 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think we can certainly disprove that (for example) humans are at the
> middle of the universe or that evil spirits interfere in our
> measurements. (For example, all we need is Satan to appear and admit it.)
But, since any point of reference can only see outward, in the universe,
as far as light could travel since the beginning of the universe . . .
We are all at the center of it.
I really shouldn't try thinking like this, this late/early in the morning.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 0:30, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 28-3-2010 19:50, Darren New wrote:
>>> Argumentative religious people often seem to comment that science
>>> requires faith. Argumentative non-religious people say that's
>>> nonsense, since there is evidence. I contend that there are at least
>>> two things most scientists take on faith, without supporting evidence:
>>>
>>> 2) Humans aren't special.
>>
>> I think there is evidence for that. Almost nothing in modern medicine
>> or biology makes sense if we were special.
>
> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted
> the farther they get from *us*? Or the fact that we seem to be the only
> creatures in the entire *universe* that broadcast radio signals?
For the latter see the Drake equation.
> (I don't necessarily mean "special" in terms of biology-on-earth, but
> special in a more universal sense.)
>
> People don't say "the red shift shows everything is moving away from us"
> or "humans happen to live where time passes fastest in the universe."
> They say "the red shift shows everything is moving away from everything
> else."
We say that because we believe in Lorentz invariance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted the
> farther they get from *us*?
Once you have the information about the surrounding stars, isn't it quite
trivial to show that from the point of view of *any* star, all other stars
are red-shifted more the further away they are?
> Or the fact that we seem to be the only creatures in the entire *universe*
> that broadcast radio signals?
Why the assumption that any intelligent lifeform would be broadcasting radio
signals for any significant time in its existence? To me that seems silly.
Earth has been broadcasting radio for 100 years out of 4.5 billion, maybe we
will continue to do so for another 10000 years until we find something
better? Those timescales are tiny compared to the variation in ages of
other stars.
Also, really can you detect the radio signals from Earth more than a few
light years away? Isn't the signal going to be incredibly tiny and
virtually impossible to detect? And that's just a few light years, what
about the other planets billions of light years away?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Many things claimed by the non-religious worldview (such as the age of
>> the earth) demand that things like the speed of light and the decay
>> rate of radioactive isotopes have always had the values we measure
>> them to have today.
>
> No they don't. They're measured in different ways and they agree.
Although if the values for these constants are in fact the result of
more fundamental properties of space and matter, then any shift in one
could only happen with a corresponding shift in the others (for
instance, the electric constant, the magnetic constant, and the speed of
light, are all interrelated), and our benchmark is moving.
>> They also demand that no major changes have been forced upon the world
>> of our experience by some agency, existing outside of that world, at
>> times where we have been unable to make observations.
>
> True. I think there's a general assumption that there isn't a conspiracy
> to fool scientific measurements. (What amuses me is when the faithful
> will assert that it's their caring and loving god doing to lying.)
It's a fair assumption to state that if miracles were happening in the
world, science would be rather hobbled in its progress. If a Supreme
Being wanted science to progress at the fastest possible rate, He would
refrain from causing miracles.
Which means that the lack of miracles proves nothing...
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 13:46, scott wrote:
>> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted
>> the farther they get from *us*?
>
> Once you have the information about the surrounding stars, isn't it
> quite trivial to show that from the point of view of *any* star, all
> other stars are red-shifted more the further away they are?
>
>> Or the fact that we seem to be the only creatures in the entire
>> *universe* that broadcast radio signals?
>
> Why the assumption that any intelligent lifeform would be broadcasting
> radio signals for any significant time in its existence? To me that
> seems silly. Earth has been broadcasting radio for 100 years out of 4.5
> billion, maybe we will continue to do so for another 10000 years until
> we find something better?
50 or 100 is a better estimate. We are already shutting down the
Megawatt analog radio and TV transmission towers. Transmitters are
continuously moving to less output and wider spectrum. Total power
transmitted to outer space is decreasing and becoming less recognizable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> I think we can certainly disprove that (for example) humans are at the
>> middle of the universe or that evil spirits interfere in our
>> measurements. (For example, all we need is Satan to appear and admit it.)
>
> But, since any point of reference can only see outward, in the universe,
> as far as light could travel since the beginning of the universe . . .
That's already assuming that everywhere in the universe is homogenous. E.g.,
if we see a galaxy to the north that is halfway to the "edge" of the
universe, you're assuming that if someone in that galaxy looked north, the
"edge" of the universe would be the same distance away, rather than much
closer.
I've seen discussions about the density of galaxies at distances, and how
they don't match what you'd expect if the universe was expanding. But they
do match what you'd expect if the universe was homogenous on a 4-sphere (or
maybe a 5-sphere?) and time was simply running slower farther away because
the normals weren't parallel. I.e., nothing's moving. It's just going slower
from our point of view because it's closer to the horizon as seen by us. Of
course, that's still homogenous, but does it really need to be?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>>> Many things claimed by the non-religious worldview (such as the age
>>> of the earth) demand that things like the speed of light and the
>>> decay rate of radioactive isotopes have always had the values we
>>> measure them to have today.
>>
>> No they don't. They're measured in different ways and they agree.
>
> Although if the values for these constants are in fact the result of
> more fundamental properties of space and matter, then any shift in one
> could only happen with a corresponding shift in the others (for
> instance, the electric constant, the magnetic constant, and the speed of
> light, are all interrelated), and our benchmark is moving.
But that means it didn't change. If everything gets shorter, including your
measuring sticks, then nothing changed. That's exactly how relativity works.
In any case, I'm talking about entirely independent measurements. The
progress of the seasons is measured against the radioactivity of carbon-14
which is measured against the tides caused by the moon which is measured
against the rate of mutations in different species, etc etc etc.
It's how people know the moon has been slowing down and moving away, for
example.
> It's a fair assumption to state that if miracles were happening in the
> world, science would be rather hobbled in its progress. If a Supreme
> Being wanted science to progress at the fastest possible rate, He would
> refrain from causing miracles.
Assuming the supreme being wanted scientific progress, which would seem to
be in variance to numerous major religions. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted
>> the farther they get from *us*? Or the fact that we seem to be the
>> only creatures in the entire *universe* that broadcast radio signals?
>
> For the latter see the Drake equation.
I'm familiar with it. What about it?
>> People don't say "the red shift shows everything is moving away from
>> us" or "humans happen to live where time passes fastest in the
>> universe." They say "the red shift shows everything is moving away
>> from everything else."
>
> We say that because we believe in Lorentz invariance.
Yep. That doesn't mean things are moving away from us. We can't measure
whether they're moving away from us. All we can measure is the red shift.
The assumption is that the red shift is caused by relative motion, and not
the geometry of the universe.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted
>> the farther they get from *us*?
>
> Once you have the information about the surrounding stars, isn't it
> quite trivial to show that from the point of view of *any* star, all
> other stars are red-shifted more the further away they are?
Only if you assume they're red-shifted *because* they're moving apart.
You're assuming that if you're in a distant galaxy and look back towards
ours, ours too will be red-shifted, rather than blue-shifted. If, on the
other hand, we were in the middle of the universe and time just happened to
run fastest here, then we would be blue-shifted compared to other galaxies.
> Why the assumption that any intelligent lifeform would be broadcasting
> radio signals for any significant time in its existence? To me that
> seems silly. Earth has been broadcasting radio for 100 years out of 4.5
> billion, maybe we will continue to do so for another 10000 years until
> we find something better? Those timescales are tiny compared to the
> variation in ages of other stars.
There's lots of discussion about what we should have found, including von
Neumann probes and such. I think there are a lot of good arguments that (for
example) given what we've accomplished in the last 100 years, someone who
evolved intelligence only one billion years ago should already have
colonized the galaxy. The big numbers work both ways.
> Also, really can you detect the radio signals from Earth more than a few
> light years away? Isn't the signal going to be incredibly tiny and
> virtually impossible to detect? And that's just a few light years, what
> about the other planets billions of light years away?
That's the argument, yes. It's certainly not conclusive. We can tell what
planets have atmospheres and water from here, only 100 years after steam power.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2010 18:11, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> How about the fact that the stars of the universe are all red-shifted
>>> the farther they get from *us*? Or the fact that we seem to be the
>>> only creatures in the entire *universe* that broadcast radio signals?
>>
>> For the latter see the Drake equation.
>
> I'm familiar with it. What about it?
All we know that there are no radio signals broadcasted from a place
exactly the right time ago to be just reaching us now, send towards us,
and in a format that we recognize. Which is quite a long way away from a
conclusion that no signals are send at all.
>>> People don't say "the red shift shows everything is moving away from
>>> us" or "humans happen to live where time passes fastest in the
>>> universe." They say "the red shift shows everything is moving away
>>> from everything else."
>>
>> We say that because we believe in Lorentz invariance.
>
> Yep. That doesn't mean things are moving away from us. We can't measure
> whether they're moving away from us. All we can measure is the red
> shift. The assumption is that the red shift is caused by relative
> motion, and not the geometry of the universe.
I don't understand that last sentence, but that may be my physics
background.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
