Galaxy Riddle

Originally posted by menace71
Nothing we see really refutes his theory ....

If you knew even the very basics of physics you would know that is not true. Its quite simple, if the galaxies are where we think they are, then they were there when the light left them - billions of years ago. 'Stretching out' the universe does not solve this problem. In fact, if it was 'stretched out' we would still observe the galaxies as if they were much closer.

The Galaxies would have been created on the same day or in the same week.
The fun part about relativity, is one cannot actually make a statement to that effect. Time is relative and one cannot actually say that a given day in one galaxy is 'the same day' as in another galaxy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you knew even the very basics of physics you would know that is not true. Its quite simple, if the galaxies are where we think they are, then they were there when the light left them - billions of years ago. 'Stretching out' the universe does not solve this problem. In fact, if it was 'stretched out' we would still observe the galaxies as if they were ...[text shortened]... cannot actually say that a given day in one galaxy is 'the same day' as in another galaxy.

*** In fact, if it was 'stretched out' we would still observe the galaxies as if they were much closer.***

Explain this? How? If the Universe was suddenly stretched out. I know we would see redshift for sure (Which we see anyway) but what other effects would be seen? If a luminous celestial object was astronomically close to the earth then suddenly got stretched out to 10,000 LY's distance there would have to be some effect from the light. BTW I'm not trying to be a smart ass I'm really wresting with these ideas. For the creationist it has to be either young earth (literal interpretation) or those who believe in long ages for the universe.

Manny

YouTube

talks about redshift


Manny

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you knew even the very basics of physics you would know that is not true. Its quite simple, if the galaxies are where we think they are, then they were there when the light left them - billions of years ago. 'Stretching out' the universe does not solve this problem. In fact, if it was 'stretched out' we would still observe the galaxies as if they were ...[text shortened]... cannot actually say that a given day in one galaxy is 'the same day' as in another galaxy.

You forget that light was created on the first day and stars on the fourth day.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You forget that light was created on the first day and stars on the fourth day.

In the beginning there was nothing, or as us Brits like to say "bugger all". Then there was something. The something was bloody hot but cooled over time and also expanded. Then the something turned into stars and galaxies and other wonders. All that without needing any kind of sky fairy. The end.

Originally posted by Kepler
In the beginning there was nothing, or as us Brits like to say "bugger all". Then there was something. The something was bloody hot but cooled over time and also expanded. Then the something turned into stars and galaxies and other wonders. All that without needing any kind of sky fairy. The end.

It just couldn't happen without a designer to direct where these heavenly bodies should be so that there would be one place that biological life could exist. That is called fine-tuning of the universe by some scientists.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life Just Got Finer
Evolution News & Views March 15, 2013 12:34 PM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/the_fine-tuning_1070091.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible.
1.Strong nuclear force constant
2.Weak nuclear force constant
3.Gravitational force constant
4.Electromagnetic force constant
5.Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6.Ratio of proton to electron mass
7.Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8.Ratio of proton to electron charge
9.Expansion rate of the universe
10.Mass density of the universe
11.Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12.Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13.Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14.Entropy level of the universe
15.Velocity of light
16.Age of the universe
17.Uniformity of radiation
18.Homogeneity of the universe
19.Average distance between galaxies
20.Average distance between galaxy clusters
21.Average distance between stars
22.Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23.Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24.Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25.Gravitational fine-structure constant
26.Decay rate of protons
27.Ground state energy level for helium-4
28.Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29.Decay rate for beryllium-8
30.Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31.Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32.Polarity of the water molecule
33.Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34.Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35.Epoch for supernova eruptions
36.Number and types of supernova eruptions
37.Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38.Density of white dwarf binaries
39.Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40.Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41.Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42.Mass values for the active neutrinos
43.Number of different species of active neutrinos
44.Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45.Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46.Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47.Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48.Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49.Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50.Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51.Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52.Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53.Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54.Density of quasars
55.Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56.Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57.Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58.Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59.Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60.Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61.Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62.Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63.Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64.Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65.Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66.Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67.Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68.Flatness of universe's geometry
69.Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70.Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71.Constancy of dark energy factors
72.Epoch for star formation peak
73.Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74.Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75.Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76.Level of charge-parity violation
77.Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78.Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79.Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80.Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81.Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82.Water's temperature of maximum density
83.Water's heat of fusion
84.Water's heat of vaporization
85.Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86.Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87.Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88.Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89.Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90.Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91.Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92.Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93.Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tuning-for-life-in-the-universe

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
It just couldn't happen without ...

Do you know what any of that means?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It just couldn't happen without a designer to direct where these heavenly bodies should be so that there would be one place that biological life could exist. That is called fine-tuning of the universe by some scientists.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an
interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits
me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have
been made to have me in it!'

Douglas Adams

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an
interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits
me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have
been made to have me in it!'

Douglas Adams

This Douglas Adam is assuming that we think a puddle is fine tuned for life. To assume is to try to make an ASS out of U and Me. 😏

We know a puddle is not going to wake up and do any thinking.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This Douglas Adam is assuming that we think a puddle is fine tuned for life. To assume is to try to make an ASS out of U and Me. 😏

We know a puddle is not going to wake up and do any thinking.

But we can think for the puddle.
And using your logic (of a universe designed for us)
we can conclude that the hole was made for the puddle.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
But we can think for the puddle.
And using your logic (of a universe designed for us)
we can conclude that the hole was made for the puddle.

There are many holes that will work for the puddle. There is only one universe, one galaxy, that contains the one planet with the one sun and moon placed in the right space to support biological life. That one and only planet that will work for us is Earth. 😏

The Instructor

yeah that is 93 factors that have to be just right for this universe to be the way it is and to be conducive to life. I think mathematically not an accident the odds are too much to be just an accident


Manny

Russ Humphrey's there believes that the data from redshift is in stages and that the galaxies form almost like rings or shells at different distances and that the earth may actually be at the center of the universe...though it is just a theory


Manny

Originally posted by RJHinds
It just couldn't happen without a designer to direct where these heavenly bodies should be so that there would be one place that biological life could exist. That is called fine-tuning of the universe by some scientists.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life Just Got Finer
Evolution News & Views March 15, 2013 12:34 PM

http://www.evolutionnews.or ...[text shortened]... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afnQ-ca4Y8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P8HIgU61xo

Now that is truly bollocks.

Now imagine how many RJs there would be to worship imaginary sky fairies if the universe wasn't that way. We are here to see the universe and imagine big grumpy sky fairies because the universe happens to be the way it is.

We have a sample of one universe. We have no idea how unlikely (or likely) this universe is. Drawing conclusions from the fact we happen to be here to draw them is pointless. The universe is, we are. The end.

Originally posted by Kepler
Now that is truly bollocks.

Now imagine how many RJs there would be to worship imaginary sky fairies if the universe wasn't that way. We are here to see the universe and imagine big grumpy sky fairies because the universe happens to be the way it is.

We have a sample of one universe. We have no idea how unlikely (or likely) this universe is. Drawing con ...[text shortened]... from the fact we happen to be here to draw them is pointless. The universe is, we are. The end.

We only have scientific evidence of one universe. There is no reason to imagine more than one universe, unless we wish to bolster up the idea that life could have happened by chance and there was infinite time and infinite universes that by some accident everything just fell into place to allow for it.

The more believable story would be that a powerful eternal sky fairy was intelligent enought to design and create it just right for life and was also the source of the life because he was alive and had life within him.