Origin :) the numbers

@kellyjay said
None of that has anything to do with the beginning of the universe, or God’s limitations in any place, at any time.-

My whole point is humans, the best of us anyway, are near godlike in their intelligence. They stand head and shoulders above the rest of us clowns.
THEY are the ones who in the future, maybe with the help of what will no doubt become computers of power exponentially exceeding the computing power of the best supercomputers of today, like maybe quantum computers linked to the best of the best of 200 years from now AND the best of the best of human intelligence, will solve those problems and the religious set will be left in the dust, when they will NEVER admit defeat but just move the goalpost with a new set of objections they think will extend the issue long after it has been settled for the majority of people, much like how Flat Earther's are in the fringe right now.
Not based on faith BTW, but based on what has already been achieved and where the latest research is headed. Projection, not faith.

@sonhouse said
My whole point is humans, the best of us anyway, are near godlike in their intelligence. They stand head and shoulders above the rest of us clowns.
THEY are the ones who in the future, maybe with the help of what will no doubt become computers of power exponentially exceeding the computing power of the best supercomputers of today, like maybe quantum computers linked to the ...[text shortened]... ed on what has already been achieved and where the latest research is headed. Projection, not faith.

LOL, you serious, they don't even know what bathroom they are supposed to go into in some corners of higher education and you think they are near godlike. If this is what you think near godlike is, good luck with that!

@kellyjay said
LOL, you serious, they don't even know what bathroom they are supposed to go into in some corners of higher education and you think they are near godlike. If this is what you think near godlike is, good luck with that!

I'm not talking about personal peccadillo's or social problems, I am talking about their scientific results, you cannot fault THAT. Big Al has the best work on gravity including gravitational lensing and gravitational waves and we have just confirmed from LIGO the presence of gravitational waves after a hundred years of trying.
THAT is what I call godlike. That kind of science that was not seen by anyone before Einstein. Or the work on gravity by Newton, still used in orbital mechanics, where relativity has superseded Newton but only in the big picture. In the 'small' picture of getting spacecraft from point A to point B anywhere in the solar system, Newt is still king, you don't need relativity for that. Newton was so brilliant in so many fields it seems more like godlike intelligence to me. You have to admit, piece by piece, we are in absolute fact figuring out what makes the universe tick. And I am confident we will in the future, whether 100 years, 200 years or 1000 years will figure it ALL out including how life started here on Earth and other planets as well as just how in the hell the universe itself came to be, like why is there matter at all since anti and regular matter was created at the same time and in just about equal quantities so anti and regular would annihilate each other totally yet somehow a billionth of that stuff survived to become stars, galaxies, planets, moons and US.
One of the biggest mysteries in science, why is there ANYTHING? So some godlike mind of the future will figure THAT one out as well, and so forth till the rolling snowball of knowledge builds up enough we know most of all of why, when, how we are here.

@sonhouse said
I'm not talking about personal peccadillo's or social problems, I am talking about their scientific results, you cannot fault THAT. Big Al has the best work on gravity including gravitational lensing and gravitational waves and we have just confirmed from LIGO the presence of gravitational waves after a hundred years of trying.
THAT is what I call godlike. That kind of sci ...[text shortened]... he rolling snowball of knowledge builds up enough we know most of all of why, when, how we are here.

Have you read Newton’s thoughts on the cosmos? He clearly believed the universe was run on laws, but did not think those laws could start the universe by putting everything into their place.

@kellyjay said
Have you read Newton’s thoughts on the cosmos? He clearly believed the universe was run on laws, but did not think those laws could start the universe by putting everything into their place.

He was also behind the times by near 400 years in terms of what WE now know of the cosmos. His reflector telescope design was barely good enough to see the rings of Saturn for gods sake. Inventive as that was. Now his design is basically on the Hubble space telescope and all the other giant scopes around the world.
He didn't know for instance, that the universe was expanding and looking further and further into space was like looking backwards further and further into the past, the galaxies we see a billion light years from Earth are as they were a billion years ago and if we could be transported to them instantly, they would be seen a billion years into the future of what we see in scopes.
He knew nothing of that. So whatever he thought, we was off base. He was also deeply religious so he still thought a god invented the whole shooting match.

@sonhouse said
He was also behind the times by near 400 years in terms of what WE now know of the cosmos. His reflector telescope design was barely good enough to see the rings of Saturn for gods sake. Inventive as that was. Now his design is basically on the Hubble space telescope and all the other giant scopes around the world.
He didn't know for instance, that the universe was expandi ...[text shortened]... off base. He was also deeply religious so he still thought a god invented the whole shooting match.

You are still studying the universe without knowing how it got here. If it didn't create itself out of nothing, something/someone outside of itself did.

@stellspalfie said
No Kelly, its you miss understanding the probability difference in something being ordered by random and something being ordered by mechanism.

The video uses the example of 30ish segments of protein randomly forming in a specific order (segment 1 being in position 1, segment 2 being in position 2 and so on). Obviously the chances of this are miniscule.
What actually ...[text shortened]... s the chances of invalid protein chains forming.


The odds in your video or just flat out wrong.

YouTube

This this guy would be acceptable to you.

@kellyjay said
You are still studying the universe without knowing how it got here. If it didn't create itself out of nothing, something/someone outside of itself did.

That is the latest thinking about origin of the universe. That thought being that the actual universe is a LOT more than what we see in telescopes. Since the universe is expanding even now a few times the speed of light that means more and more of it disappears from telescopic view every day. Of course with our present level of telescope technology, we can't see that in real time, it would take millions of years to notice stuff gone that was there before in the images. What that means is our total universe is in itself many times bigger than what we see in telescopes, for one thing, so if we had a god measuring the size of OUR universe, it might clock in at 100 billion light years across, whereas we only see the first 14 odd billion light years of it.

So the feeling is our universe is in fact finite. Even considering the parts we can't see, if we could, there would be an end to it.

But latest thought is our universe is just a daughter universe to what started out as a black hole in yet a bigger universe, like bubbles within bubbles and so the REAL universe may be infinitely bigger than ANYTHING in our local bubble universe, with bubble universes more like foam bubbles on a memory mattress, our entire universe just one tiny bubble in a very large, perhaps infinite sea of other bubble universes.
One result of that is black holes in OUR universe may begat daughter universes of OURS, and the thinking goes the laws of physics will be very close but not exactly the same as here at home, so the speed of light may be 200,000 miles per second instead of 186,000 odd thousand miles per second, stuff like that.

And of course you are free to spit out 'speculation' and of course you will be right but that is the way some thinking about the origin issue goes. If that is right, then the origin of our real universe, the trillions of other bubble universes is just put back a notch, like how did all THAT start then?

@sonhouse said
That is the latest thinking about origin of the universe. That thought being that the actual universe is a LOT more than what we see in telescopes. Since the universe is expanding even now a few times the speed of light that means more and more of it disappears from telescopic view every day. Of course with our present level of telescope technology, we can't see that in real ...[text shortened]... the trillions of other bubble universes is just put back a notch, like how did all THAT start then?

I am perfectly content saying anything age you want to put on the universe is fine with me. You just have to know as soon as any date is used going backwards from that point means that a beginning is necessary. How that occurs is the real question.

Other thoughts about the beginning can be brought up but each have their own issues. If no natural process can create a universe out of nothing what does that leave us with?

@kellyjay said
[youtube] 6xj4UH0RwcM [/youtube]

This this guy would be acceptable to you.

YouTube

Would this guy would be acceptable to you.

Bump