Origin of Earth

But he was wrong on all three conclusions.

And he was wrong on all three conclusions because.......?

You are aware of course that the current lambda-cdm cosmological model employs not only einstein's field equation but his cosmological constant as well, aren't you?

I swear I'll never get used to the nonsense of intellectual novices that populate this forum.
 
Werbung:
And he was wrong on all three conclusions because.......?

You are aware of course that the current lambda-cdm cosmological model employs not only einstein's field equation but his cosmological constant as well, aren't you?

I swear I'll never get used to the nonsense of intellectual novices that populate this forum.

Who do you think you are? Mr. Wizard? The cosmological constant proposed by Einstein is a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe (which was wrong). The lambda-cdm cosmological model introduces the cosmological constant lambda: Λ to explain cosmic acceleration, discovered in the late 1990's.

The two cosmological constants are totally different concepts; one was used to keep the universe stationary; the other is to explain why the the universe expansion continues to accelerate.

Don't waste your patience with me!
 
Who do you think you are? Mr. Wizard? The cosmological constant proposed by Einstein is a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe (which was wrong). The lambda-cdm cosmological model introduces the cosmological constant lambda: Λ to explain cosmic acceleration, discovered in the late 1990's.

The two cosmological constants are totally different concepts; one was used to keep the universe stationary; the other is to explain why the the universe expansion continues to accelerate.

Don't waste your patience with me!

What nonsense.

The cosmological constant is that value (described by capital lambda) multiplied to the metric tensor. What that term does is to ascribe a negative energy density to vacuum that counters gravity. Its the third term in the standard formulation of the field equation.

Depending on the value you ascribe to lambda, the universe could contract, stay still, expand at either an accelerating or decelerating rate.

The idea is completely EINSTEIN'S and was revived when hubble discovered that the universe is expanding. And to further demonstrate einstein's predisposition to the divine, a russian physicist named friedmann independently derived the field equation without the cosmological constant.

Don't waste anyone's time with your patent ignorance.
 
What nonsense.

The cosmological constant is that value (described by capital lambda) multiplied to the metric tensor. What that term does is to ascribe a negative energy density to vacuum that counters gravity. Its the third term in the standard formulation of the field equation.

Don't waste anyone's time with your patent ignorance.

You are a rather arrogant, insulting sort.

I suppose I can accept your argument in the same sense the break pedal and the gas pedal are the same thing in they both control the motion of a car.

I am not prepared to accept that logic. Simply because Einstein had a vast understanding of the universe is no reason that anyone should accept his views on theology.

Now get on with life, I can't be bothered with your trifling.
 
You are a rather arrogant, insulting sort.

I suppose I can accept your argument in the same sense the break pedal and the gas pedal are the same thing in they both control the motion of a car.

I am not prepared to accept that logic. Simply because Einstein had a vast understanding of the universe is no reason that anyone should accept his views on theology.

Now get on with life, I can't be bothered with your trifling.

What you do or don't accept in that tiny mind of yours is irrelevant. Einstein's field equation is currently being employed as the leading cosmological model (with some modifications to account for dark matter/energy).

The more important implication of the field equation, as I already pointed out, is the effect of the cosmological constant. When you multiply the cosmological constant to the metric tensor, what you are actually saying is that vacuum is exerting a negative energy density which is increasing as space expands. Energy is being CREATED out of nothing.

Oh, and as far as einstein is concerned, his theological view is inseparable from his science. Unraveling the mysteries of the universe is his way of communicating with the divine.

If only you bothered to have a firm grasp of the subject matter on hand before you butt-in, then getting on with my life would be so much easier.
 
Who do you think you are? Mr. Wizard? The cosmological constant proposed by Einstein is a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe (which was wrong). The lambda-cdm cosmological model introduces the cosmological constant lambda: Λ to explain cosmic acceleration, discovered in the late 1990's.

The two cosmological constants are totally different concepts; one was used to keep the universe stationary; the other is to explain why the the universe expansion continues to accelerate.

Don't waste your patience with me!

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big BangThe Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarksQuarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families. However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universeEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universeCosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history
 
The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.

The Big BangThe Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.

Excess quarksQuarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge–parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families. However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.

Large, just right-sized universeEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Early evolution of the universeCosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.

Universal probability bounds"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1080 x 1018 x 1045 =10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history

Very well said.

To add:

Cosmic inflation is the widely accepted cosmological model today. It is so by default.

I have read other theories. One that caught my attention is VSL (varying speed of light). Aside from the more obvious problem of contradicting einstein's postulate (constancy of the speed of light), one of the most surprising consequence of the theory is that matter and energy ARE NOT CONSERVED, not only in quantum scales, but in cosmological scales as well.

The realm of theoretical physics is slowly but surely intersecting the realm of the metaphysical.
 
I swear I'll never get used to the nonsense of intellectual novices that populate this forum.

Nonsense! You are here because of your ego. You prefer to be the biggest frog in a small pond. If you wanted to compete with intellectual equals, you would be on the Mensa forum where you would only be a small frog in a big pond. In this pond (forum), you are outstanding.
 
Nonsense! You are here because of your ego. You prefer to be the biggest frog in a small pond. If you wanted to compete with intellectual equals, you would be on the Mensa forum where you would only be a small frog in a big pond. In this pond (forum), you are outstanding.

Do you really think that HOP is a small pond, and that Numinus is the intellectual superior of the rest of the members here?
 
Nonsense! You are here because of your ego. You prefer to be the biggest frog in a small pond. If you wanted to compete with intellectual equals, you would be on the Mensa forum where you would only be a small frog in a big pond. In this pond (forum), you are outstanding.

nobull and palerider (to name a few) would be offended by your insinuations.
 
Do you really think that HOP is a small pond, and that Numinus is the intellectual superior of the rest of the members here?

Considering that there are only a few members that are still posting here, and that other political forums seem to have very many more posters, this is one of the "smaller" ponds. Also, the quality of many of the posts here are not of the same quality/complexity as those typically found on the Mensa site, this is a relatively small (and safe) pond. No, he is not intellectually superior to all the posters here, but is to several/many. Nevertheless, he sees himself as the most brilliant here. But then, it is a safe, small pond.
Most notable, is that he is similar to an above average intelligence person who visits a home for the mentally challenged and tells them that they are stupid. Such practice calls character into question.
 
Considering that there are only a few members that are still posting here, and that other political forums seem to have very many more posters, this is one of the "smaller" ponds. Also, the quality of many of the posts here are not of the same quality/complexity as those typically found on the Mensa site, this is a relatively small (and safe) pond. No, he is not intellectually superior to all the posters here, but is to several/many. Nevertheless, he sees himself as the most brilliant here. But then, it is a safe, small pond.
Most notable, is that he is similar to an above average intelligence person who visits a home for the mentally challenged and tells them that they are stupid. Such practice calls character into question.

The only question of character around here is you inability to accept that a 'brown monkey' is demonstrably superior to your 'whiteness'.

Duh?
 
The only question of character around here is you inability to accept that a 'brown monkey' is demonstrably superior to your 'whiteness'.

Duh?

Hahahahaha....

Lets see now...the Ludington Geezer is upset that Numinus posts at the HOP with well thought out intelligent statements that he is incapable of debating or comprehending...and he thinks that is so unfair.

Numinus, apparently Geezer thinks you are just too smart for him and the rest of us. Is this some sort of effort at socialization of intelligence?

Please keep posting.
 
Werbung:
Hahahahaha....

Lets see now...the Ludington Geezer is upset that Numinus posts at the HOP with well thought out intelligent statements that he is incapable of debating or comprehending...and he thinks that is so unfair.

Before you kiss his ... too much, review his posts on gun control. I am incapable of debating or comprehending them.
 
Back
Top