h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oops, sorry, let the thread slip.

Nice SFX there Josh.

I just want to know more about the dark writing. But I never thought you would want to go further by the sounds of it...

Ste

Gosh, Ste, it's been so long since I wrote that stuff, I can barely remember it myself.

Um...if I remember correctly, the last thing along those lines that I did had to do with someone finding a dead person who looked just like him. When the dead person came to life, it became evident (to the reader at least) that it was actually an evil...incarnation, of the character. It was his evil side coming through. Sort of similar to the concept in the movie "Fight Club", except far less developed, and several years before. Anyway, that's really all I remember of it and, as I destroyed it all afterward, I probably will never remember any more of it. The point, Ste, is that it didn't matter what I was writing, it mattered what was going on in my head. I'm sure that's hard for an atheist to understand

Anyway, I'm always willing to "talk about it", it's just that the events leading up to it are rather sketchy in my mind, since I've worked very hard to clear my mind of them.

Back to the evolution thing for a moment, I'd like to ask a question which has been no doubt asked since the beginning of the evolutionary theory. In fact, I may have even asked you this question before, though I don't remember doing so.

OK, big bang. Suddenly, the cosmic makeup that will become the universe is suddenly thrown out in all directions, and existance itself is born. What caused the big bang, and where'd the matter that came out of it, not to put to fine a point on it, come from?

Still scratching my head,
Josh, MKOT

P.S. That question was not necessarily just directed at Ste. Anyone who thinks that they can answer it is welcome to enlighten me. Personally, I don't think that the question CAN be answered, but I guess we'll see

"...it mattered what was going on in my head." I can understand that. After all, all perception is in the mind is it not?

Though not really anything to do with evolution (in the biological sense) the question of the origin of the universe is still relevant. And I do think it can be answered, it's just how satisfied with those answers that count. Here's how I see it: The Big Bang, according to the theory, created time-space. Therefore there was no time before the big bang therefore there was *no before* the big bang (phew). This is unsatisfying for me. Cause and effect and all that. That "God created it" is also not good enough for me, that just raises the old "but then who made God?" which can either be countered back and forth ad infinitum or answered by the tedious: "aahh, God is outside time/God has existed forever" arguement. Still, not good enough for me; if God can exist forever then why can't anything else. Such as the cosmos for example. At this point pure faith comes in and science exits stage left.

So, I was quite happy to say "I dunno" until a theory popped up that suggested a model for the universe that big bangs and big crunches for all eternity and has been for all eternity. Kind of bounces along through time . It ties up some loose ends. This theory is speculative, but good enough for now. I think we just have to know more before we'll ever find out for sure. If we ever do.

Thought up any new criticisms of evolutionary theory that I can argue away recently? (joke, joke).



Ste

Dear Ste,

Sorry I haven't written lately. I've been in New Mexico on vacation. You know, touring Los Alamos and giving my annual inspection rating...well, OK, perhaps not Actually, when I got to Los Alamos, everything was closed!

Anyway, that's an interesting theory about the existance of the universe, but does it really seem any more believable than the Big Bang itself, or God for that matter? It seems no more credible, as it still implies no starting point. See, I think that the answer to all of this lies in mankind's lack of understanding of how the universe works.

Take time travel for instance. For over a century, there has been much speculation about whether or not time travel could actually occur. Einstein proved that as an object accellerates, time appears to slow down. This has been projected to the extent that people who are frequent flyers tend to age a little slower. So it would appear, from these proofs, that time travel could indeed be possible.

Characteristically, I disagree.

Time does not flow. In fact, it really only exists as an effect on life. Space and time are woven together, but time only exists to facilitate movement through space. On a large scale, the earth is rotating at approximately 1,000 mph. We cannot feel this, let alone percieve it visually. We can't even tell that the sun is moving until it rises or sets (visually, that is). But imagine a lawnmower blade, which is rotating at far less speed than the earth. You can't see the individual blades, it moves so fast. Thus, the key here is that time affects size. The larger something is, the less effect time has on it. The sun, for example, would appear to be...I don't know, what...billions of years old? This is because it ages far more slowly than, say, the Earth. Our perception of the earth comes from our diminutive size. Just the same, a bacteria on the lawnmower blade, were it able to percieve, would feel the same way about the blade. What? It's moving?!

My point here (and sometime I'd like to further expound on the above, as I believe it ties in directly with aspects of quantum physics) is that we have the wrong view of time. We can't begin to imagine infinity, or timelessness. It makes no sense to think of something moving from one spot in the universe to another spot in zero time, yet even some particles do this! Hence, there is much room for debate here, and I think that the people who sit back and say "Aah, God is outside time" are just as likely to be right as those who say "I dunno".

Regards,
Josh, MKOT

The idea of multiple big bangs, exploding over and over again has its points of interest. First, it explains how our universe could have exploded with the perfect amount of velocity for galaxies to form. The rational is, there were lots of explosions and one of them got lucky. It also explains the "before the big bang." But there are a few problems.

First, the bangs would constitute as a perpetual motion machine. In theory, this means that it wouldn't work, but, on the other hand, this would be a perpetual motion machine that is different from any other that man has dreamed up, so I don't think that it itself is a reason for trashing the theory. But consider the Newton's law: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, if these successive blasts are occurring, they must all be exploding with the same amount of energy, velocity, and the same amount of matter. Am I wrong in assuming that these big bangs would all have to be identical? And if they are all identical, then aren't the many anthropic principle examples surrounding them still applicable?

Just passing through again. I decided I was spending far too much time on H2G2 and now only pop in occasionally. This thread seems to have suffered a similar fate.

Josh G - good to see you again
Josh MKOT - good also to see you still trawling the deep
Ste - you seem to be keeping up the science end nicely
Alji - good to see a new face

Its hard trawling through so much backlog but a couple of things do jump out.

Alji - good quotes, but apparently over everyone's heads. I think that Alji is trying to point out that the Bible itself says that it doesn't contain all the answers. A word of caution then to anyone who believes that it does. Alji also highlights a typical area of editorial licence. Is that what you were trying to do, Alji?

The debate now seems to have identified that there are two separate issues here.

How was the world created?

Ignoring individual philosophies for a moment, I would like to take a legal perspective of the evidence.

The only evidence presented by the "religious" team is the Bible. Most of this would be considered hearsay in a court and if allowed would still be very weak.

Whereas the scientific explanation has so much more in the way of evidence to back it up and does not require a leap of imagination to support it.

Why was the world created?

This is an entirely different question and one which the scientific community flatly refuses to answer. Why? Because we know we can't answer it!

The religious community can now look smug and supply an appropriate explanation with a free hand (and maybe even some help from the scientific community).


As I see it this is at the core of the philosophical difference between the two schools. Science has made it possible to explain from first principles the "how", while religion can explain the "why". This particular debate persists because some in the religious community object believe that because of this, science is attacking religion.

I don't know about you Ste, but I for one am more than happy to accept Josh MKOT's account of his healing and of his encouter with a demon. I don't feel the need to refute your experiences, Josh MKOT.

Nor do I see a need to reconcile the difference between the two. As Alji has pointed out, even the Bible admits that it doesn't contain all the answers to the "How?" questions.


Finally the Big Bang/Crunch theory is by no means accepted by all.

Science is still refining the data needed to answer the how. I know that sounds like a cop out, but we genuinely don't yet know enough about the amount of matter in the universe and the speed at which visible galaxies are moving to be able to say whether those galaxies are continuing to accelerate away from each other, or whether they are slowing and will eventually collapse inwards.



I return now to my point in an earlier posting, neither side in this debate can refute the other. The principle reason IMHO being that the questions being asked and answered by each side are fundamentally different.

Josh MKOT,

I'm not sure how time is relevant here, but your theory on time seems only to be based upon your own speculation rather than science backed up with supporting evidence. It is quite interesting though.

"We can't even tell that the sun is moving until it rises or sets (visually, that is)." have you never watched a shadow move ever-so-slowly across a room because of the Earth's rotation?

"Time effects size." Not sure what you're getting at here. So the smaller things are the faster time goes? Where are you getting this from? What studies have been performed upon this? Is this all to prove your religious belief that the universe occured at tea-time roughly 4,000 years ago or something?

I agree that our perception of time is limited. Our perception of anything of limited. That's what experimentation is for, to expand upon our senses.

Josh the G;

The Anthropic Principle neatly addresses the gaps in scientific knowledge (as does intelligent design, a coincidence??). You are arguing from a position of ignorance. How do you know that the universe exploded with the perfect amount of velocity for galaxies to form? You don't. How do you know that ANY constants in the universe are fine-tunable, or could have had different outcomes? How do you know that if they could be different values to the cosmological constants that life/galaxies/stars would not have come to be? You don't. No-one does.

What the AP basically states, when it comes down to it, is that stuff exists. It makes up the rest out of thin air!

We are only able to ask such questions because we exist in a form to be able to do so, i.e., that the constants exist that enable the universe to be in it's current form. If the constants were different there might be noone around to ask these questions! Knowing this, what else do you expect to observe? Talk about stating the obvious.

The greatest value that the AP has is that you cannot disprove it because of its intrinsic nature. It is a clever trick. It deals with stuff outside of current scientific knowledge, *THEN* has the audacity to engage science with these amazing revelations! The AP is simply a trivial and amusing side-show, but ultimately useless and logically flawed.

Re: Big Bouncy Bangs.

I imagine it like the universe is some elastic, it goes from a point stretches to it's limit and snaps back in again. But maybe more pendulum like (in perfect conditions a perpetual motion machine). I don't see whay having the same energy each time would mean it would have to explode in the same pattern. Anyway the laws of conservation as far as we know apply to this universe, we simply do not know what will happen. Either that or I don't know this newish theory well enough (I'm no cosmologist).

Dammit, I'd better do some work for once...



Ste

Madent,

Your post reflects what I was saying in post 178. I totally agree.



Ste

Dear Ste,

My point with time, and the tie-in it has with my beliefs about creationism, are sort of different things.

I was merely pointing out that I found it fascinating to consider the possibility of what I was saying. And yes, there is evidence to back it up. If we take Einstein's experiments in relativity (I believe I mentioned the clocks on the locomotives, which were set at the same time but, after travelling at phenominally different velocities, arrived at the station bearing different times), we see a disparity in the temporal structure of the universe. It makes little to no sense to say that, quite simply, as we approach light speed, time seems to slow down. Why? Light speed, just like the speed of sound, is a mere barrier of our own minds, a measurement to help us comprehend its existance. Time is the same way. We think of time in seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc... but in reality, time is merely an affectation. We cannot sense it in any way. We only know it exists because it facilitates the breakdown on all systems. So, what's to say that time DOESN'T affect some things differently? OK, if we can take that small leap of logic, then the very next step leads us to examine HOW time might affect things differently. I said that we cannot percieve the sun moving. I am aware that this is not ENTIRELY true (take sunsets for example, during which the sun seems to travel faster). What I meant was, the larger the object, the more slowly it seems to exist. The life of a single bacteria is short from our perspective, yet it lives long enough to perform its duties as a living thing. This principal seems to apply to all things. Size, to a reasonable extent, seems to dictate the affect of time on us. Of course, this in itself is probably a simplistic look at it. In reality, I think that we would find the truth much more complicated and bizarre than my small attempts could begin to explain, but for now, they will have to do.

And how does this tie in with my theories on creationism? Well, I'll admit, it is somewhat loosely. Primarily, this study of time that I have been doing is just one of personal interest. But the connection is that IF time is like I say it is, then it cannot be truly defined. What seems like a definite amount to us is perhaps not so clear as we thought. That makes things like dating (fixing a time on, not the human kind) very difficult. For example, as time applies to us (humans), the earth may appear to be, say, 5 billion years old. The universe might seem to be (however old it's supposed to be), but this is measured in our terms of time, which would be flawed, since our terms of time only apply to ourselves. I know that it seems absurd, but do you think that if the bacteria, which will live five minutes, was conscious of its existance, that it would think five minutes to be a short lifespan? No, it would not, because that's how long (according to our perception of time) it normally would live.
Again, I realize that this is probably fairly loosely grounded, but, as I said, I haven't spent a lot of time trying to connect it with creationism yet. Thus, I leave what I have accomplished mentally, for your perusal and subsequent attempts at dismanteling

Josh, MKOT


P.S. Sorry, folks, that I have been gone for a while. Real life keeps me so busy that I seldom have time to escape into H2G2 for a nice break, a cup of tea, and an argument with Ste

Madent- Your insight does you credit, and you seem to have some of the aspects of the ongoing fight between science and religion in order. However, I would urge you to look beyond the argument, and occasionally view the subject, in your quest for knowledge that is life.

Josh the G- Interesting idea, but I'm afraid I'd have to concur with Ste about the same-size minibangs thing. I just don't see why they would have to contain the same amount of energy. Plus, doesn't there have to be an element of chaos for there to appear the universe as we know it today? Perhaps our fractal pattern of the universe, if ever we complete it, will be based on, or hold the answers to, these thoughts Still, hats off to your research; I have to really paddle hard to keep up with you at times. Keep it up.

Do you know where Josh has gone? Is it because school has finished that he isn't on anymore? Is this the same case with you, or are you just plain busy?

I agree with you on the point that time is an "affectation" and that our perception of it is limited. In my opinion your view that size of an object has an effect upon "it's" time is another artefact of our limited minds. Does an elephant think time is going slower? I can't see any reason to think so. Does the sun think at all? What defines an object? Why then, are relatively small atomic clocks affected differently when one travels at high speed, and one stays still. I think Einstein has it right (for now ) and there is simply no need for any extension of the theory. Then again, I'm no theoretical physicist...

The scientific experiment is an extension of our senses. Our perception of nature *is* flawed and that is why imperical data is collected to try and uncover the mysteries that face us. Science aims to be above and beyond our minds. If it wasn't then we could just sit and watch and listen and describe. Which is what some people do I know, and it what ancient people did, the people who wrote the bible.

"I would urge you to look beyond the argument, and occasionally view the subject."
Just to clarify, and before I respond, what would the subject be?

Ste

Read an interesting article at the weekend about a new skull uncovered in Dmansi, Georgia. It has been suggested that this find might lead to a re-evaluation of the Homo genus due to the considerable amount of variation evident between it and other contempory skulls.

If you could just suspend your beliefs for a while and think through some "what if's";

1) What if the universe is not really expanding. Could there be some other explanation for the red shift e.g. loss of energy in the wave packet over time.

2) What if Einstein was wrong and Newton was right. i.e. Absolute space not relative space.

3) What if the clocks go slower because of the increase in mass. BTW, Einstein said that both observers would see the other's clock go slower.

4) What if photons are not particles, their particulate nature being due to the method of observing the wave packet. i.e. when you detect light the electron can only absorb enough energy to change its orbit, it then releases that energy.

I'll think up some more when I have time.


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

And also there's the 7 million year old skull found in Chad: http://www.nature.com/nature/ancestor/ (you may have to register, but with Nature I think it's free).

Apparently, this skull is so significant because it comes from a period when man's ancestors were diverging from our ape ancestors and before this find we had little or nothing to go by.

With this link you can also find some classic original papers on the subject of human evolutionary palaeontology (if that's what you can call it).



Ste

Is there any reason why the two Josh's aren't around any more?

Dear Ste,

I can't answer for Josh the Genius, but as for me, I have been extremely busy, but am back at long last.

Picking up the thread again will be, I can see, a difficult task, as it has become rather heavy.

First of all, the issue that you and I were discussing (Ste): When I say "perception" of time, I don't mean literal perception. Obviously, the sun has no perception of its surroundings, just as a bacterium has no perception. Your question concerning this implies thinking about it backwards. That's what gets us (humans) into trouble with things like this: we base everything on our perception. What I said was meant to put an understandable face on a complex problem. Whether or not the sun can percieve its surroundings, they exist, right? And as for whether or not an elephant can sense a difference in time, well, that may be splitting hairs. I think that there has to be a major difference in size before the affect is even remotely noticeable, and an elephant just isn't that much bigger than a human. That's why I use extremes, such as interstellar bodies and microscopic life forms. Anyway, it's just not really a matter of perception; it's a matter of effect.

And, to take this a step further, even if something from either of those extremes WERE to be able to percieve its surroundings, they would seem normal, and be undisputable as the "standard" for time. Sound familiar? That's because this is exactly what we do as humans. We assume that because time affects us in a certain way, that that must be the staple upon which time is fixed. Imagine with me, if you will, that the universe is only six thousand years old. I know, I know, it's difficult, but try. Also, imagine that I am right about time affecting things according to their size.

OK, assuming all of that is correct, would our perception of the universe not be: ahh, this planet cannot have changed so rapidly, therefore it must be 5 billion years old. There are evidences to suggest that large areas such as the Grand Canyon were carved in just a few days. Nevertheless, that's circumstantial, so we'll just stick to the original thought. Assuming that, because it is so much larger than us, we cannot possibly begin to understand, at the moment, how time affects it, how can we then determine the age of the Earth, Universe, etc...
**********************************************************************

OK, on to other fish: This skull thing is, I fear, far from convincing. I mean, you can say it to a classroom full of students, and 99% of them would probably accept it as fact. But the 1%, the minority (especially among the media), would have to look at that and say: Wait a minute. How do THEY know that? Now, honestly, I've seen some of these finds, these so-called evolutionary links, that were based on the finding of a skull in Uganda or something. Most of the time, the skull is incomplete, and even when it's complete, it's unique. Almost never is there a repeat of the same link (correct me if I'm wrong about that). Now, consider that today the population of the planet Earth is somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. Add that number to the number of people down through the years who have existed on this planet. Nobody could possibly begin to accurately portray that number, but I think we can all agree that it would be a VERY LARGE number. Let us say, for argument's sake, 50 billion, though I have no backing for this whatsoever. OK, out of Fifty Billion people, can we say that there haven't been a sufficient amount of deformed and/or misshapen heads? What about deformed bodies? I don't have any statistics on deformities, but the fact that even today, where preventitive medicine abounds, there are STILL multiple millions of deformed people (so many that there are myriad classifications for the different types), that fact suggests to me that the deformities of the past would have been in greater number, due to the lack of medical knowledge. Now, that puts this whole search for the evolutionary link in a different perspective. If THAT many people have existed before us, and we are basing what we find on such a (relatively) small amount of finds, how can we be sure that we're not digging up the equivalant of a prehistoric freak show (no offense intended to anyone with a deformity here. I'm merely trying to prove a point, and have just realized that I'm getting a little off color.)?

I think that there are many questions to be answered before we can automatically assume that science is correct about evolution.

Ahh, but that won't happen. It has been seen to that every schoolchild will have the "opportunity" to be taught that evolution is right and everything else is wrong. Scientists rush to cover their mistakes as fast as they rush to find new "evidence". Ste, no offense to you or your profession, but science has been quite pushy in dishing out as fact something which they are guessing at. And I question, many times, just how "educated" those guesses are.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. What do you think?

Josh, MKOT

P.S. The rest of you, I'll get to your arguments later. At the moment I have a class to go to (big college man that I am), and have nearly run out of time. But keep plugging away; I find your arguments fascinating. Alij, my friend, you finally begin to speak coherently. Thank you and congratulations. I will, at some point, address your perspective on the Einstein clock experiments. Your data is a little flawed, but provides the reader with something to think about. Again, kudos.

My data is a little flawed - what data do you mean?


Alji (Member of The Guild of Wizards @ U197895)

Hi Josh, welcome back.

The whole perception of time seems like grasping at straws. You have an unsheakeable belief in something that simply *cannot* be wrong and you are desperately trying to fit some theory around it, no matter how ludicrous it may be and how little to no evidence there is to support it apart from your opinion. You cannot get your thinking out of scientific mode, you even apply scientific mode to the bible!

The skull: More humans are alive today than have ever lived. That is a well know statistic, one that sounds a little far-fetched but just think of the population explosion we have seen in the 20th century, and it will only curve exponentially into the 21st. The population sizes of humans in prehistory numbered only in the 100,000s we have only recently been able to support such a large population. Now seeing how it is *very* unlikely that any given individual would be preserved in such a manner then finding this one fossil is stupendously improbable. The evolution of human ancestors are poorly understood because of the lack of specimins, so when one complete skull comes along that experts (and Josh, you are not an expert, I trust them more than you, no offense ) identify as a human ancestor it is a big deal. The recent finds have uncovered much about the branching tree of human evolutionary history, and even re-written it somewhat!

If palaeontology of human fossilised bones was the *only* evidence that scientists were pointing to prove evolution I would also be as sceptical as hell. It simply wouldn't be enough. But they are just a small piece of a much, much larger picture, one that creationists, including yourself Josh, seem incapable of recognising. You point to the myriad of evidence on an individual basis and pick at unlikely flaws that don't exist 99.9% of the time. You do not stop to think that all of this evidence comes together under one umbrella, one sythesis. If you even manage the unlikely feat of disproving that one ugandan skull is a deformed human you haven't toppled evolution, all you have done is taken away one mistaken piece from a jigsaw of over a million pieces.

Can you not see just how many scientific disciplines point to the same conclusion? Doesn't this say something to you?



Ste

Oops,

For "...manage the unlikely feat of disproving that..."

Read "...manage the unlikely feat of proving that..."

.

Tried Brunel yet? It's growing on me...



Ste

Dear Ste,

Perhaps I'm a little thick and/or am not well read. What are these other "proofs" of which you speak. I have read books in which the author gives events and their rough times of occurrence (such as the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago), and there have been MANY of these, undoubtedly far more than I have read about. But that's all they've ever been. Someone stating that they are fact. I never get to hear just how the hell they came about knowing these things. So please enlighten me on some of these "facts", and where they come from.

As for sticking to science and not going anywhere else...I thought that this was a "scientific" debate. Am I in the wrong room? But seriously, I think that there is a scientific explanation for most things, even if one follows the Bible. Whether or not we will ever know those things is speculative, especially with all the false data that is constantly put out.

Josh, MKOT

P.S. Just for the record, I happily acknowledge that I'm no expert on any of this. I could very easily be wrong about the time thing; I just have a propensity for argument that says I must hold it up to the very dregs. I think, Ste, that if you were to do some self examination, you would find that you are, at least in some respects, the same way. Happy hunting

Alij,

Your idea about the clocks is a good one, if we were talking about a massive scale. But since these were clocks, and were on trains that were moving nowhere near the speed of light, I think that we can safely rule out any significant change in mass. I don't think that any mass change between the two clocks would be detectable at that speed, if not that size.

Good thinkin' though,
Josh, MKOT

P.S. The others are interesting as well. But you have to remember that there are a lot of "what if's" in science (refer to Ste on that one)