Humility

[cKGunslinger]

The known Universe has a radius of ~47 billion light years. Within it are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Within those are hundreds of billions of stars. One of those stars is our Sun. Our Sun is about 4.5 billions years old, as is our planet. Recognizable human life has been on Earth for ~200,000 years. That's approximately 0.000015% of the age of the Universe.

Most religions preach humility. Assuming that "The Creator" of this near-incomprehensibly vast Universe has nothing better to do than wait around for 99.999985% of the Universe's age just to monitor your each and every action - from going to church on Sunday mornings to what you eat on Fridays - so as to judge you is *not* my idea of being humble. It may very well be the most extreme example of narcissism imaginable.

You are not important.

Smile! :awe:


Hubble Deep Field
Star Size Comparisons

.

 

[Nik]

Freakin LOVE stuff like this. I can't watch those vids at work, but I've seen them both. Did you link to the Deep Field or to the Ultra Deep Field?

 

[LtPage1]

Actually, all that revolves around me. The FSM told me so.

 

[IronWing]

I thought this was going to be about Quake 3 Arena

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Since 1900, stellar evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the universe by a factor of 100. Don't most of them suggest that the universe is 13.5 - 14 billion years old?

 

[Jeff7]

Since 1900, stellar evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the universe by a factor of 100. Don't most of them suggest that the universe is 13.5 - 14 billion years old?

Somewhere around there.






...and so it begins again.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Since 1900, stellar evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the universe by a factor of 100. Don't most of them suggest that the universe is 13.5 - 14 billion years old?

Good call. I mistakenly associated size with age in my post (and screwed up the math!)

The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 billion parsecs (46.5 billion light-years) in any direction. The visible universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28 billion parsecs (about 93 billion light-years). Assuming that space is roughly flat, this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 3×1080 cubic meters. This is equivalent to a volume of about 41 decillion cubic light-years short scale (4.1 X 1034 cubic light years).

The figures quoted above are distances now (in cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was emitted. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation that we see right now was emitted at the time of recombination, 379,000[9] years after the Big Bang, which occurred around 13.7 billion (13.7×109) years ago. This radiation was emitted by matter that has, in the intervening time, mostly condensed into galaxies, and those galaxies are now calculated to be about 46 billion light-years from us. To estimate the distance to that matter at the time the light was emitted, a mathematical model of the expansion must be chosen and the scale factor, a(t), calculated for the selected time since the Big Bang, t. For the observationally-favoured Lambda-CDM model, using data from the WMAP spacecraft, such a calculation yields a scale factor change of approximately 1292. This means the Universe has expanded to 1292 times the size it was when the CMBR photons were released. Hence, the most distant matter that is observable at present, 46 billion light-years away, was only 36 million light-years away from the matter that would eventually become Earth when the microwaves we are currently receiving were emitted.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The known Universe has a radius of ~47 billion light years. Within it are hundreds of billions of galaxies. Within those are hundreds of billions of stars. One of those stars is our Sun. Our Sun is about 4.5 billions years old, as is our planet. Recognizable human life has been on Earth for ~200,000 years. That's approximately 0.00004% of the age of the Universe.

Most religions preach humility. Assuming that "The Creator" of this near-incomprehensibly vast Universe has nothing better to do than wait around for 99.99996% of the Universe's age just to monitor your each and every action - from going to church on Sunday mornings to what you eat on Fridays - so as to judge you is *not* my idea of being humble. It may very well be the most extreme example of narcissism imaginable.

You are not important.

Smile! :awe:


Hubble Deep Field
Star Size Comparisons

.

According to some Muslim theologians the universe is held in its present form by God's will and if God's attention is distracted for even a moment will dissolve back to the primal ooze.

 

[Malak]

The universe is only 7 light years long.

 

[Jeff7]

According to some Muslim theologians the universe is held in its present form by God's will and if God's attention is distracted for even a moment will dissolve back to the primal ooze.

And here we are constantly attention-whoring for god's attention. Hell, millions of Muslims pray to him at the same time every day. And then on Sundays he gets blasted from the Christians. "Uh huh, whatever. Leave me alone, I'm holding all of reality together right now, dammit! Shit I wish I'd have invented physics so I wouldn't have to be doing this all the time."

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

And here we are constantly attention-whoring for god's attention. Hell, millions of Muslims pray to him at the same time every day. And then on Sundays he gets blasted from the Christians. "Uh huh, whatever. Leave me alone, I'm holding all of reality together right now, dammit! Shit I wish I'd have invented physics so I wouldn't have to be doing this all the time."

And don't forget the Jews.

 

[Jeff7]

And don't forget the Jews.

Sorry, don't know their praying habits off the top of my head. I guess getting them in there would cover the three religions that basically pray to the same baseline deity.

 

[IronWing]

According to some Muslim theologians the universe is held in its present form by God's will and if God's attention is distracted for even a moment will dissolve back to the primal ooze.

So if I'm praying and I slip a really good joke into my prayer the universe could collapse? Whoa. I guess that explains why religion is serious stuff.

 

[speg]

WHAT are you talking about?

WE are the center of the universe. Everyone knows this.

P.S. — The earth is flat.

 

[IronWing]

WE are the center of the universe.
P.S. — The earth is flat.

That makes for an interesting topology.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The Age of the Universe.

Interesting perspective from a rabbi.

http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/60946/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm

We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:
(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.
(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!
(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.
(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.
(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.
In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.

It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.

If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically, it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning.

 

[IronWing]

The Age of the Universe.

Interesting perspective from a rabbi.

http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/60946/jewish/The-Age-of-the-Universe.htm

We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:
(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.
(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!
(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.
(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.
(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.
In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.

The rabbi is an idiot.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

The rabbi is an idiot.

Why, because he dared to threaten your world view?

 

[zinfamous]

Since 1900, stellar evolutionists have increased the estimated age of the universe by a factor of 100. Don't most of them suggest that the universe is 13.5 - 14 billion years old?

stellar evolutionists?

lolwtf.

it's this kind of thinking that truly proves you are nothing more than a troll. If not, you absolutely know nothing of science.

 

[zinfamous]

Why, because he dared to threaten your world view?

haha. you're the one that feels so threatened. It's why you close your eyes and plug your ears and scream WAWAWANANANAI'MNOTLISTENING! whenever confronted with rational debate.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

The stars video was really well done, best Ive seen comparing star sizes

Its really breathtaking

 

[Jeff7]

stellar evolutionists?

lolwtf.

it's this kind of thinking that truly proves you are nothing more than a troll. If not, you absolutely know nothing of science.

EVOLVE!

 

[Malak]

haha. you're the one that feels so threatened. It's why you close your eyes and plug your ears and scream WAWAWANANANAI'MNOTLISTENING! whenever confronted with rational debate.

I can't tell if you are a troll, just being sarcastic, or are really that ignorant.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

haha. you're the one that feels so threatened. It's why you close your eyes and plug your ears and scream WAWAWANANANAI'MNOTLISTENING! whenever confronted with rational debate.

I have welcomed rationale debate. Unfortunately, the only thing I've gotten in return from you and a few others is name calling and ad-hominem attacks.

The rabbi's letter is well thought out and tightly reasoned. Where do you find fault with it?

 

[IronWing]

Why, because he dared to threaten your world view?

He didn't dare anything. He's an idiot because he demostrated through his writing that he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about and yet tried to present himself to another as an authority on the subject in spite of his own ignorance. He's an idiot.