incomprehensible

[James Dixon]

I just recently read that there are trillions of galaxies , this is totally beyond my comprehension, my puny human brain can't take in that figure ,  how the hell was that many formed and WHY?  Some thing or someone must have constructed it and if so why so impossibly vast? What was the purpose? I would imagine there are quite a few theories but regardless what is said we will never know the answers. some times I wonder if  we are all living in a dream or this is all an illusion , it so damn frustrating,    James Dixon

Edited April 16, 2018 by James Dixon

[Strange]

Just now, James Dixon said:

Some thing or someone must have constructed it an if so why so impossibly vast? What was the purpose?

Why do you think someone must have created it? Why do you think it must have a purpose?

1 minute ago, James Dixon said:

how the hell was that many formed and WHY? 

The galaxies were formed when clouds of gas collapsed, due to gravity, and formed stars when the density became great enough to cause fusion.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, James Dixon said:

some times I wonder if  we are all living in a dream or this is all an illusion , it so damn frustrating, 

Study quantum physics and science.. it will take you closer to the truth for sure.

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, James Dixon said:

I just recently read that there are trillions of galaxies , this is totally beyond my comprehension, my puny human brain can't take in that figure ,  how the hell was that many formed and WHY?  Some thing or someone must have constructed it and if so why so impossibly vast? What was the purpose? I would imagine there are quite a few theories but regardless what is said we will never know the answers. some times I wonder if  we are all living in a dream or this is all an illusion , it so damn frustrating,    James Dixon

 

'Why?' is not a Physics question.

Are you religous?

Doesn't it say somewhere in the bible or book of common prayer,  'world or worlds without end' ?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, James Dixon said:

Some thing or someone must have constructed it and if so why so impossibly vast? 

!

Moderator Note

This is NOT a physics subject. Moved to Religion.

 

[JacobsLadder]

I think what we are seeing through the hubble telescope are not in fact galaxies or stars. I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own.

The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own.

 

Indeed the evidence supports the view that most are not like our own.
Have you ever sought out any evidence?

[JacobsLadder]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Indeed the evidence supports the view that most are not like our own.
Have you ever sought out any evidence?

I am always appraising new evidence.

I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.

 

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Indeed the evidence supports the view that most are not like our own.

Depending on how one defines "like", I suppose.

They are (nearly) all balls of gas powered by fusion. Like our Sun. But there is a huge variety within that.

14 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.

Like this?

That has a nice flat earth, that I guess you will appreciate, as well.

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JacobsLadder said:

I am always appraising new evidence.

New evidence?

 

And what about existing evidence?

[beecee]

6 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I think what we are seeing through the hubble telescope are not in fact galaxies or stars. I tend to think that without evidence we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own.

The concave sphere surrounding our planet is most likely the firmament.

Thankfully the world is full of people much brighter and smarter then yourself, who are able to accept the scientific evidence and methodology, and reject the interjections of nonsense you chose to inject into various threads.

6 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I am always appraising new evidence.

Liar liar pants on fire.

Quote

I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.

Agreed...It does one good to have a hearty laugh on occasions: A shame though that you are the butt of that laughter.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I suggest you take a look at my thread Time to Rethink Earth's Motion.

I did.

It suggests to me that you need to learn a lot more science.

9 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

I tend to think that without evidence

Ordinarily, I would say that text  needs a couple of  commas.

I tend to think that, without evidence, ...

But in this case I think it's accidentally correct.

9 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

we cannot assume that we are seeing Suns like our own.

That's true; we can't assume that.
However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun.

They are not, for example, camp-fires.

They certainly are not all the same thing (reflected in a bodged celestial sphere).

 

We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds.

Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description

9 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

what we are seeing through the hubble telescope

 

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I did.

It suggests to me that you need to learn a lot more science.

Ordinarily, I would say that text  needs a couple of  commas.

I tend to think that, without evidence, ...

But in this case I think it's accidentally correct.

That's true; we can't assume that.
However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun.

They are not, for example, camp-fires.

They certainly are not all the same thing (reflected in a bodged celestial sphere).

 

We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds.

Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description

 

I think he should have dropped the word "that"... 

[JacobsLadder]

On 20/04/2018 at 11:44 PM, John Cuthber said:

Ordinarily, I would say that text  needs a couple of  commas.

I tend to think that, without evidence, ...

But in this case I think it's accidentally correct.

 

 

It seems somewhat hypocritical that your reply includes these sentences:

" However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. "

"We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds".

"Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description"

I suggest you read this study:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885

 

 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, JacobsLadder said:

It seems somewhat hypocritical that your reply includes these sentences:

" However we checked and what we found suggests that they are stars more or less like the Sun. "

"We can form an hypothesis that they are stars, and we can test that hypothesis. Thus far, for the mots part, that hypothesis holds".

"Not for the planets, and not for the dark matter, but that doesn't meet this description"

I suggest you read this study:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0149885

 

 

The evidence is overwhelming and concrete thus far that stars are simply distant Suns at various stages of their life and of various sizes, and your usual baseless doubts on this scientific issue among the many others you have, actually mean nothing.

http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html

[JacobsLadder]

There is no evidence to support your assertions that cannot be explained by the holographic principle.

We already know that the mass of a black hole is determined by its surface area, so it is theoretically possible that we are viewing the universe as projected on the interior of a sphere.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by JacobsLadder

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

There is no evidence to support your assertions that cannot be explained by the holographic principle.

The holographic principle has nothing to do with the spectra and lifecycles of stars.

Quote

We already know that the mass of a black hole is determined by its surface area

The area is determined by the mass. And, again, nothing to do with the holographic principle.

Quote

so it is theoretically possible that we are viewing the universe as projected on the interior of a sphere.

This seems like a complete non sequitur; unless you think we are on the inside of a black hole and the event horizon is like a IMAX screen.

You could, no doubt, come up with all sorts of contrived explanations as to why, for example, we see objects at different distances even though they are projected on a surface. But that would be just as ludicrous as the contortions that the Flat-Earthers go through to sustain their delusions.

(Trying to make the data fit alternative models is, however, quite a good way of showing why the generally accepted model is generally accepted.)

[JacobsLadder]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The area is determined by the mass. And, again, nothing to do with the holographic principle.
 

All you did here is flip around what I said.

It has everything to do with the holographic principle. It is how they got the idea in the first place.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, JacobsLadder said:

All you did here is flip around what I said.

Cause and effect. The mass exists before the event horizon forms. The radius of the event horizon that forms is proportional to the mass. 

Quote

It has everything to do with the holographic principle. It is how they got the idea in the first place.

Entropy, not mass.

"The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

But this says nothing about your wacky "firmament" story.

 

And, hang on a minute ...

You are arguing for a fantasy cosmology using arguments from objects that cannot exist in that cosmology! (There must be a name for that fallacy, but I have no idea what it is!)

[Scotty99]

On 4/16/2018 at 10:26 AM, James Dixon said:

I just recently read that there are trillions of galaxies , this is totally beyond my comprehension, my puny human brain can't take in that figure ,  how the hell was that many formed and WHY?  Some thing or someone must have constructed it and if so why so impossibly vast? What was the purpose? I would imagine there are quite a few theories but regardless what is said we will never know the answers. some times I wonder if  we are all living in a dream or this is all an illusion , it so damn frustrating,    James Dixon

In my estimation, there is one universe. The thing is, as our current understanding sits multiple universe's actually makes more sense in regards to what we witness in the cosmos. The important thing to understand is how much of our understanding from the past did we get right.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Scotty99

[JacobsLadder]

Yes, this:

"The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected."

That is the point I was making. I did indeed mean entropy.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

You are arguing for a fantasy cosmology using arguments from objects that cannot exist in that cosmology! (There must be a name for that fallacy, but I have no idea what it is!)

 

The universe may appear as a simulated reality since it is projected.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

In my estimation, there is one universe. The thing is, as our current understanding sits multiple universe's actually makes more sense in regards to what we witness in the cosmos.

So you think the evidence points to multiple universes and yet you believe there is just one. Interesting bit of denialism.

On the other hand, I am not aware of any evidence for there being multiple universes. What do you think suggest this?

5 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

Yes, this:

"The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected."

That is the point I was making. I did indeed mean entropy.

But as black holes cannot exist if the dots of light we see are projected on your "firmament", then your argument is bogus. (I guess this just demonstrates you are trolling with all your anti-science shit, rather then seriously believing it, and that is why you tripped yourself up like this.)

[Scotty99]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you think the evidence points to multiple universes and yet you believe there is just one. Interesting bit of denialism.

On the other hand, I am not aware of any evidence for there being multiple universes. What do you think suggest this?

These things happen when you only have half the answers.

 

BTW this editor is being weird today, its only saving half the stuff i type lol.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Scotty99

[JacobsLadder]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

But as black holes cannot exist if the dots of light we see are projected on your "firmament", then your argument is bogus. (I guess this just demonstrates you are trolling with all your anti-science shit, rather then seriously believing it, and that is why you tripped yourself up like this.)

You are demonstrating a logical fallacy.

It would be nice if you could actually read my arguments before jumping to conclusions.

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

BTW this editor is being weird today, its only saving half the stuff i type lol.

Lets hope it is the best half!

2 minutes ago, JacobsLadder said:

You are demonstrating a logical fallacy

Really? What fallacy?