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.
Well, the only other alternative is that they were idiots who couldn't see an obvious contradiction when it was staring them in the face. I'd say that they didn't care is the far more optimistic explanation."Instead they appear to have been more concerned with the meaning of the passages than their factual content, which indicates that they didn't actually think there was any factual content to be had."
This is the conclusion that I don't think follows logically, just to clarify.
IIRC, it was about 300,000 years after the beginning that the universe lost its opacity and the CMB occurred.
Because we can see those same photons today, and have measured the components of the universe. At a temperature of 2.7K, the photons would have been bright in the visible range (around 3000-4000K) when the universe was a thousand times smaller. Given that we now know quite a lot about how the universe has expanded, through measurements of the CMB, supernovae, and the distribution of galaxies, it is now just a matter of simple computation to state when the universe was at that temperature, which was around 300,000 years after inflation ended.How do we know the photon at that time was not x-ray but visible light?
Because we can see those same photons today, and have measured the components of the universe. At a temperature of 2.7K, the photons would have been bright in the visible range (around 3000-4000K) when the universe was a thousand times smaller. Given that we now know quite a lot about how the universe has expanded, through measurements of the CMB, supernovae, and the distribution of galaxies, it is now just a matter of simple computation to state when the universe was at that temperature, which was around 300,000 years after inflation ended.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to an unregenerate scientist, "truth" is for the courtroom. To call the Big Bang Theory (or anything) "truth" is mislabeling it.You have my respect, for believing in the truth not lies like those Christians do.
Do we have any conclusive proof that they were written down at the same time by the same source? Sometimes contradictions arise when things are written at different times or by different people or both. If it was the same person at the same time, I might agree with you on the idiocy. The two together don't make much sense. However, as far as I've heard, there are numerous scholars that cite different origins for the two accounts and not necessarily just Christian Creationist ones.Well, the only other alternative is that they were idiots who couldn't see an obvious contradiction when it was staring them in the face. I'd say that they didn't care is the far more optimistic explanation.
Well, that's because the expansion has slowed with time. The expansion rate H (usually provided in units of km/sec/Megaparsec) is given by the following equation:That is exactly what I am asking. Is the universe only "thousands" times smaller at 12, or even say, 8 billion years ago (when did the inflation end?)? It does not sound right.
Can the equation of calculation be shown?
Well, yes. That's exactly what happened. Genesis is itself an anthology, and even in the English translations this fact just leaps out at the reader. The content of the various works that make up Genesis were put together into one book, retaining all of their contradictions.Do we have any conclusive proof that they were written down at the same time by the same source? Sometimes contradictions arise when things are written at different times or by different people or both. If it was the same person at the same time, I might agree with you on the idiocy. The two together don't make much sense. However, as far as I've heard, there are numerous scholars that cite different origins for the two accounts and not necessarily just Christian Creationist ones.
Good point. It rarely happened, but it does this time. Thank you.
So we could have "plant" that lives without light as long as the "ground" is fertile. It means, there could be plant(s) without the sun(light). We have many such examples on the Earth.
You should not be blending the word of God with the cult of Sciences. We do not make God in our own head. Scientist can’t seem to make up there own minds, did we come from an explosion or did we come from monkeys. I find the whole theory laughable.
The collective experiences of those who have believed in God over the centuries speak to us about him from the pages of a compiled volume called the Bible. Since these people are dead, what we have left is the words that they left behind, the accounts of their lives in their own words and those of others. As these are the words of the people of God and that deity speaks through the words and actions of their lives, in a sense, that collection, the Bible, is the word of God.Well, yes. That's exactly what happened. Genesis is itself an anthology, and even in the English translations this fact just leaps out at the reader. The content of the various works that make up Genesis were put together into one book, retaining all of their contradictions.
This reads, then, like the work of an historian of sorts, a person (or persons) who wished to preserve a set of cultural tales for posterity.
Why on Earth do people assume that this makes it the word of God? These are just a bunch of fables passed down through the generations, and finally put into a single tome, for crying out loud!
Unfortunately the people who wrote the bible were even more superstitious thanThe collective experiences of those who have believed in God over the centuries speak to us about him from the pages of a compiled volume called the Bible. Since these people are dead, what we have left is the words that they left behind, the accounts of their lives in their own words and those of others. As these are the words of the people of God and that deity speaks through the words and actions of their lives, in a sense, that collection, the Bible, is the word of God.
As this compilation included the lives of people from numerous nations, time periods and cultural experiences and the same was true of those who recorded those lives, there are bound to be things that are apparently contradictory.
H^2 = H_0^2 * (Om / (a^3) + Or / (a^4) + Olambda)
a = scale factor of the universe. a = 1 today. a = 0.5 when the universe was half its current size, and so on.
H^2 = 8*pi*G/3*rho
H = 1/a * (da/dt).
Well, if memory serves there are a few plants proper that don't (including Rafflesia, IIRC). Of course these creatures are parasites and dependent on plants that do photosynthesise.No; all plants photosynthesis,
Yeah, except for the bacteria and archaea the whole community is based onat deep sea vents the species are all fauna (animal not plant).
Totally agreed, even if it's pretty much impossible to avoid.We have to be careful not to put our preconceived ideas on to what form and structure, life forms may take elsewhere in the Solar System of greater Universe
Well, if memory serves there are a few plants proper that don't (including Rafflesia, IIRC). Of course these creatures are parasites and dependent on plants that do photosynthesise.
Yeah, except for the bacteria and archaea the whole community is based on
Of course the argument was about "plants before the sun" and not "autotrophs before the sun", but still my heart weeps for all the neglected prokaryotes
Totally agreed, even if it's pretty much impossible to avoid.
Aaaahh!I think a correct way to read it should be "having plants before OUR sun". Suns are made all the time everywhere since the big bang. Why should plants only appear on the Earth in the solar system?
The equation relating energy density to expansion rate is the the first of the Friedmann equations. That's the only named equation there. It can be derived in a few minutes from Einstein's equations with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy, and in this case zero spatial curvature (didn't feel like unnecessarily complicating things).Thanks for typing all this up. Is there a name for any of these equations?
It seems the factor "a" is critical. I don't really know what it is. It is so called the "size". But is it volume? If it is, then why does it take the third power in the equation for material?
The factor "a" is the scale factor of the universe. If you imagine a hypothetical cube in the early universe that expands along with the universe, then each side of the cube expands by a factor of 'a', and the volume increases by a^3.
.a = scale factor of the universe. a = 1 today. a = 0.5 when the universe was half its current size, and so on
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?