What is the latest theory.....

[FDF12389]

that explains how the order of the universe came to be? From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10,000 yrs or less), how can that be explained? How did the earth start spinning? Where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?

Ive been education primarily in private schools through High School, and now that Im in college I would like to keep a very open mind.

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: FDF12389
that explains how the order of the universe came to be? From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10 yrs or less), how can that be explained? How did the earth start spinning? Where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?

Ive been education primarily in private schools through High School, and now that Im in college I would like to keep a very open mind.

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

Seriously?

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: FDF12389
that explains how the order of the universe came to be? From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10 yrs or less), how can that be explained? How did the earth start spinning? Where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?

Ive been education primarily in private schools through High School, and now that Im in college I would like to keep a very open mind.

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Whats wrong with trying to keep an open mind?

 

[Vageetasjn]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: FDF12389
that explains how the order of the universe came to be? From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10 yrs or less), how can that be explained? How did the earth start spinning? Where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?

Ive been education primarily in private schools through High School, and now that Im in college I would like to keep a very open mind.

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Whats wrong with trying to keep an open mind?

He bolded the ten years part. Surely you meant something else.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: Vageetasjn

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: FDF12389
that explains how the order of the universe came to be? From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10 yrs or less), how can that be explained? How did the earth start spinning? Where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?

Ive been education primarily in private schools through High School, and now that Im in college I would like to keep a very open mind.

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously. Whats wrong with trying to keep an open mind?

He bolded the ten years part. Surely you meant something else.

Oh, yeah, thats missing a few zeros.

 

[f95toli]

Our earth is about 4.54 billion years old.
Rocks older than 3.5 billions years have been found on many plances on earth and in a few places rocks older than 4 billion years have been found.

So yes, you were missing a few zeros....

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: f95toli
Our earth is about 4.54 billion years old.
Rocks older than 3.5 billions years have been found on many plances on earth and in a few places rocks older than 4 billion years have been found.

So yes, you were missing a few zeros....

So with the current rate things are changing(Sun shrinking, salt in the Ocean ect.) what was the earth like back then?

Im not here claiming to be smart or tell you your wrong, I just want to learn, your post really didnt contribute to that goal at all.

 

[f95toli]

4.54 billion years ago?
A ball of very hot lava.

There are several good websites with good information that should be pretty easy to find.
e.g. U.S. Geological survey
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

 

[pcy]

Hi,


I can see no way to reconcile the contradiction here:

Originally posted by: FDF12389
From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10,000 yrs or less)...

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

The answers you are looking for exist only in a body of scientific knowledge theat holds the earth to be several billion years old, and which includes Evolution. The idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old is fundamentally Creationist.



Peter

 

[Cattlegod]

Can you elaborate on your studies? I am curious to hear what studies you have done to conclude the earth is < 10k years old.

 

[flyboy84]

Originally posted by: pcy
Hi,


I can see no way to reconcile the contradiction here:

Originally posted by: FDF12389
From my studies I am becoming more and more convinced that the earth is young (10,000 yrs or less)...

Please do not turn this into a Creation vs Evolution thread.

The answers you are looking for exist only in a body of scientific knowledge theat holds the earth to be several billion years old, and which includes Evolution. The idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old is fundamentally Creationist.



Peter

QFT gotta keep it simple for the simple

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: pcy
The answers you are looking for exist only in a body of scientific knowledge theat holds the earth to be several billion years old, and which includes Evolution. The idea that the earth is only 10,000 years old is fundamentally Creationist.

But the question he raised in his OP has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Two very fundamental questions still remain for science (among others, of course):
1. Where did mass/energy come from?
2. How did life begin?

Neither has been observed experimentally. That mass and energy could come from somewhere seems to be a fairly gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Has it always been here? This is the heart of his question. His anecdotes undermined it, to be sure, but there it is.

 

[xdxforever]

To answer #1 in the terms of string theory the energy (and matter as a result) was 'pushed' into this universe as it was created by the collision of two Branes (sp?)
For #2 it has been found in closed system experiments (i cant find a site describing the setup and i cant draw it myself) that in an atmosphere with a high level of methane, amonia, and a lot of other poisonous gasses that amino acids can form if there is an ionizing agent, that is to say a lightening storm. This suggests that the molecular structures nessisary for what we know as life had a reasonable chance of being randomly generated in the period of cooling where bodies of water started to form. Research into autocatalysis also suggests that molecules that reproduse themselves could have viably formed in water. This isn't strictly life by standard definitions but it gets closer.

 

[f95toli]

A simpler answer to #1 that if you sum all the energies in the universe you will get 0. I know this was an important point for early inflation theories and as far as I know this is also correct for the latest version of brane theory.
Essentially the "negative energy" of gravity will balance out the electromagnetic energy
and the mass (by "negative" I mean that object as far apart even though they attract each other).

 

[pcy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

But the question he raised in his OP has nothing to do with the age of the earth. Two very fundamental questions still remain for science (among others, of course):
1. Where did mass/energy come from?
2. How did life begin?

Neither has been observed experimentally. That mass and energy could come from somewhere seems to be a fairly gross violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Has it always been here? This is the heart of his question. His anecdotes undermined it, to be sure, but there it is.

OK... let's ignore the additional constraint. So we are not looking for a therory that is also consistant with the idea that the earth is only 10k years old.


1. How was the Universe created?
Last time I read up on this (OK, some time ago) the answer was:
1.1 Total Energy in Universe is zero
1.2 So a Universe can be created, and would be allowed to persist, by the normal operation of the Uncertainty Principle.

This theory has (had) the huge benefit that there is no discontinuity in the laws of physics. The actual creation process is entirely consistant with what we know and observe to-day.

The idea that total energy in the Universe is zero may come as a shock. It did to me. The key point is that graviational energy is nagative. Two masses have zero graviational energy if they are an infinite distance apart. If they are a finite distance apart they have a net negative energy , namely minus the energy needed to make them an infinite distance apart. Easy to calculate = G m1 m2 / D if I'm not mistaken.

Given that, it is clearly possible, in principle, for a universe such as the one we see to have net zero energy, with the negative gravitational energy exactly couterbalancing the mass energy.

I also understand that projects to estimate the total energy of our Universe were under way, and the answer did seem to be coming out very close to zero.



2. How did life evolve.
xdxforever has it pretty much as I understand it. Once you have groups of "molecules that reproduse themselves" (which also exhibit capacity for self organization) you are on your way. The details are horribly complex, with many areas of uncertainty - but the broad path is clear with no problem of principle.




Peter

 

[snes tor]

Big Bang?

 

[pcy]

Hi,


The instant when the Universe was created from zilch by the operation of the Unertainty Principle was the Big Bang.


Strictly speaking, the Big Bang is what happened from and immediately immediately after the instant of creation. The theory I outlined above explains how that creation could have occurred.



Peter

 

[flyboy84]

Originally posted by: snes tor
Big Bang?

Edited out because I was being obnoxious.

If you have nothing intelligent to add and gauging from the caliber of your posts you don't, stay out of the thread(s).
AnandTech Moderator

 

[So]

I too am curious what studies you have been doing that lead you to this conclusion?

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: So
I too am curious what studies you have been doing that lead you to this conclusion?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Not my exact studies but youll get the idea, I dont really have time to type a few pages right now, I could possibly this weekend if everyone really wanted it.

 

[Pulsar]

FDF12389 why don't you start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

At the risk of getting into a debate, which I don't want you to do, consider this. The primary difference between "Science" and between what you seem to believe is this:

Science didn't start out by saying "The earth is this old" and then look for evidence only to support it. Science takes all the evidence it can find and then says that the evidence leads us to believe "X".

Religion, on the other hand, looks for even the tiniest shread of data that supports it, and says "See, look at this, it clearly proves everything else is wrong." In the process, it ignores the preponderence of evidence against what it is claiming.

That isn't to say Religion is "bad". Just that it's side-stepping the logical, rational problem solving method and tries to start working backwards from a conclusion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: xdxforever
To answer #1 in the terms of string theory the energy (and matter as a result) was 'pushed' into this universe as it was created by the collision of two Branes (sp?)

Good. I think this is what he was looking for. I'm rusty on my string theory and couldn't recall the relevant explanation. I actually thought branes were stationary, but I guess it's been a few years...

For #2 it has been found in closed system experiments (i cant find a site describing the setup and i cant draw it myself) that in an atmosphere with a high level of methane, amonia, and a lot of other poisonous gasses that amino acids can form if there is an ionizing agent, that is to say a lightening storm. This suggests that the molecular structures nessisary for what we know as life had a reasonable chance of being randomly generated in the period of cooling where bodies of water started to form. Research into autocatalysis also suggests that molecules that reproduse themselves could have viably formed in water. This isn't strictly life by standard definitions but it gets closer.

Right. There are lots of labs running around trying to actually create 'life' in the form of RNA or some such, but it hasn't yet been accomplished.

 

[Pulsar]

Here is some of the thought behind the big bang:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[So]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: So
I too am curious what studies you have been doing that lead you to this conclusion?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Not my exact studies but youll get the idea, I dont really have time to type a few pages right now, I could possibly this weekend if everyone really wanted it.

There are some extremely egregious errors and logical flaws on that page.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: So
There are some extremely egregious errors and logical flaws on that page.

Generally, it's much more instructive if you point out where such errors/flaws are rather than just say they exist. I'm not disagreeing, just saying that this doesn't really add to his understanding.