Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[warpus]

This website, if you do not like wiki, but wiki breaks it down further. The first one does not show the break down of the time of inflation. The math of the "Big Bang" shows the time of inflation. The size does not change much though in the first 400,000 million years, and not much between then and now, if you consider that the expansion is supposed to be exponential. The 32 page PDF that you posted explains the exponential factor in greater detail than the wiki page does. It is probably nigh impossible to get a good picture of a 4d expansion, but if the graph was done from calculating the equation, then it should be fairly close. Inflation was the big bang, expansion came later.

You are right that the initial expansion was much more rapid, but the universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang. It is in no way the same size now as just a couple minutes after the Big Bang, I dare you to find a sentence that says that anywhere in the links you have provided.

 

[Borachio]

How much bigger is it, then?

Has my foot become further away? (Since the universe is expanding equally in every direction.)

My feet do seem to be further away each morning when I put my socks on. But I always thought that's because my arms are shrinking.

 

[warpus]

Hmm well right now it's about 90 billion light years across. Right after the Big Bang it was "much smaller than that" I would imagine, but can't really find any numbers.

As for your socks, it is the galaxies that are moving further apart, not all socks in the universe.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I put the numbers on the last page...

(admittedly I didn't put any links, but still...)

 

[Leoreth]

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post.

Except that it is true that "nobody was there so who knows?" The idea being, I suppose, that there's no reason to think that the laws of physics - as we know them now - held in the distant (or even not so distant) past.

Scientists, it seems to me, pull a very similar trick when they say about the Big Bang, and black holes, "Here the fundamental laws of physics break down, so who knows?"

I disagree, there is a lot of reason to believe that the laws of physics have been unchanging. In a way, everything we know about the universe and its history is reason to believe that, because it is consistent with this assumption.

It has been true for all of recorded history, and all our observations about the past confirm it.

(Now there are some theories in advanced cosmology that some aspects of the laws of physics that were thought to be constants may actually be variable, but that's not quite the same.)

Also, there is a very important difference between the two "who knows" scenarios that have been mentioned. In your example, it's a genuine "we don't know": scientists are aware of their limits in understanding and will make no statements about things it doesn't extend to. That's a good thing, it's important to know when you don't know (not just in science imo).

The other "who knows" is more of a "nobody can ever tell, so all positions are equally valid". It's used to hold on to a particular position, not to acknowledge that no possible position can be known to be correct.

 

[Berzerker]

The problem is more that modern science is very complex in many relevant fields and it's very easy to disguise your argument as scientific, and it's very easy to support your position with a gish gallop of semi-truths.

Berzerker talking to timtofly is possibly the best outcome of this thread. It's an ouroboros of nebulous incomprehensibility that spirals back into itself to create a beautiful fractal.

If the science is too complex, why blame others for your lack of comprehension?

I didn't realise there was a rule where I had to do that.

Aren't sarcastic parodies supposed to be related to what someone else said? You even got the information from the article wrong, no wonder you're running away.

 

[Leoreth]

If the science is too complex, why blame others for your lack of comprehension?

The incomprehensibility is unrelated to science, just as your posts are.

 

[timtofly]

The expansion of the universe was only supposedly exponention during the inflationary "era", which lasted somewhat less that 10e−32 seconds. I'll assume you meant 400,000 years, and accidentally added the "million" in there, as that is around the era of recombination. Long, long after inflation happened. The observable universe has expanded roughly by a factor of 1,000 since then (I believe). I have no idea what you mean by expansion came LATER than inflation. Whilst it's true that the universe has expanded since then, it also expanded quite a lot* during inflation too. Basically nothing you're saying is correct here.

*slight understatement.

By a factor of 1000, is not very descriptive. I was just repeating what was in the article. You use the term era. Call it inflation or expansion it all happened in 3 minutes, and that was the end of an era, as you put it.

Are you saying that it expanded after recombination or during? What portion of that 1000 is after the first 3 minutes?

 

[Berzerker]

The incomprehensibility is unrelated to science, just as your posts are.

I've linked to several scientific articles, what have you done?

Complained the science is too complex for a rebuttal

I said myth is just poetic gibberish if there is no truth to it, and this was your rebuttal:

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

There's your comprehension on display

ironic indeed

 

[Leoreth]

You think you're entitled to me engaging what you write, but you aren't. I wasn't even talking to you.

Man, I hope timtofly comes back soon.

 

[Berzerker]

Who were you talking about?

 

[Agent327]

When not understanding what someone posts (nor apparently even trying to) and not being willing to be bothered to check who someone is actually talking to, I'm sure you can get a high post rate, but not one people would bother to check out individually.

Was that a complex enough sentence for you?

Apparently you are not even aware that the word truth doesn't have a single meaning. Yet you utter things like 'poetic jibberish'. Which in your case merely suggests you haven't a clue what the poetry you deem calling jibberish is actually about.

In short, your opinions are not based on any actual observation or thought process. They're just opinions. And curiously, opinions without any accompanying thought process or observation are indeed just that: jibberish.

That is irony.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Aren't sarcastic parodies supposed to be related to what someone else said? You even got the information from the article wrong, no wonder you're running away.

Well all the other similar dismissals of established scientific knowledge in this thread, which I was parodying, also got all the information wrong. That was the point.

And yes, parodies are obviously related to what other people said. That doesn't mean you have to directly quote someone before you're allowed to parody though. Particularly since the post I was replying to (which is what quoting generally implies on a forum) WASN'T one of the ones I was parodying. It was a reply in the general spirit of the rest of the thread. I really shouldn't have to explain this in this much detail...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

By a factor of 1000, is not very descriptive. I was just repeating what was in the article. You use the term era. Call it inflation or expansion it all happened in 3 minutes, and that was the end of an era, as you put it.

Are you saying that it expanded after recombination or during? What portion of that 1000 is after the first 3 minutes?

"By a factor of 1000" is incredibly descriptive. It's almost 100% descriptive actually.

Inflation lasted something like 10e-32 seconds, not 3 minutes. Recombination occurred after around 350,000 years, not 3 minutes. The universe has expanded by around a factor of 1000 since recombination. I believe I said all this.

 

[Berzerker]

When not understanding what someone posts (nor apparently even trying to) and not being willing to be bothered to check who someone is actually talking to, I'm sure you can get a high post rate, but not one people would bother to check out individually.

Was that a complex enough sentence for you?

Apparently you are not even aware that the word truth doesn't have a single meaning. Yet you utter things like 'poetic jibberish'. Which in your case merely suggests you haven't a clue what the poetry you deem calling jibberish is actually about.

In short, your opinions are not based on any actual observation or thought process. They're just opinions. And curiously, opinions without any accompanying thought process or observation are indeed just that: jibberish.

That is irony.

I didn't ask who he was talking to, I asked who he was talking about. When I dont understand something, I ask for clarification so I do understand, post count aint got nothing to do with it. I dont use my ignorance as a trampoline to launch a bunch of insults based on straw men.

I said if myths have no truth then they're just poetic gibberish. That was a response to a discussion about whether or not there was any truth in myth. And Leo said:

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

He changed my "no truth" into his "truth" and used that straw man for his insults. And now here you are defending that nastiness with your own.

Well all the other similar dismissals of established scientific knowledge in this thread, which I was parodying, also got all the information wrong. That was the point.

And yes, parodies are obviously related to what other people said. That doesn't mean you have to directly quote someone before you're allowed to parody though. Particularly since the post I was replying to (which is what quoting generally implies on a forum) WASN'T one of the ones I was parodying. It was a reply in the general spirit of the rest of the thread. I really shouldn't have to explain this in this much detail...

You followed my post using information I provided as the basis of your "parody". But now my post WASN'T a target of your parody? Nah, you shouldn't need to explain little details like that, especially if anyone asks.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...eptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system

They're gonna find Nibiru

 

[Harv]

One thing I like about Berserker posts is they are interesting.

Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk

 

[Leoreth]

He changed my "no truth" into his "truth" and used that straw man for his insults. And now here you are defending that nastiness with your own.

What, don't be unfair. My insulting you had nothing to do with that quote.

 

[Borachio]

It has been true for all of recorded history, and all our observations about the past confirm it.

I pretty much agree. (And to be honest I'm arguing for the sake of it really. Although I do prefer to be 100% rigorous whenever I can.)

However, what are these observations about the past of which you speak?

Surely all our observations are about the present. Strictly speaking.

I can make no observations about last Tuesday, for instance. As it's irretrievable. (AFAIK).

But, I'm guessing, you're talking about looking into deep space which, I suppose, is looking at the Universe as it was millions of years ago - if it takes that long for the light to reach us. And yet - who can tell? - what's to suppose that the speed of light trillions of kilometres away is the same as it is here on Earth?

Seems to me that scientists make - and must make - some major assumptions (reasonable though these may be in the absence of evidence to the contrary) about the state of the Universe beyond the locality of Earth without much tangible evidence for them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You followed my post using information I provided as the basis of your "parody". But now my post WASN'T a target of your parody? Nah, you shouldn't need to explain little details like that, especially if anyone asks.

Good god man...

 

[Berzerker]

One thing I like about Berserker posts is they are interesting.

Thank you, I try

There's a new thread about a 9th planet based on analysis of Kuiper Belt objects. I suggested earlier in the thread they'd find another planet using the orbits of objects in the outer solar system.

What, don't be unfair. My insulting you had nothing to do with that quote.

Here is the quote:

its just poetic gibberish if there's no truth to it...

And here's your rebuttal:

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

So not only did you butcher the quote you did choose for your straw man, but now you're telling me that wasn't even the right quote? Allow Manfred to express my reaction...

Good god man...