rrobs
Well-Known Member
You are a rare bird. I think this may be the first time I've seen someone say, "I don't know" here in RF. To me, you surpass the knowledge of those who do have the education you lack.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravity and the Expanding Universe
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
If your reference is meant to highlight my lack of higher math skill, you succeeded. I'm still at a loss as to how a 10% increase in gravity would not have much effect. Oh, well, yet another thing I don't understand.
If you want to understand what the effect of changing things is, you need to be able to do the math.
If your reference is meant to highlight my lack of higher math skill, you succeeded. I'm still at a loss as to how a 10% increase in gravity would not have much effect. Oh, well, yet another thing I don't understand.
Think of it like this. Suppose the strength of gravity on the Earth went up by 10%. How would it affect things, given that everything else is the same?
And the answer is not much. Things would fall faster. We'd need to do some adjustments in some architecture and some engineering, but other than using a bit more support in some cases, even there the changes would not be huge.
That would depend on the god. For the typical monotheist god of the Abrahamics, I don't think it's verifiable at all. It's a supernatural entity that exists "beyond" (whatever that means) spacetime. So nothing that we have any ability to detect could ever verify it.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
You have no objective evidence whatsoever for claiming any other explanation would have to be 'argued from ignorance.' Or do you?
Thanks Rob. Getting comfortable with not knowing is, I think, a key element of maturing as a person. Fear of it is what keeps fundamentalists of all stripes so chained to their worldviews.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Well. You answered your own question. I respect your humility and your knowledge, but you have basically said what your presupposition is. That does not honestly respond to my question. I hope you understand.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
So onl
Very good then.
I answered as best I can. I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your expectations. How could we ever verify the existence of something that "exists" in some way outside of spacetime?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Of course. But opinion is what you asked for.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I was only pointing out your presupposition.
Nevertheless, one should have some criteria to verify anything. So I asked for yours.
Cheers.
The sciences are independent of any ID claim of a Source outside our physical existence Created our physical existence.
My 'ideas' carry no weight in science. I have been a scientist for more than 50 year. In the lab, field and published, as Geologist and Soil Scientist. I do not reject the peer reviewed published research and discoveries that are the foundation of scientific knowledge.
References to support your claim from peer reviewed scientific references would be appreciated. Based on what I have seen in the past this type of probability estimate is made by some ID believers without any supporting scientific evidence. Actually the proposal of a wide range of possible constants is an admission of the concept of a multiverse with billions and more possible universes.
It is up to the one proposing the argument to support the evidence in the positive.
The argument I provided that there is no known range of possible physical constants in the evidence to make such a probability estimate possible, and it is possible the 'dice are loaded,' and it is possible the physical constant we observe in our universe are the only constants possible[/QUOTE]
Objective evidence can only be used to falsify 'positive' hypothesis an theories. Any other explanation would have to present 'positive' objective evidence for a hypothesis to support an alternate explanation. Without the objective evidence it is indeed an 'argument from ignorance.'
Actually the Quantum Mechanics at the Quanta level is observed to function outside the space/time world we experience on the macro level.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You were the one that used the term and falsely accused others.
It's odd that this conversation seems to only be one way. How would one verify a thing outside of the universe? That's not a presupposition, it's a question. I don't see a way. I could be wrong, and you could relieve my ignorance at any moment.
How so? How do we observe something outside of space and time? Our ability to observe, by definition, is a thing that occurs only in spacetime.
Heyo
Veteran Member
I know that it exist but I'm always puzzled by cases of selective perception (or selective memory).
Heyo
Veteran Member
That question has been answered by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia in 2005. There is no science indicating ID.
Well without tying u the thread I will give a brief description.
First in the macro world we have a space time continuum and gravity. This is lacking in the Quantum World. Important note: The Quantum World has momentary time of individual Quantum particle behavior. Classic physics breaks down at the Quantum scale, and for example as we approach the beginning of the universe as a singularity.
Definition of space-time | Dictionary.com
" . . . space-time continuum. the four-dimensional continuum, having three spatial coordinates and one temporal coordinate, in which all physical quantities may be located. the physical reality that exists within this four-dimensional continuum."
More to follow . . .