PDA

View Full Version : 'Curiosity' on Discovery Channel



Hawkgirl
08-08-2011, 06:22 PM
Last night, I was up until 2am watching this program, narrated by the athiest, Stephen Hawking.
Clearly, the show has his POV and clearly, he's anti-religion...typical athiest arrogance...but the show was worth watching. He goes on to talk about time not existing before the Big Bang and he goes deep into the why and how....
I learned some new things...one being the 2007 discovery of a planet named Gliese 581; it is roughly 7 times the size of Earth; 20.5 light years away. Gliese has many earth-like attributes, including water, that may be suitable for life.
He goes on to say that space travel may one day be realized...but it would take 73 years for us to reach Gliese (providing that we can speed up the velocity of the Voyager by 100 times). It would allow humans to live, after the Earth no longer exists....Mind boggling stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5zSWQwpjPg

malloc
08-08-2011, 06:31 PM
Last night, I was up until 2am watching this program, narrated by the athiest, Stephen Hawking.
Clearly, the show has his POV and clearly, he's anti-religion...typical athiest arrogance...but the show was worth watching. He goes on to talk about time not existing before the Big Bang and he goes deep into the why and how....
I learned some new things...one being the 2007 discovery of a planet named Gliese 581; it is roughly 7 times the size of Earth; 20.5 light years away. Gliese has many earth-like attributes, including water, that may be suitable for life.
He goes on to say that space travel may one day be realized...but it would take 73 years for us to reach Gliese (providing that we can speed up the velocity of the Voyager by 100 times). It would allow humans to live, after the Earth no longer exists....Mind boggling stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5zSWQwpjPg

I wanted to watch this, but it was on too late for me, and the next one will be narrated or hosted or whatever by Michelle Rodriguez.

I think a lot physicists believe in God, thought they may not believe in any religion at large. A lot of them in the past, including Einstein and Bohr, so Hawking might be in the minority of great physicists on this one.

I'm not a psychologist, but I just wonder if Hawking's life troubles might have had a negative impact on his view of religion.

Anyway, I plan on catching it on a re-run.

Hawkgirl
08-08-2011, 06:40 PM
I'm not a psychologist, but I just wonder if Hawking's life troubles might have had a negative impact on his view of religion.

Anyway, I plan on catching it on a re-run.
Could be, but he does a good job at explaining it to someone who is not an astro-physicist. He goes on to explain how negative energy and quantum mechanics, and laws of nature disprove a need for a supernatural power to create the universe. I won't attempt to get into it...you'll have to watch the program. He simplifies it well.

marv
08-09-2011, 09:51 AM
I'm an atheist by conviction, not an Atheist by belief. I have no problem with religion, but Atheists do because it conflicts with their belief system.

Moving on.........

I caught the Curiosity episode last night, and I enjoyed it. I plan to watch more. Discovery Channel doesn't have it on DVD yet.

Cosmologists have invented their own theory of a "creation" to counter a religious concept. It's called "The Big Bang", and it runs into the same problem that religious theories do, i.e., what came before the creation by whatever means. But they keep on inventing more and more theories, like the String Theory and eleven dimensions, to try to explain everything. Cosmology has become a "religion" of it's own.

My personal theory is that the Universe is infinite in both dimension and duration. All the matter and energy we can find has been here all the time; it just keeps re-arranging itself from gas to stars to galaxies to novae, and back again in infinitum. But that's just my personal theory.

There is so much that we have yet to learn.

Wei Wu Wei
08-09-2011, 10:51 AM
I absolutely love shows like this. I remember being young and awe-struck by Cosmos with Carl Sagan, I remember my parents buying me a set of encyclopedias to feed my thirst to learn, I remember my first telescope.

My utter fascination with astronomy and cosmology grew into a passion for all science, which I was lucky enough to be able to explore at the college level.

I still love stuff like this, all of these shows about the universe, space, time, origins, it really is mind boggling. The science behind it is incredible.

About this gleise planet, if it's 7 times the size of Earth, I would think it would also have roughly 7 times the mass of Earth (unless it's far less dense), which would give it 7 times the gravity. That could be a problem for future humans.

Wei Wu Wei
08-09-2011, 11:04 AM
I'm an atheist by conviction, not an Atheist by belief. I have no problem with religion, but Atheists do because it conflicts with their belief system.

Moving on.........

I caught the Curiosity episode last night, and I enjoyed it. I plan to watch more. Discovery Channel doesn't have it on DVD yet.

Cosmologists have invented their own theory of a "creation" to counter a religious concept. It's called "The Big Bang", and it runs into the same problem that religious theories do, i.e., what came before the creation by whatever means. But they keep on inventing more and more theories, like the String Theory and eleven dimensions, to try to explain everything. Cosmology has become a "religion" of it's own.

There is a LOT of evidence for the Big Bang theory, however I agree that things do get pretty wonky when they try to think about what came before that. Our science at the moment simply doesn't work there. I think we need a revolution in thought about how we conceptualize the nature of reality itself before we can answer those questions.


My personal theory is that the Universe is infinite in both dimension and duration. All the matter and energy we can find has been here all the time; it just keeps re-arranging itself from gas to stars to galaxies to novae, and back again in infinitum. But that's just my personal theory.

There is so much that we have yet to learn.

The tricky thing with this theory is the observable fact that the universe is constantly expanding in all directions. The universe expands away from every point, from every point, simultaneously, and very quickly. This can be observed pretty easily.

If the universe is expanding constantly with time, then if we go backwards in time, the only sensible conclusion is that the universe contracts smaller and smaller, which is consistent with the big bang theory.

Also, telescopes that look out further into space are also looking backwards in time because of the time it takes light to travel. At a certain point, we can effectively see the "edge" of the universe, or into the beginning parts of time where light first came into being. That's also consistent with the big bang.

marv
08-09-2011, 02:20 PM
There is a LOT of evidence for the Big Bang theory, however...So prove it.



The tricky thing with this theory is the observable fact that the universe is constantly expanding in all directions.Ummm, sorta like the train disappearing down the track? How far does it have to go before you can't detect the sound waves anymore?


If the universe is expanding constantly with time, then if we go backwards in time, the only sensible conclusion is that the universe contracts smaller and smaller, which is consistent with the big bang theory.

Also, telescopes that look out further into space are also looking backwards in time because of the time it takes light to travel. At a certain point, we can effectively see the "edge" of the universe, or into the beginning parts of time where light first came into being. That's also consistent with the big bang.Pure junk science trying to explain what we haven't imagined yet. Remember, the edges of medieval maps were often inscribed, "Hic Est Tygers".

The Doppler effect works in three ways. One, when the source is moving toward you (blue light shift, and high sound pitch), and second when the source is moving away from you (red light shift, and lower sound pitch.

But there's a third observable Doppler effect. It's caused by distance from the source. Sound and light waves are compression waves, and therefore become weaker and longer (i.e.,red shifted or low pitch shifted) the further we are from the source. Our ability to see "deeper" into space, and further back in time, is limited by the sensitivity of our instruments. At some point, compression wave energy becomes so dispersed as to become indistinguishable from background noise. We think this is the edge of the Universe because we can't "see" any further.

Then we become "Roman soldiers" because we assume that if we can't see it, it must not exist. The Roman soldier, standing on the Atlantic coast of what is now Portugal, thought he was looking at the edge of the Earth because he couldn't see further than the juncture of the sea and the sky. How wrong he was because he simply didn't have the technology to explore further.

The Big Bang falls apart because it can't explain where it came from, what came before it, what it's expanding into, and what it's outer boundary consists of. Cosmologists can't even agree on if it's going to end. So the question to me is, "Why does the Universe even require a creation"?

Next..........?

Wei Wu Wei
08-09-2011, 02:52 PM
So prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence



Ummm, sorta like the train disappearing down the track? How far does it have to go before you can't detect the sound waves anymore?

depends on the listening device


Pure junk science trying to explain what we haven't imagined yet. Remember, the edges of medieval maps were often inscribed, "Hic Est Tygers".

The Doppler effect works in three ways. One, when the source is moving toward you (blue light shift, and high sound pitch), and second when the source is moving away from you (red light shift, and lower sound pitch.

But there's a third observable Doppler effect. It's caused by distance from the source. Sound and light waves are compression waves, and therefore become weaker and longer (i.e.,red shifted or low pitch shifted) the further we are from the source.

I don't think this is true. You're going to have to provide some source on this.

The doppler effect is caused by motion.

If you are standing 10 feet from a trumpet and it plays a note, it will have the exact same frequency if you are standing 300 feet from a trumpet and it plays a note. The only differences will be in the intensity of the sound, but the wavelength and frequency would be the same.

The only changes in frequency, as a result of wavelength compression, would occur if the source of the sound were moving.




Our ability to see "deeper" into space, and further back in time, is limited by the sensitivity of our instruments. At some point, compression wave energy becomes so dispersed as to become indistinguishable from background noise. We think this is the edge of the Universe because we can't "see" any further.

Cosmic Background Radiation, the "background noise" you describe, is actually evidence for the Big Bang, not an obstacle to it.


again, we can tell very easily that the universe is expanding in all directions, doesn't it make sense that if we went back in time the universe would compress all together?



The Big Bang falls apart because it can't explain where it came from, what came before it, what it's expanding into, and what it's outer boundary consists of. Cosmologists can't even agree on if it's going to end. So the question to me is, "Why does the Universe even require a creation"?

Next..........?

That's a good question, the Big Bang theory only works for so long, going a tiny tiny tiny fraction of a second after it occured. From that point on the Big Bang theory beautifully explains everything since then. However, you are right that it cannot explain what happened at the moment before or anything before. As far as we can tell, there was no such thing as "before" because time itself was created in the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory doesn't attempt to explain what came before, so that's not a flaw in the big bang theory, but it does raise interesting questions for cosmologists that so far we don't have any clear answers to.

SarasotaRepub
08-09-2011, 03:02 PM
Discovery Channel always has greyt shows, I saw this was going to be on but missed it. Will have to catch it another time.

Hawkgirl
08-09-2011, 05:29 PM
I'm an atheist by conviction, not an Atheist by belief.It's called "The Big Bang", and it runs into the same problem that religious theories do, i.e., what came before the creation by whatever means. But they keep on inventing more and more theories, like the String Theory and eleven dimensions, to try to explain everything. Cosmology has become a "religion" of it's own.


There is so much that we have yet to learn.

Hawkings theory is "nothing" came before the Big Bang. He believes time did not exist before the Big Bang. He goes on to give an analogy of negative energy. It gets a bit confusing when he goes into the spontaneity of protons and so on...but I understood his view..not that I agree with it, entirely. He explains it well....it's only when he makes the statement an "afterlife is a fairy tale" that he loses me.

Hawkgirl
08-09-2011, 05:34 PM
If the universe is expanding constantly with time, then if we go backwards in time, the only sensible conclusion is that the universe contracts smaller and smaller, which is consistent with the big bang theory.
.


The Big Crunch is a theory..but Hawkins believes the universe will only expand and not go backwards...making the universe a very cold place billions of years from now....coined, The Big Freeze.

marv
08-09-2011, 06:00 PM
Wee wee, you've spent too much time in classrooms being inculcated with things that teachers have spent time in classrooms being inculcated by other teachers...and so on.

I was raised in the Lutheran Church, complete with lessons on creation. But fifty-five years ago, at the age of seventeen in the library of a Lutheran university, I got to thinking that there's more to all this than we imagine. And things, just maybe what I've been told like so many other things, may not be true only because someone else says so. I've come to my conclusions because I learned to question things, and reason for myself.

Wee wee, the arguments you offer can be found in a multitude of college textbooks. That doesn't make them true.

Wei Wu Wei
08-09-2011, 06:19 PM
The Big Crunch is a theory..but Hawkins believes the universe will only expand and not go backwards...making the universe a very cold place billions of years from now....coined, The Big Freeze.

Right I don't think the Big Crunch idea makes much sense because of Dark Energy which seems more powerful than Dark Matter.

I was talking about working backwards towards the Big Bang though, not saying that the universe will contract in the future. It's expanding more and more with time, so if we think backwards in time, the universe gets closer and closer together for about 14 billion years.

Wei Wu Wei
08-09-2011, 06:24 PM
Wee wee, you've spent too much time in classrooms being inculcated with things that teachers have spent time in classrooms being inculcated by other teachers...and so on.

I was raised in the Lutheran Church, complete with lessons on creation. But fifty-five years ago, at the age of seventeen in the library of a Lutheran university, I got to thinking that there's more to all this than we imagine. And things, just maybe what I've been told like so many other things, may not be true only because someone else says so. I've come to my conclusions because I learned to question things, and reason for myself.

Wee wee, the arguments you offer can be found in a multitude of college textbooks. That doesn't make them true.

Science isn't just passed down like tradition though, science is an ongoing project. Science isn't something that you teach what you were taught they teach what they were taught. Science is conducted at universities across the world, research is done every single day. The process of scientific research is one of constant revision.

Science isn't something that's supposed to be taken by faith by students, this is why research is published publically, so that anyone can read it themselves and challenge the data. If you are good at challenging the data you will be known as a good scientist.