Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Saudi Arabia equates atheism with terrorism in new law

Excerpt:

The new law considers a terrorist anyone who:

Calls for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based;

Anyone who disregards their loyalty to the country's rulers;

Anyone who aids [terrorist] organisations, groups, currents [of thought], associations, or parties, or demonstrates affiliation with them, or sympathy with them, or promotes them, or holds meetings under their umbrella, either inside or outside the kingdom;

Those who seek to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or anyone who harms the unity or stability of the kingdom by any means;

Attends conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or outside [the kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in society;

Incites or make countries, committees, or international organisations antagonistic to the kingdom.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-new-law-sees-atheism-terrorism-1442819

When the war starts in earnest, Saudi Arabia will make a good target for a few nukes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You read

BobSpence wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

 The "Big Bang" is not an accurate description of the current theory of the origins of the Universe, it is a label originally applied to the theory by Fred Hoyle, who did not accept the hypothesis and intended to somewaht ridicule it. It has stuck because people got used to it, it is 'catchy' and the expansion does have a superficial resemblance to the violent, destructive events we call 'explosions' in which a small part of the universe expands suddenly and violently into the syrrounding space, disrupting any existing adjacent structures.

In the case of the Big Bang theory, there was no existing structure or space for it to 'explode' into, space itself was what was expanding, and not in the more chaotic, destructive way characteristic of actual explosions. The energy in the Universe was there from the very earliest moment of the expansion. Not sure it is makes much sense in this context to say it was 'released' - in ordinary contexts, that refers to the energy converting from one from a stored form, such as the chemical energy in a chemical explosive or fuel, to the thermal and kinetic energy of the expanding gases.

In the expanding Universe the energy from the singularity begins to 'condense', first into basic matter particles (quarks, neutrinoes, etc), then into atoms, then into molecules, pretty much the reverse of what happens in a normal explosion. As space expanded, energy was NOT being 'released'. It also applies to the whole of our Universe, and means that we can no longer observe much of 'our' universe, namely those parts which are far enough away that the expansion is increasing from Earth is increasing faster than the speed of light, so light from those regions can never reach us.

More recent observations show that the expansion is acually accelerating, driven by what is called 'Dark Energy'. This further complicates the whole picture.

This discussion has driven me to seriously start reading a book I acquired earlier this year - 'A Universe from Nothing - Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing', by Laurence Kraus. That should bring me up to date with the current state of understanding on this topic by those who are actually studying and contributing to it.

is it actually true in your understanding that the universe came from nothing. On a PBS program (I forget the title) I got the impression that space is something but it's not known what it is. What this gets me to thinking is space "is" something. In high school back in the 50s we were taught that space is a vaccum containing nothing. It looks as though that has changed to--space is something. This has really gotten interesting.

As I hinted above, I need to read more of that book by Kraus before can honestly answer this in any depth. Einstein's theories certainly seem to require that space is 'something', at least according to my current understanding. I think that all the science around the expanding Universe would also require it.

The most basic observation that supports the idea of the universal expansion of space is the red-shift of the spectrum of light from distant stars, and the consistant increase in red-shift with increase in the estimated distance to those stars. Empty space contains no matter, but it pretty much always does contain gravitational, electromagnetic and other fields which are associated with particles, both 'matter' particles such as neutrinos, or the more substantial ones such as electrons, protons and neutrons, and 'energy' particles such as photons.

I'll listen. Thank you.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
To my knowledge, no modern

To my knowledge, no modern scientific theory has claimed a universe from "nothing" in the sense implied by Creationists. There is always an initial energy and/or space/time and/or the quantum foam, etc., which is certainly not "nothing."

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Since certain people seem to

Since certain people seem to enjoy poking at me for every slightly arguable statement, I'm going to start returning the favour and see how they like it.

Space is not a vacuum containing nothing. There is simply LESS atoms and molecules in a vacuum than an atmosphere. There has never been an observation of a vacuum containing absolutely no matter. Matter is everywhere.

Furthermore, there are currently multiple theories that adequately describe the 'creation' of the universe, there is not a single theory that everyone will stand behind against all the others.

Dark energy and dark matter are hypothetical and no sufficiently convincing evidence yet exists which would prove their existence. It is entirely possible that they don't exist at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Nothing"

"Space" in modern terms would never be truly empty -  it would always contain 'fields' of some kind, especially gravitational, but also electromagnetic. Without such fields, one could not even define the extent of a volume of space especially in the context of general relativity..

The presence of matter particles does not eliminate the 'empty' space between the particles.

'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' definitely exist as evidenced by many measurements. IOW, something exists in addition to 'normal' matter and energy that can be measured by many of the same means as used to detect/measure ordinary matter and energy in the cosmic environment.

Dark matter usually refers to additional matter that would need to exist to explain the observed trajectories of interacting galactic objects.

Similarly, 'dark energy' is the additional energy which must be present for various obsevations to comply with the fundamental laws of physics.  What is still problematic about both concepts is their ultimate nature, what particle/fields they are composed of, due to the fact that they do not seem to interact with electromagnetic fields, hence they do not generate or absorb light or other electromagnetic radiation, hence 'dark'.

I am more confident in msking these comments since getting into Laurence Kraus' book 'A Universe from Nothing' in which he states that dark matter "has been independently corroborated in a host of different astrophysical, contexts, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies".

Hope this helps to clarifify the current state of understanding about this topic.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
yes

BobSpence wrote:

"Space" in modern terms would never be truly empty -  it would always contain 'fields' of some kind, especially gravitational, but also electromagnetic. Without such fields, one could not even define the extent of a volume of space especially in the context of general relativity..

The presence of matter particles does not eliminate the 'empty' space between the particles.

'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' definitely exist as evidenced by many measurements. IOW, something exists in addition to 'normal' matter and energy that can be measured by many of the same means as used to detect/measure ordinary matter and energy in the cosmic environment.

Dark matter usually refers to additional matter that would need to exist to explain the observed trajectories of interacting galactic objects.

Similarly, 'dark energy' is the additional energy which must be present for various obsevations to comply with the fundamental laws of physics.  What is still problematic about both concepts is their ultimate nature, what particle/fields they are composed of, due to the fact that they do not seem to interact with electromagnetic fields, hence they do not generate or absorb light or other electromagnetic radiation, hence 'dark'.

I am more confident in making these comments since getting into Laurence Kraus' book 'A Universe from Nothing' in which he states that datk matter "has been independently corroborated in a host of different astrophysical contexts, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies".

Hope this helps to clarifify the current state of understanding about this topic.

This does help, Thank again.

Explosion vs expantion:  The difference between an internal combustion engine and a steam engine.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Anyone have any thoughts on

Anyone have any thoughts on the Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic model? Is that hypothesis still alive and well or has someone eviscerated it by now? I don't really pay that close attention to astrophysics. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Anyone

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on the Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic model? Is that hypothesis still alive and well or has someone eviscerated it by now? I don't really pay that close attention to astrophysics. 

 

As far as I can see, that model is closely related to String Theory and other multidimensional models, getting up to maybe ten dimensions. It seems to be based on the idea of colliding 'branes' , named by analogy with cell membranes. Such theories are still being worked on, but Kraus seems to see complications in fitting such higher dimenensional assumptions into current observations where we still only 'see' four dimensions. Anyway I have only just browsed that section of the book, so I may have more comment down the track.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:"Space" in

BobSpence wrote:

"Space" in modern terms would never be truly empty -  it would always contain 'fields' of some kind, especially gravitational, but also electromagnetic. Without such fields, one could not even define the extent of a volume of space especially in the context of general relativity..

The presence of matter particles does not eliminate the 'empty' space between the particles.

There is empty space between particles on and in the Earth. By your reasoning, we must live in a vacuum. Just where did you get your so-called scientific knowledge anyway? A layman is kicking your ass.

BobSpence wrote:

'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' definitely exist as evidenced by many measurements.

False.

BobSpence wrote:
IOW, something exists in addition to 'normal' matter and energy that can be measured by many of the same means as used to detect/measure ordinary matter and energy in the cosmic environment.

Dark matter usually refers to additional matter that would need to exist to explain the observed trajectories of interacting galactic objects.

Uh uh. A simple error in the understanding of gravity and spacetime could be responsible. Dark matter may not exist, and I can point to hundreds of PHD's who agree. You're speaking as if your understanding was known and demonstrated fact, and it isn't.

BobSpence wrote:

Similarly, 'dark energy' is the additional energy which must be present for various obsevations to comply with the fundamental laws of physics.

There are alternative explanations for so-called dark energy too.

BobSpence wrote:
What is still problematic about both concepts is their ultimate nature, what particle/fields they are composed of, due to the fact that they do not seem to interact with electromagnetic fields, hence they do not generate or absorb light or other electromagnetic radiation, hence 'dark'.

And according to many scientists working in the field, they might not exist at all. You're depending on pop-culture scientific hypothesis which may very well be proven wrong. Until someone identifies dark energy and/or dark matter, speaking of them as if they were known to exist is roughly equivalent to belief in a god.

BobSpence wrote:

I am more confident in msking these comments since getting into Laurence Kraus' book 'A Universe from Nothing' in which he states that dark matter "has been independently corroborated in a host of different astrophysical, contexts, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies".

Hope this helps to clarifify the current state of understanding about this topic.

I think you need to do more reading.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Evidence for

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion?

I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion?

I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.

No. If using a single word, the term explosion is superior to expansion. That's all I'm saying.

And the scientific community doesn't give a rats ass about you or me or Bob or anyone else here. I guarantee a good number of them would agree with me. That a good number would agree with you is of no consequence. You're all wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion? I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.

No. If using a single word, the term explosion is superior to expansion. That's all I'm saying. And the scientific community doesn't give a rats ass about you or me or Bob or anyone else here. I guarantee a good number of them would agree with me. That a good number would agree with you is of no consequence. You're all wrong.

LMAO!!!! Aaah man.. love your "shut the fuck up or I'm going to shit down your throat" attitude.

I've yet to find any thing showing me it was an explosion, so if you find any thing to support this let me know, I'd like to read the theory.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Response to Vastet

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

"Space" in modern terms would never be truly empty -  it would always contain 'fields' of some kind, especially gravitational, but also electromagnetic. Without such fields, one could not even define the extent of a volume of space especially in the context of general relativity..

The presence of matter particles does not eliminate the 'empty' space between the particles.

There is empty space between particles on and in the Earth. By your reasoning, we must live in a vacuum. Just where did you get your so-called scientific knowledge anyway? A layman is kicking your ass.

"Living in a vacuum" would require that the average density of gas around us was very low, which is obviously not what I am claiming and NOT even implied by what I have stated. Where the hell do you get your information? Kicking my ass? LOL.

I get my information on the current state of Science from podcasts by Scientific American, Nature, The Royal Society, AAAS, various BBC broadcasts, and so on. as well as NewScientist magazine, which I have subscribed to for at least twenty years ( now I get the electronic version ).

It is a standard idea in science that even 'solid' objects are in fact mostly empty space. Atoms themselves are 'mostly empty space'. Are you saying that 'mostly empty space' defines a 'vacuum'?

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

'Dark matter' and 'dark energy' definitely exist as evidenced by many measurements.

False.

What I am saying is that those measurements that point to significant discrepancies in current cosmology DO exist, and the hypothesis that has most readily occurred to cosmologists is that there exists some 'extra' matter or energy that would produce the observed effects but is not easily detected otherwise. Laurence Kraus thinks the evidence for dark matter is now very strong, so I think more than a simple denial is required. Seriously.

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:
IOW, something exists in addition to 'normal' matter and energy that can be measured by many of the same means as used to detect/measure ordinary matter and energy in the cosmic environment.

Dark matter usually refers to additional matter that would need to exist to explain the observed trajectories of interacting galactic objects.

Uh uh. A simple error in the understanding of gravity and spacetime could be responsible. Dark matter may not exist, and I can point to hundreds of PHD's who agree. You're speaking as if your understanding was known and demonstrated fact, and it isn't.

I think it would need to more than a 'simple error' and made by quite a number of theorists. A better way to put it in this context would be point to alternative hypotheses that explain current observations at least as well as dark matter/energy and has fewer complications.

I concede that there may still be more dispute about this than implied by what Kraus has been saying

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

Similarly, 'dark energy' is the additional energy which must be present for various obsevations to comply with the fundamental laws of physics.

There are alternative explanations for so-called dark energy too.
BobSpence wrote:
What is still problematic about both concepts is their ultimate nature, what particle/fields they are composed of, due to the fact that they do not seem to interact with electromagnetic fields, hence they do not generate or absorb light or other electromagnetic radiation, hence 'dark'.
And according to many scientists working in the field, they might not exist at all. You're depending on pop-culture scientific hypothesis which may very well be proven wrong. Until someone identifies dark energy and/or dark matter, speaking of them as if they were known to exist is roughly equivalent to belief in a god.

So Laurence Kraus is just a 'pop-culture' scientist?

Most scientific theories 'may very well be proven wrong', but if you don't want to go with any theory until it has been has an iron-clad proof, that is very restrictive. I think there is way more scientific support for dark matter than God, so stop with such absurd comparisons, please.

Vastet wrote:
BobSpence wrote:

I am more confident in making these comments since getting into Laurence Kraus' book 'A Universe from Nothing' in which he states that dark matter 'has been independently corroborated in a host of different astrophysical, contexts, from galaxies to clusters of galaxies'.

Hope this helps to clarify the current state of understanding about this topic.

 I think you need to do more reading.

Sorry, you made enough ill-informed or poorly thought through 'arguments' there for me to not take your comments too seriously overall. Although I will concede that you did provoke me to do more research which did make me aware of some aspects of the current controversy over this topic that I had missed. IOW, some of your points did strike home. Thank you for that.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't recall

BobSpence wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on the Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic model? Is that hypothesis still alive and well or has someone eviscerated it by now? I don't really pay that close attention to astrophysics. 

 

As far as I can see, that model is closely related to String Theory and other multidimensional models, getting up to maybe ten dimensions. It seems to be based on the idea of colliding 'branes' , named by analogy with cell membranes. Such theories are still being worked on, but Kraus seems to see complications in fitting such higher dimenensional assumptions into current observations where we still only 'see' four dimensions. Anyway I have only just browsed that section of the book, so I may have more comment down the track.

What year or when other--it may have been at the Minneapolis  Minnestoa library where I spent alot of time about 1964. A scientist type (lets say about 200 years ago) brought up the concept of the universe consisting of something as an ether. Not ether as in medical terms or material nature. It came to mind---what if he turns out to be right.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:BobSpence

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on the Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic model? Is that hypothesis still alive and well or has someone eviscerated it by now? I don't really pay that close attention to astrophysics. 

 

As far as I can see, that model is closely related to String Theory and other multidimensional models, getting up to maybe ten dimensions. It seems to be based on the idea of colliding 'branes' , named by analogy with cell membranes. Such theories are still being worked on, but Kraus seems to see complications in fitting such higher dimenensional assumptions into current observations where we still only 'see' four dimensions. Anyway I have only just browsed that section of the book, so I may have more comment down the track.

What year or when other--it may have been at the Minneapolis  Minnestoa library where I spent alot of time about 1964. A scientist type (lets say about 200 years ago) brought up the concept of the universe consisting of something as an ether. Not ether as in medical terms or material nature. It came to mind---what if he turns out to be right.

You are referring to the 'ether' - once described as the "luminiferous aether" ie the medium through which it was imagined light was propagated as waves, as sound is propagated through air, which was assumed to be necessary to support the propagation of light as waves. The alternative theory was that light was transmitted as particles.

There was a long series of arguments about the nature of light (particles or waves) and the ether, in which all theories seemed to have problems, ultimately more-or-less resolved by James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism in which light is seen as waves in electromagetic fields. A big problem with the ether theory was that it implied that the apparent speed of light should be affected by the movement of the Earth through the ether, which would be expected to vary depending on the position of Earth in its orbit, which many successively more careful experiments failed to detect. I think Einstein's Relativity theories made it even harder to maintain ideas of an 'ether', so it ultimately died by Occam's Razor.

So I really doubt it can be revived in any form,

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

BobSpence wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on the Steinhardt-Turok ekpyrotic model? Is that hypothesis still alive and well or has someone eviscerated it by now? I don't really pay that close attention to astrophysics. 

 

As far as I can see, that model is closely related to String Theory and other multidimensional models, getting up to maybe ten dimensions. It seems to be based on the idea of colliding 'branes' , named by analogy with cell membranes. Such theories are still being worked on, but Kraus seems to see complications in fitting such higher dimenensional assumptions into current observations where we still only 'see' four dimensions. Anyway I have only just browsed that section of the book, so I may have more comment down the track.

What year or when other--it may have been at the Minneapolis  Minnestoa library where I spent alot of time about 1964. A scientist type (lets say about 200 years ago) brought up the concept of the universe consisting of something as an ether. Not ether as in medical terms or material nature. It came to mind---what if he turns out to be right.

You are referring to the 'ether' - once described as the "luminiferous aether" ie the medium through which it was imagined light was propagated as waves, as sound is propagated through air, which was assumed to be necessary to support the propagation of light as waves. The alternative theory was that light was transmitted as particles.

There was a long series of arguments about the nature of light (particles or waves) and the ether, in which all theories seemed to have problems, ultimately more-or-less resolved by James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism in which light is seen as waves in electromagetic fields. A big problem with the ether theory was that it implied that the apparent speed of light should be affected by the movement of the Earth through the ether, which would be expected to vary depending on the position of Earth in its orbit, which many successively more careful experiments failed to detect. I think Einstein's Relativity theories made it even harder to maintain ideas of an 'ether', so it ultimately died by Occam's Razor.

So I really doubt it can be revived in any form,

 

It shows doen't it, that I haven't kept up on recent things.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion? I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.

No. If using a single word, the term explosion is superior to expansion. That's all I'm saying. And the scientific community doesn't give a rats ass about you or me or Bob or anyone else here. I guarantee a good number of them would agree with me. That a good number would agree with you is of no consequence. You're all wrong.

LMAO!!!! Aaah man.. love your "shut the fuck up or I'm going to shit down your throat" attitude.

I've yet to find any thing showing me it was an explosion, so if you find any thing to support this let me know, I'd like to read the theory.

 

I'm glad you laughed, I was attempting to lighten the mood some.

I'm not trying or going to try to convince you to see things my way. It just doesn't matter enough. But I'm not changing my view.

Bob Spence wrote:
"Living in a vacuum" would require that the average density of gas around us was very low, which is obviously not what I am claiming and NOT even implied by what I have stated. Where the hell do you get your information? Kicking my ass? LOL.

Yes I'm kicking your ass. I'm doing it so well that you're now changing the subject to specific density when we were talking about it generally. Ironically I already accounted for this shift in a previous post.

Bob Spence wrote:
It is a standard idea in science that even 'solid' objects are in fact mostly empty space. Atoms themselves are 'mostly empty space'. Are you saying that 'mostly empty space' defines a 'vacuum'?

Are you saying it doesn't?

vac·u·um/ˈvakˌyo͞o(ə)m/
noun
a space entirely devoid of matter.
a vacuum cleaner.

Bob Spence wrote:
What I am saying is that those measurements that point to significant discrepancies in current cosmology DO exist, and the hypothesis that has most readily occurred to cosmologists is that there exists some 'extra' matter or energy that would produce the observed effects but is not easily detected otherwise. Laurence Kraus thinks the evidence for dark matter is now very strong, so I think more than a simple denial is required. Seriously.

Much better.

I'm glad we provoked each other to learn new things. Makes the friction worthwhile. My thanks to you as well, as I had to reacquaint myself with some fascinating materials to have this conversation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Would

gavity exist between the neucleus and electrons of an atom. It seems to me gravity is everywhere, even in space.  Or, does each atom have it's own gravity--such as -- an atom free in space is kept together by something, and if there's space (distance) between the particales of an atom there has to be something holding them as a unit. IE the space between the earth and moon has to be ocupied by gravity, so that would mean that there's no empty space.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:gravity exist

Old Seer wrote:

gravity exist between the neucleus and electrons of an atom. It seems to me gravity is everywhere, even in space.  Or, does each atom have it's own gravity--such as -- an atom free in space is kept together by something, and if there's space (distance) between the particales of an atom there has to be something holding them as a unit. IE the space between the earth and moon has to be ocupied by gravity, so that would mean that there's no empty space.

You are technically correct, AFAIK,  that gravitational forces would exist between sub-atomic particles, but within the scale of atoms they would be totally swamped by the electromagetic and shorter range forces, called the 'strong force' and the 'weak force'. So gravity would just not be considered when examining things at the atomic scale, even less so at the subatomic scale

The strong force acts only on 'quarks', particles which are the sub-particles of protons and neutrons, while the 'weak' force is involved in radioactive decay, such as when a neutron spontaneously transmutes into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The force holding atoms and groups of atoms together is the electromagetic force, so it is what gives matter its form.

What we mean by 'empty space' really depends on the context. In ordinary day-to-day conversation it implies a near zero gas pressure, ie, very few to zero gas molecules in any given volume, what we ordinarily refer to as a 'vacuum'. We would only normally consider fields such as gravity and electromagnetic fields in a very 'scientific' context. In a strict context, we might also chose to consider only matter particles, not the force fields, in which case an atom, and hence solid matter, is 'mostly empty space', since the distances between the electrons and the nucleus are vast relative to the sizes of the electrons and the nucleus.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:You are

BobSpence wrote:

You are technically correct, AFAIK,  that gravitational forces would exist between sub-atomic particles, but within the scale of atoms they would be totally swamped by the electromagetic and shorter range forces, called the 'strong force' and the 'weak force'. So gravity would just not be considered when examining things at the atomic scale, even less so at the subatomic scale

I'd like to add that if you have 7 light years of space, filled with sparse amounts of hydrogen atoms, that those atoms together would have an effect on surrounding bodies


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

You are technically correct, AFAIK,  that gravitational forces would exist between sub-atomic particles, but within the scale of atoms they would be totally swamped by the electromagetic and shorter range forces, called the 'strong force' and the 'weak force'. So gravity would just not be considered when examining things at the atomic scale, even less so at the subatomic scale

I'd like to add that if you have 7 light years of space, filled with sparse amounts of hydrogen atoms, that those atoms together would have an effect on surrounding bodies

Probably, but that scenario is somewhat larger than the atomic scale, I think...  So gravity would indeed be the most appropriate force to consider in such a context.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:digitalbeachbum

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion? I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.

No. If using a single word, the term explosion is superior to expansion. That's all I'm saying. And the scientific community doesn't give a rats ass about you or me or Bob or anyone else here. I guarantee a good number of them would agree with me. That a good number would agree with you is of no consequence. You're all wrong.

While I still persaonally don't like the term 'explosion' here, I was just watching a program on TV where a certain prominent scientist explicitly used it to describe the current theory. Hence I will, albeit grudgingly, concede it is a legitimate usage, Mr. Hawking. Damn!

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to remain with

BobSpence wrote:

Vastet wrote:
digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
 Evidence for what? I haven't said anything that requires evidence. All of this arguing about release and explosion is pure semantics, and noone has anything that will convince me to use less effective terminology. Give it up, because I won't.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the only way you can describe "The Big Bang" is that it was an explosion? I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion. I stated that The Big Bang theory wasn't an explosion and the scientific community disagrees with you.

No. If using a single word, the term explosion is superior to expansion. That's all I'm saying. And the scientific community doesn't give a rats ass about you or me or Bob or anyone else here. I guarantee a good number of them would agree with me. That a good number would agree with you is of no consequence. You're all wrong.

While I still persaonally don't like the term 'explosion' here, I was just watching a program on TV where a certain prominent scientist explicitly used it to describe the current theory. Hence I will, albeit grudgingly, concede it is a legitimate usage, Mr. Hawking. Damn!

with "expansion". On the first count "explosion" is the most popular, but that doesn't make it correct. We all become victims of populaity. I say explosion was used unindendedly. It'sthe same as when I use the term "God", what I mean is "force", because that's what it gets right down to--a discription of an application of force. Okay everyone--let's not get off on the God thing and go off topic. I only mean that--the use of the wrong word or explanation is oft time inadvertent or forced for an understanding. Sometimes one has no choice.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
explosion or expansion

The problem with just using the word "expansion" is that, by itself, it doesn't convey many important aspects of the 'Big Bang', such as its sudden onset and the massive scale of the expansion, which 'explosion' does fit with, although it brings with it other baggage such as idea of destructive violence and the assumption of a space it is exploding into, which are NOT applicable to the Big Bang scenario.

So if want brevity, go with 'explosion', if you want accuracy, you have to use more words, such as 'sudden, exponential expansion of space itself'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:The problem

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with just using the word "expansion" is that, by itself, it doesn't convey many important aspects of the 'Big Bang', such as its sudden onset and the massive scale of the expansion, which 'explosion' does fit with, although it brings with it other baggage such as idea of destructive violence and the assumption of a space it is exploding into, which are NOT applicable to the Big Bang scenario.

So if want brevity, go with 'explosion', if you want accuracy, you have to use more words, such as 'sudden, exponential expansion of space itself'.

I often imagine the "big bang" being a balloon type of event. While inside the membrane there is no movement. The balloon membrane breaks allowing every thing to expand giving room to move about, which causes extreme temperatures, collisons, etc.

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with just using the word "expansion" is that, by itself, it doesn't convey many important aspects of the 'Big Bang', such as its sudden onset and the massive scale of the expansion, which 'explosion' does fit with, although it brings with it other baggage such as idea of destructive violence and the assumption of a space it is exploding into, which are NOT applicable to the Big Bang scenario.

So if want brevity, go with 'explosion', if you want accuracy, you have to use more words, such as 'sudden, exponential expansion of space itself'.

Thank you.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I was

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with just using the word "expansion" is that, by itself, it doesn't convey many important aspects of the 'Big Bang', such as its sudden onset and the massive scale of the expansion, which 'explosion' does fit with, although it brings with it other baggage such as idea of destructive violence and the assumption of a space it is exploding into, which are NOT applicable to the Big Bang scenario.

So if want brevity, go with 'explosion', if you want accuracy, you have to use more words, such as 'sudden, exponential expansion of space itself'.

I often imagine the "big bang" being a balloon type of event. While inside the membrane there is no movement. The balloon membrane breaks allowing every thing to expand giving room to move about, which causes extreme temperatures, collisons, etc.

 

Coincedently thinking this yesterday. I was also thinking that what expanded may have partially became an explosion. During the initial "sudden" expansion if matter was created then there is fuel (so to speak) to explode. Of course that would have to have been after the fractional second of the expansion. I was thinking todayon dark matter--that what may account for the increasing velocity of the gallaxies away from a center may be caused by the gravitaional pull of another Big Bang at another point in space. Unless all of space was incorporated into the big bag and there can't be another cluster of gallaxies far off. I was looking at "our" section of space as a cluster  of galaxies. Is there a possiblity that another Big Bang could take place.?? maybe our's is younger and another is older. Can't say.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer

Old Seer wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

The problem with just using the word "expansion" is that, by itself, it doesn't convey many important aspects of the 'Big Bang', such as its sudden onset and the massive scale of the expansion, which 'explosion' does fit with, although it brings with it other baggage such as idea of destructive violence and the assumption of a space it is exploding into, which are NOT applicable to the Big Bang scenario.

So if want brevity, go with 'explosion', if you want accuracy, you have to use more words, such as 'sudden, exponential expansion of space itself'.

I often imagine the "big bang" being a balloon type of event. While inside the membrane there is no movement. The balloon membrane breaks allowing every thing to expand giving room to move about, which causes extreme temperatures, collisons, etc.

 

Coincedently thinking this yesterday. I was also thinking that what expanded may have partially became an explosion. During the initial "sudden" expansion if matter was created then there is fuel (so to speak) to explode. Of course that would have to have been after the fractional second of the expansion. I was thinking todayon dark matter--that what may account for the increasing velocity of the gallaxies away from a center may be caused by the gravitaional pull of another Big Bang at another point in space. Unless all of space was incorporated into the big bag and there can't be another cluster of gallaxies far off. I was looking at "our" section of space as a cluster  of galaxies. Is there a possiblity that another Big Bang could take place.?? maybe our's is younger and another is older. Can't say.

I believe dark matter and dark energy is what existed before the "big bang" and the matter/energy is moving outward from the initial event. It is interacting with the dark material in an opposite manner. The dark energy and matter pushes the matter and energy from the big bang much like a magnet repels the same poles.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
From Azusa CA.

That still leaves the question---who created energy to cause the Big Bang. I bring this up beause I'm camped out at the Oaks Campgrounds in the San Gabrieal mountans north of Azusa CA. In a conversation with a highly religious person(s) I pointed out that there is now a different interpretation (I didn't claim to be one of the  founders/finders of the interpretation) but --they wanted to know where the material in the universe came from.

For perspective--This was a conversation that was taking place by a camper that was approached by the two (apparently husband and wife) who were at the site preaching "God", religion and etc. I went over to the amper that I know and being he is older I was conered for his well being as I haden't seen him up and about in the last two days. On the other side of his motor home ,out of my sight, he was conversing with the two religious types who often come up to the amop area to preach to the miners and prospectors. (so he was OK) He is not a believer in "God". This is an area along the East Fork of the San Gabriel river where the faithful come up from Los Angelles etc and build a small dam to do baptism dunking, of which I wittnessed for several years now.

OK-So--The camper got me involved after standin there for a while listening (and not careing to get involved) and asked me "what I think and believe". I agree'd with him and gave a few explainations of "the Smurfs" understanding of things---and  Holy Kow. After making a few statements on the BB and that there's no such thing (cordially of course) as an intelligence without a brain so there can be no Super natural being etc etc etc, and, the question was asked as she pointed at the river, cliffs and mountains--who made all this. I said--it's a natural construction of universal law, and for the explaination that I know about--the bible creation story isn't about material creation but rather spiritual, and after a while it sunk in what I was getting at--the embarrasment on their faces us acutely evident--and they started to get upset--so I ceased and desisted before I got my face punched.

OK--so how do you tell religious floks they got it wrong. The energy existing (if that's turns out to be the case)before the BB is no answer to these floks because as far as they are concerned they cannot be wrong---because the bible says so.

What I want to point out here is----you may get some idea of their embarassment that another interpretation exists---which indicated to them that at least they got it wrong--and they couldn't deny it. Once it sunk in silence occured. Bear in mind--that they think they cannot possibly have it wrong--and they do, they were stumped and getting irate---so off I went.

So, the BB isn't going to do for them is it?  They want to know who caused it.   One can understand the monumental task it's going to take to get things changed around. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There isn't and there can

There isn't and there can never be any direct evidence to suggest the energy was created. It might have been, but it might not have been.

If it was created, then chances are whoever or whatever created it was obliterated shortly thereafter, as was all evidence of that creator(s) ever existing. The postulation answers nothing, and introduces infinite regression. Who or what created the creator?

If it was not created by some creator, it may have formed as a result of a quantum event. Or it may have already been there.

That some people are unwilling to accept the FACT that the event of the big bang itself and anything that happened before it can never be known is their own problem, and not a problem for society at large. As idiots who fail to accept reality die off and are replaced by people who are willing to examine the facts, the number of people who refuse to acquaint themselves with known science will be diminished year after year. Religions are unlikely to die any time soon, but the extremists who deny science cannot thrive in today's environment. They are massively outnumbered and information is more available today than ever before. Those people in the campground are an endangered species.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.