Cosmos-a space-time odyssey

[123Imirish]

Am I the only one hooked on this programme? Do you agree with the facts stated on the programme? Do you think Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a good presenter- or even as good as Carl Sagan?

[Ontogenesis]

Never seen it, but inteligent design is just silly.

[Cdr.Keen]

it's all about evolution - life don't care about anything else. it's the answer of everything.

[123Imirish]

it's all about evolution - life don't care about anything else. it's the answer of everything.

was that sarcasm? There is more to the universe. Like the big bang, natural selection, survival of the fittest (basically natural selection). Atoms, and how they created this universe and world  and could destroy the world (nuclear bombs- splitting of the atom)

[Cdr.Keen]

 

it's all about evolution - life don't care about anything else. it's the answer of everything.

was that sarcasm? There is more to the universe. Like the big bang, natural selection, survival of the fittest (basically natural selection). Atoms, and how they created this universe and world  and could destroy the world (nuclear bombs- splitting of the atom)

 

 

thats evolution

[123Imirish]

 

 

it's all about evolution - life don't care about anything else. it's the answer of everything.

was that sarcasm? There is more to the universe. Like the big bang, natural selection, survival of the fittest (basically natural selection). Atoms, and how they created this universe and world  and could destroy the world (nuclear bombs- splitting of the atom)

 

 

thats evolution

 

I guess it is... (Besides the big bang)

[uberevan]

This thread can only lead to destruction...

Every time religion or politics are brought up bad stuff happens.

I'M TELLIN' YOU GUYS
BAD STUFFS GON GO DOWN

 

@Ontogenesis I do not believe in a young Earth but I still think it's fair to at least consider the theories.

Insulting what someone thinks is also a little degrading, since we're all trying to 'be lovely here' or something.  Stating why you think it's wrong I feel would be fine but "Nope that's a dumb theory" sounds a little hostile regardless of your harmless intent.  Personally I don't care but I know a few people that would be offended

[Xydonus]

sounds a little hostile regardless of your harmless intent.  Personally I don't care but I know a few people that would be offended

 

Don't see how its hostile. Its his opinion, and he's entitled to it. If people are offended at a non-directed opinion (as in he's not directing it at anyone in particular) then the offenders need to relax and chill a little. Nor does he need to flesh out his view.

 

If someone thinks [insert random film] is complete and utter rubbish, so be it, let them. More time is spent on review sites from people arguing against the reviewer because the reviewer thought the film was complete shite, against those who liked the film.

 

It's a vicious circle.

[uberevan]

"It's a vicious circle."

Ain't that the truth

[123Imirish]

This thread can only lead to destruction...

Every time religion or politics are brought up bad stuff happens.

I'M TELLIN' YOU GUYS

BAD STUFFS GON GO DOWN

 

@Ontogenesis I do not believe in a young Earth but I still think it's fair to at least consider the theories.

Insulting what someone thinks is also a little degrading, since we're all trying to 'be lovely here' or something.  Stating why you think it's wrong I feel would be fine but "Nope that's a dumb theory" sounds a little hostile regardless of your harmless intent.  Personally I don't care but I know a few people that would be offended

who said I didn't consider theories and also how did I insult anyone. If people are insulted by me having no belief in a god then they have a mental problem

[EnigmaGrey]

I seem to be  missing the "it's all intelligently designed by creators!" angle in the show, so I'm a little perplexed as to why this is being brought up in conjunction with it.

Either way, I find the visual imagery rather hilarious and hard to take seriously, what with the "everything is epic!" portrayal. As some sort of attempt to "dazzle" the viewer with the "majesty" of the universe, I guess it'd be fine as an educational program. Can't say I'm interested in it.

Intelligent design is just silly (though have at it if you believe gods or god-like beings with vast intelligences and while wielding universe-shaking powers carved out a rule system by which all of natural phenomena abides, so long as it doesn't get in the way of scientific exploration of said phenomena). Most often it's just sold as an alternative to science, though.

[Hrolgar]

Cosmos is amazing, Neil Tyson is doing a great job. I am not even missing Carl Sagen while watching.

[uberevan]

My thoughts are that according to the laws of the observable universe nothing can create something else, it can only convert into something else.  Also in the observable universe, nothing can create itself without first existing.  There either has to be something we haven't found that makes itself exist before it even exists.  There has to be something that we cannot comprehend that caused matter to be created, thus setting the events of the universe.  So that begs the question, what created the big bang?

 

Also, 123lmirish I wasn't talking to you but I guess you had the same opinion

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html  This is some of the better evidence against his existence. Edit: Nevermind, I think these are just jokes.

http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ This is some of the better evidence for his existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God  Read the bottom section for some of the better evidence against his existence.

[EnigmaGrey]

Why, the old universe collapsed in on itself, of course. Then the big bang happened.

Pretty sure I stole that from someone famous, but I'm willing to accept whatever accolades come with such an answer.

[uberevan]

But that makes me wonder why the Universe would crunch back together if there were enough force to stretch it away from itself?

[123Imirish]

But that makes me wonder why the Universe would crunch back together if there were enough force to stretch it away from itself?

unlike us I don't think the universe really had a say, but hey call me crazy, that's just a theory  

 

Jokes aside, the universe is only one of many universes (its a theory but it sounds reasonable enough) those universes might have like, crashed into our universe destroying it then the imposion/explosion happened, I don't know really, but hey maybe we will never know. The universe is big, amazing and really effing hard to observe in a matter of decades. I'n all respects to cosmologists and astronauts I think we need to sort out our own planet first. Maybe still have a bit off funds to go towards the mars one project, just for a backup in case anything happens to our own planet. My view changes daily on that though.

[TheCenturion]

The way I see it, everything is a result of numbers and mathematics. Forcing reacting upon forces. Everything has a logical reason; we simply don't have the knowledge or science to yet understand it, and perhaps never will. 

[uberevan]

My only problem with that is that there is about as much proof for that as there is for God, which is to say not much at all.  So for now it boils down to what you prefer to believe, at least until we can learn more.

[Cdr.Keen]

The way I see it, everything is a result of numbers and mathematics. Forcing reacting upon forces. Everything has a logical reason; we simply don't have the knowledge or science to yet understand it, and perhaps never will. 

 

common mind don't have the knowledge to understand such things, but we're able to do the following to explain the universe:

 

there are two ways for us - either we can describe something, or we can't describe something. and at the case we can't describe something, it looks like a false - but it isn't. because you're are able to say it's ineffable, and thats a description too.

 

so we know two stages to exist - either it is there, or it isn't there. it's like an equation:

 

warm = not warm

light = no light

on = off

exists = not exists

 

and as we know from equations, both sides must be available to complete the equation. so we all know, there is an universe. and because of that, there must be a dimension without an universe ( universe = no universe ). we know, it's an equation - so if there must be a dimension without an universe, there also must be one with an universe ( no universe = universe ).

 

and thats the explantation for all. not very satisfying, but catchable

[uberevan]

If there is a Universe that has an opposite, there must be a universe that doesn't according to this logic...So how does that work?!  

If there is a dimension with Physics and predictable nature and the like, what's the opposite of that?  Complete chaos and no understandable laws?  Would that not force it to not follow these laws as well?  So there is a Universe where this doesn't apply, but if it does apply here, wouldn't that mean it's still the opposite, therefore still following our laws?  Thereby contradicting it's opposite nature?  If there is a Universe that creates another, shouldn't the one it creates destroy the original? But if they are opposites, how can this happen at different times?  What's the opposite of a specified point in time?  Say there is no time, how can these happen simultaneously?  Let's say it is destroyed, therefore leaving no opposite...I can't really accept this logic

And if the opposite of matter is space, then wtf is Antimatter and dark matter?  What's the opposite of energy?  Lack of anything?  But isn't that also the opposite of substance?  Does every single thing have the same opposite?  Is there a place where there is only one everything but an infinite amount of opposites of that one everything?  Is there not a universe where this equation doesn't work, therefore applying to all other universes?

[Rathlord]

Not sure you understand a single facet of physics Uberevan.

[TheCenturion]

If there is a Universe that has an opposite, there must be a universe that doesn't according to this logic...So how does that work?!  

If there is a dimension with Physics and predictable nature and the like, what's the opposite of that?  Complete chaos and no understandable laws?  Would that not force it to not follow these laws as well?  So there is a Universe where this doesn't apply, but if it does apply here, wouldn't that mean it's still the opposite, therefore still following our laws?  Thereby contradicting it's opposite nature?  If there is a Universe that creates another, shouldn't the one it creates destroy the original? But if they are opposites, how can this happen at different times?  What's the opposite of a specified point in time?  Say there is no time, how can these happen simultaneously?  Let's say it is destroyed, therefore leaving no opposite...I can't really accept this logic

And if the opposite of matter is space, then wtf is Antimatter and dark matter?  What's the opposite of energy?  Lack of anything?  But isn't that also the opposite of substance?  Does every single thing have the same opposite?  Is there a place where there is only one everything but an infinite amount of opposites of that one everything?  Is there not a universe where this equation doesn't work, therefore applying to all other universes?

 

Wut? 

[EnigmaGrey]

Might be a good idea to read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

For a "spherical" rather than "flat" universe:

 

In a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the observable universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the Big Crunch, by analogy with Big Bang. However, if the universe has a large amount of dark energy (as suggested by recent findings), then the expansion of the universe could continue forever.

Not that this may well be accurate. The last time I had a physics course as around 8-9 years ago.

 

[uberevan]

Not sure you understand a single facet of physics Uberevan.

I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on your assertion.

I'm simply responding with the same logic I read.

Thank you Enigma for giving me something constructive that I can actually use.

 

Edit: Are you referring to my comment on Anti-Matter and Dark Matter?  I did truthfully need to refresh my memory about them, but saying I don't understand anything at all about physics is a bit erroneous.

[Cdr.Keen]

I don't talk about opposites - all you wrote is right, you describe the Dimension between all we know, and all we don't know.

It's not like a full and an empty glass of water. It's like a full glass, and no glass. There is even no space for an empty glass - absolute nothing.

Time isn't a law, it's something created by humans (i call it the slave variable). We better describe time as movement of things, chemical reaction based on our environment. The other dimension of this is a state without such movement. There will be no time, because there is nothing to move, to react.

The universe doesn't create another, they exist at the same time. They won't collaps each other, because they will never meet.