Originally posted by no1marauderIf facts are true in reality it does not matter. What matters are the facts we think we know. And we can be mistaken about what the facts are - because a fact is an interpretation of an observation.
I suppose if by "facts" you meant what people believe to be facts, then that can certainly change as they come into more accurate information. That, however, is a non-standard definition of "facts"; facts are true in reality, not merely perceived as true. The tree falls in the forest even if no one sees or hears it.
Generally, facts are propositions that can be confirmed (can be observed by others or can checked for accuracy). But the facts we know and deal with are not necessarily true - we can get the facts wrong, but fact they you don't know is false, remains a fact until you become aware that it is false.
A truth, on the other hand, is a proposition that is true in reality, regardless of whether we know it or not.
Originally posted by scottishinnz🙂 You mean, it is believed we have ice cores that are that old?
okay okay - i've had enough beer to agree to just about anything now! You're a good guy CE. I enjoy debating with you - it makes me better (reminds me to never stop reading)! You will agree though that some guys do disagree with scientific facts even when they are proven beyond reasonable doubt (like the planet being only 10,000 years old, considering we have 100,000 year old ice cores!)?
You may as well say...how can someone believe the earth is
5 billion years old when the universe is 6k years old. Your statement
of fact cannot be disproven, so I'd doubt I'd call it a fact.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not so sure, #1 (but I very well could be wrong).
The equation E=Mc^2 simply expresses the relationship between energy and matter. It has nothing to do with the amount of matter-energy in the universe except to say that the amount of energy is equal to the amount of matter times the speed of light squared. By itself, the formula doesn't preclude more matter coming into existence.
My understanding was, if you have a closed system -- some sort of box, say, with a certain
amount of matter and energy in it, the relative amounts of that cannot change.
As Scott said, the universe is the ulitmate closed system. If energy is constantly in balance
with matter (as E=mc^2 indicates), it means the amount of energy/matter in the universe is
a fixed number (astronomical though it may be).
More matter could come into existence, but only if the amount of energy in that closed system
decreased, and vice versa. For matter to 'spontaneously appear' without a corresponding
decrease in the amount of energy would be a violation of scientific principle.
This is why I said that for something to come from nothing is a non-scientific concept (with which
you agreed).
Do you see what I am saying? Could a scientist tell me how my thinking is flawed here?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThe only flaw I can see is that you say that the energy of the universe would go down upon the creation of mass. It would not. It would just become mass, that's all. A different form, if you will.
I'm not so sure, #1 (but I very well could be wrong).
My understanding was, if you have a closed system -- some sort of box, say, with a certain
amount of matter and energy in it, the relative amounts of that cannot change.
As Scott said, the universe is the ulitmate closed system. If energy is constantly in balance
with matter (as E=mc^2 indicates) ...[text shortened]... u see what I am saying? Could a scientist tell me how my thinking is flawed here?
Nemesio
I know it was merely a slip, an easy little nuanse, but nethertheless, incorrect.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWell, as far as we understand things, yes, that's true. All I was saying is that it's of course possible that we don't know everything about the issue. But as far as I understand, Physics claims that mass and energy can interconvert, but the amount of mass/energy is constant.
I'm not so sure, #1 (but I very well could be wrong).
My understanding was, if you have a closed system -- some sort of box, say, with a certain
amount of matter and energy in it, the relative amounts of that cannot change.
As Scott said, the universe is the ulitmate closed system. If energy is constantly in balance
with matter (as E=mc^2 indicates) u see what I am saying? Could a scientist tell me how my thinking is flawed here?
Nemesio
HOWEVER, E = mc^2 does not say this; rather the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy does.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't think it's incorrect. If we have 10 units of mass/energy in the form of energy, and 5 units change to mass form, we only have 5 units of mass/energy in energy form.
The only flaw I can see is that you say that the energy of the universe would go down upon the creation of mass. It would not. It would just become mass, that's all. A different form, if you will.
I know it was merely a slip, an easy little nuanse, but nethertheless, incorrect.
Originally posted by NemesioHow can we say the universe is the "ultimate closed system"? If the space of the universe is infinite, then is it closed? If it is not infinite, then what lies beyond the space of the universe? To be certain we have a closed system, we need to determine the boundaries of the system.
...As Scott said, the universe is the ulitmate closed system. ...Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, the ice cores are taken from Lake Vostoc, an antarctic lake between 3 and 4 kilometres below the surface of the ice, which has been covered for the last 15 million years or so (since the antarctic froze over). Ice cores are cut from the column, and are analysed layer by layer, since each layer represents 1 years snow fall. This can be used to give quite a bit of information - the gasses can be run through a GC which can tell us how much O2, CO2 etc were in the atmosphere, and the sea surface mean temperature can be reconstructed using the 18O signature of the water in the ice. 18O is heavier than regular oxygen, and it makes the water molecules that it is part of heavier. This makes them harder to evaporate than regular water molecules, therefore temperature affects the atmospheric H2(18O) concentration, and that of the precipitation and therefore the ice.
🙂 You mean, it is believed we have ice cores that are that old?
You may as well say...how can someone believe the earth is
5 billion years old when the universe is 6k years old. Your statement
of fact cannot be disproven, so I'd doubt I'd call it a fact.
Kelly
There are way over 100,000 layers, in fact our reconstruction goes back around 225,000 years. Now, Kelly, like you say, it could all be a big hoax, and god could have created 215,000 of those layers, whilst also fabricating the radioisotope record to make it look like the earth is really 4.5 billion years old (estimated from lunar rock analysis), placing those pesky dinosaurs and, of course, that dratted Oklo natural nuclear reactor. Seems a bit unlikely though, doesn't it? Just to fool us?
Originally posted by ColettiAre you claiming there os something outside the universe? If it exists then it's part of the universe, and if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.
How can we say the universe is the "ultimate closed system"? If the space of the universe is infinite, then is it closed? If it is not infinite, then what lies beyond the space of the universe? To be certain we have a closed system, we need to determine the boundaries of the system.
As always, Coletti, it comes down to proof - where is yours?
2 edits
Originally posted by ColettiThe universe could be finite yet have no boundaries, something like the surface of a sphere does in a two-dimensional sense ie you can orbit the earth as much as you want without running into a wall yet the area of the Earth's surface is finite.
How can we say the universe is the "ultimate closed system"? If the space of the universe is infinite, then is it closed? If it is not infinite, then what lies beyond the space of the universe? To be certain we have a closed system, we need to determine the boundaries of the system.
If there were beings who knew only two dimensions, they would be puzzled to set off one day due East and find themselves years later back where they started.
EDIT: Our two-dimensional travellers might deduce the existence of a third dimension from this experience.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe point is you can not delineate the boundary of the what you assume to be the "ultimate closed system." How do you close an infinite system? It's just speculation that the universe is a closed system - and very unscientific.
Are you claiming there os something outside the universe? If it exists then it's part of the universe, and if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.
As always, Coletti, it comes down to proof - where is yours?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungA universe that cycles through expanding and collapsing would not exist forever because it would loose heat and light through every cycle.
[b]The aging process of the cosmos is referred to by astronomers as “heat death.”
I've heard that term refer to the state the universe would be in after a great deal of time, when it reaches a state of maximum entropy. It's a state, not a process - at least as I've heard and understood it.
A universe that cycles through expanding and co ...[text shortened]... y because we exist."[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle[/b]
What? Where does it lose that energy to? Where did you get this idea?
If nothing exists then what you have is a vacuum. If there is a vacuum, then the universe would have to lose light and heat into it every time it cycles through expanding and contracting.