostic
One who does not know. [Based on Gk. gnosis, knowledge; with a-, negative prefix. Coined in 1869 by Thomas Henry Huxley, father of British novelist Aldous Huxley... Huxley tired of being called an athiest, one who denies the existence of God, and labeled himself an agnostic to indicate that he had no evidence on which to affirm or deny that existence.]"

A Browwsers Dictionary, John Ciardi 1980

Dont wish to make you feel uncomfortable about your own lack of beliefs, but I do know for sure...I suppose then that I am officially one who has some measure of faith. Its only sad that in the mainstream media & in intellectual circles, people of fatih are typecast as weak minded, when nothing could be further from the truth....but try convincing this to the ever elite minded college professors & their ilk. Sounds like Huxley maybe had some problem with being called an athiest...Hmmm, why? Ultimatley, each one of us has to pick a side & choose for ourselves. Moderate fence sitting wont cut it... Sorry TK, disagree with you...(not the first time)

[TK73]

I suppose I choose the side that is not so presumptuous as to know that a "god" exists or not...

[bull]

I suppose I choose the side that is not so presumptuous as to know that a "god" exists or not...

You could always settle on fire insurance, just in case.

I liken evolution to the act of leaving a pile of 2x4s, a hammer and some nails on some distant, inhabited world and returning a million years later to find a dog house. I don't think any reasonable person would assume it just came into being on its own. Same with the formation of the Earth for example, the materials may have been here to create trees and bugs and people but I just can take that 'leap of faith' to believe it happened all on accident.

[TK73]

I suppose I choose the side that is not so presumptuous as to know that a "god" exists or not...

You could always settle on fire insurance, just in case.

[bull]

Sorry, I added to it. Do you have a question?

[Headrope]

Its only sad that in the mainstream media & in intellectual circles, people of fatih are typecast as weak minded, when nothing could be further from the truth....but try convincing this to the ever elite minded college professors & their ilk.

Please be more careful with your assertions, CaptMarvel - especially when accusing others of typecasting.
I am a member of the so-called "mainstream media" and have never typecast any person of faith as being weak-minded.

[Charger Aficionado]

  I heard a former NFL player speak one time...  He had some odd facts to proove the oddity that we exist...

He said:  "These are TRUE FACTS:
If our Earth's atmosphere were thiner we would all BURN TO DEATH
If our Earth's atmosphere were thicker we would FREEZE TO DEATH

If we were a mile further from the sun we would FREEZE TO DEATH
If we were a mile closer to the sun we would all BURN TO DEATH

If our earth's rotation was faster by one mile per hour we would FREEZE TO DEATH
If our earth's rotation was slower by one mile per hour we would all BURN TO DEATH

If our axis was tilted we would either FREEZE TO DEATH OR BURN TO DEATH"

AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON... 

His argument that God put us here and made what we have possible was matter-of-fact.  This made it un-denyable fact in I would say 100% of the people at that college field.  It really SANK-IN with me, and i am a HUGE SCEPTIC...  This man had really researched, and made a SLAM DUNK argument for Christianity.  He even went-on to all the Historians that have Independent accounts of Jesus Christ on Earth...  It was an amazing lecture...

[89MOPAR]

 How does the NFL players arguments prove that God is a "Christian" God  ?

Doesn't Earth have an elliptical orbit of the Sun , therby putting us a mile closer and a mile farther away from it at certain times ?
Maybe I am remembering my astronomy/ science wrong ? 

[John_Kunkel]

Dont wish to make you feel uncomfortable about your own lack of beliefs, but I do know for sure...I suppose then that I am officially one who has some measure of faith.

The only way one could possibly "know" would be through personal observation, without that one can only "have faith" that what they believe is true; therefore, to "know" and to "have faith" are totally different.

[RD]

Dont wish to make you feel uncomfortable about your own lack of beliefs, but I do know for sure...I suppose then that I am officially one who has some measure of faith.

The only way one could possibly "know" would be through personal observation, without that one can only "have faith" that what they believe is true; therefore, to "know" and to "have faith" are totally different.

So on that note, you have to define what exactly is "knowing" or "knowledge."  Is it being able to physically touch, hear, see, taste, or smell?  All of those make up direct observation. Do we know there are things called quarks or do we just have faith that they are there because of some scientists theory?  Do we know that the universe is expanding or is some scientist just having a faith based moment upon what he sees as logic, where others may see as lunacy.  Remember, the difference between a genius and a lunatic is the degree of success.

If we, us humans, are so smart that we have to have personal observation to know something, and the fact that anything faith based cannot be construed as knowledge because we did not observe it, then how do we know how we feel?  If so, if you love someone, can you prove it?  Love is faith based.  Anyone can do kind acts for one another, but love is not something you can touch, taste, see, hear, or smell.  Yet we "know" it exists.

According to your argument, love does not exist.  But since we "know" love exists, then your argument lacks merit.  So through faith, we can "know" things.

[John_Kunkel]

Dont wish to make you feel uncomfortable about your own lack of beliefs, but I do know for sure...I suppose then that I am officially one who has some measure of faith.

The only way one could possibly "know" would be through personal observation, without that one can only "have faith" that what they believe is true; therefore, to "know" and to "have faith" are totally different.

So on that note, you have to define what exactly is "knowing" or "knowledge."  Is it being able to physically touch, hear, see, taste, or smell?  All of those make up direct observation. Do we know there are things called quarks or do we just have faith that they are there because of some scientists theory?

Apples/oranges, I'm not going around claiming to "know" quarks exist. Much actual knowlwdge can be acquired without personal observation but any claim to "know" the existence of a supreme being isn't really knowing; it's faith.

Do we know that the universe is expanding or is some scientist just having a faith based moment upon what he sees as logic, where others may see as lunacy.  Remember, the difference between a genius and a lunatic is the degree of success.

The light shift can be observed, whether or not it proves the universe is expanding is debatable but at least the hypothesis is based on observation. Nowadays anyone who claims to have actually seen God is considered a nut case; even by staunch believers.

If we, us humans, are so smart that we have to have personal observation to know something, and the fact that anything faith based cannot be construed as knowledge because we did not observe it

Correct. The reason all religion is called "faith" is simply because the existence of God can only be proven by observation; belief without observation is an act of faith.

According to your argument, love does not exist.  But since we "know" love exists, then your argument lacks merit.  So through faith, we can "know" things.

Again, apples/oranges; love is an emotion, God is (some believe) an entity and as such requires observation for proof of existence.

[RD]

I am not talking about religion (i.e. scripture)... I know how much that drives you crazy.  I decided to talk more about other things, more realistic to you, based upon your principle of direct observation. 

People can claim to love an omnipotent being.  People claim that the aspects needed to sustain an Earthly relationship between two humans are based upon love, faith, commitment, submissiveness, fidelity, and dedication to name a few.  Are these not the same aspects that people use in religion?

What I am saying is that your argument is based on the premise that in order to "know" something, it can only be accomplished through direct observation. Yet I have argued that the same aspects of love between two humans are also displayed towards an omnipotent being by the same humans in terms of religion.

On that account, if you cannot prove through direct observation that love exists, yet we know it exists, then you cannot prove that an omnipotent being exists on that same premise.  Because faith, love, dedication, commitment, submissiveness, and fidelity are not quantifiable nor can they be directly observed.  Most of all, love cannot be physically, directly observed.

John, do/did you love your parents?  If so, prove it.  Other than doing acts, which anyone can do, actually prove your emotion of love that you have/have had for your parents.  If you can prove it, and I cannot bring up another example where that is not love and can be a random act of kindness, then direct observation has no foundation when it comes to identifying or "knowing".

[Khyron]

Doesn't Earth have an elliptical orbit of the Sun , thereby putting us a mile closer and a mile farther away from it at certain times ?
Maybe I am remembering my astronomy/ science wrong ? 

no you remember right, I'll post a link in responce below

He said:  "These are TRUE FACTS:
If our Earth's atmosphere were thiner we would all BURN TO DEATH
If our Earth's atmosphere were thicker we would FREEZE TO DEATH

The atmosphere is made up on many different layers. If one were thinner it would not cause such an extream. Now unless he meant the layer that keeps us protected from harmful solar radiation. But even then Human life may have been different. however other levels of life may have formed.

If we were a mile further from the sun we would FREEZE TO DEATH
If we were a mile closer to the sun we would all BURN TO DEATH

he was wrong. has an elliptical orbit.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=317

If our earth's rotation was faster by one mile per hour we would FREEZE TO DEATH
If our earth's rotation was slower by one mile per hour we would all BURN TO DEATH

I think this would have more of an effect on gravity. Not heat. I'll have to research this a bit more.

If our axis was tilted we would either FREEZE TO DEATH OR BURN TO DEATH"

The Earth wobbles. The axis tilts differently.


also earths atmosphere has and always well change. Part of the evolution of the planet. Man didn't just appear one day.
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

also some good reading on Earths magnetic fields.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=523

now, I'm not trying to say I have all the answers or that i'm a genius or anything, but a little research and basic astronomy and earth science classes tell me that the guy should have stuck to playing football