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.
What is your pointWhat happens if an asteroid the size of Alaska hits the Earth two months from now and completely destroys all life on Earth? No more internet, no more humans, no more information, no more technology.
This scenario is plausible and valid within the realm of physics and science. Do you believe this is possible?
What is your point
Our sun is too small to end up a supernova!
True. It will still die though. I, for one, think we better get colonizing space sooner rather than later. In fact, I argue it should have been started straight after the Apollo Programme's completion. And personally I argue we abandon planets, opting instead for variants of O'Neill cylinders and other space-based artificial and mobile habitats. The purpose? Spread humanity as far as possible as quickly as possible. In a local cluster of stars a sufficiently powerful nova can potentially wipe out colonists in several star systems in one fell swoop. Better to seek the gaps between the galaxy's spiral arms. Going ever further out. Or in, should we want/be able to build habitats with sufficient shielding to withstand such bursts. More interesting minerals further in after all.
Planet based civilizations can somewhat more easily fall to this and other threats however. Better a mobile environment we can control as much as possible than one we can neither control nor move
There is nothing scientifically not possible with what faith guardian wrote. On the other hand if you want imagination then go no further than Genesis and the flood.Ho oh oh....... What an imagination you kids got these days Oh oh oh.........................................................ho ho ho..................
True. It will still die though. I, for one, think we better get colonizing space sooner rather than later.
The simple fact of the matter is that General Relativity is not complete, which is why it breaks down when applied to black holes and the big bang. Which is also why we need a quantum theory of gravity.General Relativity is complete for what it addresses, which is gravity. The other fundamental forces in physics are covered by the Standard Model of particle phyisics.
While the strong and electroweak forces peacefully coexist in the Standard Model of particle physics, they remain distinct. So far, the quest for a theory of everything is thus unsuccessful on two points: neither a unification of the strong and electroweak forces which Laplace would have called `contact forces' has been achieved, nor a unification of these forces with gravitation has been achieved.-Wikipedia/TOE
Physical values are at infinity at the singularity because General Relativity breaks down at singularities, this cut off point is called the Planck Scale. Again in order to have an accurate picture of what takes place at the Planck scale we need a quantum theory of gravity.General Relativity is valid all the way up to the singularity. No possible form of physics can apply to the singularity itself, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on those physical values in which to apply a physics equation.
Of course the fact that the top quark's mass was already being detected in 1992 is a bit helpful. Even if he did successfully predict it, that does not mean all of Omega Point Cosmology is correct.In the book The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Prof. Frank J. Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark using the Omega Point cosmology, which contradicted the mass predicted by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). Indeed, a paper Tipler sent to Physical Review Letters in 1992 correctly predicting the mass of the top quark was turned down with the explanation from one referee that it was "clearly refuted by experiment. The estimate from CERN indicates it is going to be 150 [GeV/c^2]." And so Europe's (and indeed the world's) most influential particle physicists were wrong and Prof. Tipler was right.
Moreover, the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
There has already been experimental confirmation of the aforementioned Omega Point TOE. In Tipler's April 2005 Report on Progress in Physics paper, he gave a number of simple experiments to test the Omega Point TOE. As Tipler wrote in a recent preprint:
""
If the CBR is an SU(2)L gauge field combined with the Higgs vacuum, and not a complete electromagnetic field, then it cannot couple to right-handed electrons either. Thus we would expect CBR pseudo-photons to show substantially less Sunyaev-Zel-dovich effect that conventional theory would predict, as I pointed out in [11]. This has now been seen [9].
So, the problem you're running into despite all of your fancy quoting is thus. Let's allow for the moment that everything you've posted physics wise is accurate.
There is nothing scientifically not possible with what faith guardian wrote. On the other hand if you want imagination then go no further than Genesis and the flood.
If only you knew how true those words are!Imagine theres no heaven
it's easy if you try.........
no hell below us.........
above us only sky.....
you may say that I'm a dreamer....
but I'm not the only one...........
I hope some day you will join up
and the world will be as one.
Ho oh oh....... What an imagination you kids got these days Oh oh oh.........................................................ho ho ho..................
Crooned the guy whose 'instant karma' caught up with him and 'looked him right in the eye'.Imagine theres no heaven
it's easy if you try.........
no hell below us.........
above us only sky.....
you may say that I'm a dreamer....
but I'm not the only one...........
I hope some day you will join up
and the world will be as one.
Which word(s) are wrong?That was fail, AV.
It appears that those that believe in the Omega Point, also believe that humans MUST leave this planet before our Sun goes supernova. However, if there are no humans to leave...then it fails.
The simple fact of the matter is that General Relativity is not complete, which is why it breaks down when applied to black holes and the big bang. Which is also why we need a quantum theory of gravity.
Yes the Standard model includes the electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear forces, but it has yet to be successfully merged with General Relativity. Not only that but the Standard Model does not say anything about Dark Matter, and it depends on the yet to be discovered Higgs particle. Also consider the following quote:
Physical values are at infinity at the singularity because General Relativity breaks down at singularities, this cut off point is called the Planck Scale. Again in order to have an accurate picture of what takes place at the Planck scale we need a quantum theory of gravity.
Of course the fact that the top quark's mass was already being detected in 1992 is a bit helpful. Even if he did successfully predict it, that does not mean all of Omega Point Cosmology is correct.
Once again, our existing theories are not complete, so to jump from this fact to saying Omega Point Cosmology is correct is a non sequitur.
The Feynman-Dewitt-Weinburg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything, is not the TOE!
In his eyes it is, and maybe a few others. As far as I have heard most physicist think it has some interesting aspects to it, but that it is mostly pseudoscience. I am not even a physicist and I can see a lot of holes and assumptions in the theory.
We just do not know yet!
Rather, a sapient intelligence roughly every Hubble volume must be evolved in order to take over all mater in the universe. Humanity is highly unlikely to destroy itself at this point. But if it did, then another sapient species must come into existence within roughly our Hubble volume in order to spread life throughout our sector of the entire universe.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
Strange, isn't it, that the unification theory people have been hunting for decades has been found and the science community seems disinterested. You'd think they'd have more to say about it..."[M]ost physicist" (sic) haven't commented on it one way or the other. The only physicists who have commented on it have approved it.
It is complete for addressing gravity up to the Planck scale. Not to mention it has yet to be successfully integrated with the other three fundamental forces.It's complete for what it addresses, which is gravity.
Wrong, consider this:General Relativity doesn't break down at the Planck scale. It is perfectly good all the way up to the singularity, which is infinitely smaller than the Planck scale.
Also regarding General Relativity,For energies approaching the Planck scale, an exact theory of quantum gravity is required, and the current leading candidate is string theory, or its modernized form M-theory. Other approaches to this problem include Loop quantum gravity and Noncommutative geometry. At the Planck scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable to the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown.-Wikipedia/Planck Scale
However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Plank lenght where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.-Wikipedia/Gravitation
The Feynman-Dewitt-Weinburg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything is not considered THE theory of everything. It is simply one of many existing theories. It has not been verified just like String Theory, M-theory and Loop quantum gravity.James Redford said:We have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) if the known laws of physics are correct. They have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the quantum gravity TOE required by physical law is incorrect.
Actually I do know what I am talking about. Now if you are reffering to Tipler's 2005 paper, then yes it is seen as a highly respected paper. However, he did not include all that religious stuff in that paper. Once he adds his theology and many other assumptions that he did not include in the paper (which is also part of his Omega Point theory) his credibility goes out the door. And here is my proof:I see you're just making up things as you go along. You here show that you have no clue as to what in the world you're talking about (although that was already made clear by you in your previous posts in this thread). "[M]ost physicist" (sic) haven't commented on it one way or the other. The only physicists who have commented on it have approved it.
Tipler, for example, claims that the standard model of particle physics is complete andexact. It isnt.
He claims that we have a clear and consistent theory
of quantum gravity. We dont.
He claims that the universe must recollapse. It doesnt have to, and
all evidence thus far suggests that it wont.
He argues that we understand the nature of dark energy. We dont.
He argues that we know why there is more matter than antimatter in the
universe. We dont.
I could go on, but you get the point.-Webcitation.org
Physicist David Deutsch addresses his concerns here: -[URL="http://books.google.com/?id=Im4Yl8qVuQEC&pg=PA107&dq=deutsch+tipler&q=according%20deutsch%20tipler"]How we believe: science, skepticism, and the search for God by Michael Shermer[/URL]It is a masterpiece of pseudoscience.-Webcitation.org
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?