- Aug 3, 2012
- 29,552
- 29,260
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
How it started is a separate question. What’s under discussion in the OP are the conditions under which it developed.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How can you even start with a universe at all, unless you really meant empty space. Please clarify, then I will continue.
Isn’t the universe expanding at the speed of light, the absolute maximum speed possible?Re: Stephen Hawking - What does Hawking say would have happened if the rate of expansion had been greater?
How it started is a separate question. What’s under discussion in the OP are the conditions under which it developed.
Isn’t the universe expanding at the speed of light, the absolute maximum speed possible?
I admit that I have no idea what else Hawkins said.
Hello, nice question!Im gonna quote Oxford University and Nobel prize winner, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”
As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator aka God.
As C.S. Lewis once said, there are actually quite few atheists in the world. Many of those who call themselves atheists are not actually true atheists when carefully questioned.
1. Earth is at the perfect distance from the sun.
(Too close and we burn up; Too far away and we would freeze).
2. Earth is in a habitable zone of galaxy where there is no radiation and wandering planetoids.
3. Earth's orbit of the sun does not take us too close to the sun.
4. Earth has the right amount of magnetic fields generated from it's core to protect us from harmful rays of the sun.
5. Earth has the right kind of star (i.e. the sun) which gives off the right amount of output that is not too strong (that would burn us up).
6. Earth is spinning at a rate that makes life possible.
7. Earth is tilted at the right axis for life.
8. Earth's moon as at the right size and distance so as to provide the perfect kind of tides for life.
9. Earth's two gas giants (i.e. Jupiter and Saturn) prevent wandering astroids from hitting the Earth.
10. Earth has the right amount of oxygen or air for life to thrive.
11. Earth has the right kind of gravity for life to thrive.
12. Earth has enough useable water so as to sustain life.
13. Earth has enough minerals, plant, and animal life so as to provide for humans.
14. Earth's atmosphere is at just the right level to protect life.
15. Earth's tectonic processes which recycle the crust are just right so as to maintain life on our planet by recycling minerals and nutrients that we need.
16. Earth's right amount of gases in the atmosphere making life suitable.
17. Earth has the right amount of carbon dioxide.
18. Earth is just the right size.
19. Earth has right amount of Nitogen that makes life possible.
20. Earth is at the right age to support life.
The distance differs by over a million miles at different times of the year. So that's a lot of leeway.
Except, every now and then, it gets whacked by a huge one, killing off most of the life on it. Unless the "designer" is the Joker, I don't think that's a good one.
That's no. 1, again.
That's an interesting notion. Mars, for example, looks like early on, it was a very good place for life. But lacking a sufficiently large and hot core, it lacks magnetic generation for plate tectonics (not to mention gravity to hold gases).
The Sun is a main sequence star. A very common kind in the universe.
It spun a lot faster in the past. Life seemed to do fine.
It actually presents a problem for life. Seasons mean an additional challenge to survival.
There are no measurable tides on the lake near my house. Life seems to do just fine without them.
Except the don't work so well; we get hit anyway.
Actually, life produced oxygen, which was originally a deadly poison for living things at the time. The Banded Iron formations show how that came about.
Show us your numbers for the wrong kind of gravity.
Water is more than necessary for sustaining life. It's essential to forming life in any kind we'd recognize as living.
It has life so life can exist here. Right.
It was significantly different in the past, and life went on.
This is actually very important. It's likely one of the reasons Mars seems to have no life.
That's 10 and 14.
So's that.
In the right range, anyway.
That's 16.
It seemed to do fine when it was much, much younger. Probably will, until it's much, much older.
No need to thank me. I discovered such truths by a simply searching.
"It has to be true; I found it on the internet." Well, maybe not.
The Sun is a main sequence star. A very common kind in the universe.
Im gonna quote Oxford University and Nobel prize winner, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”
“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”
As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”
And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator aka God.
Its been discovered recently our sun is more unusual in its stability than expected.
Unlike similar seeming stars.
Its been discovered recently our sun is more unusual in its stability than expected.
Unlike similar seeming stars.
And where did you learn what you did?
What I was intending to point to is research that is not just about 'main sequence' stars. The articles I meant to link about are about stars with the close to same mass and similar composition to our own sun (similar metallicity). A far smaller groups of stars like our sun, specifically. Similar rotational speed, etc.According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.
Note that most stars are not as stable as our sun (they flare more for instance), but I'll just transcribe the post, to aid conveying the finding:According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.
According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?