| Life and Evolution | 9:13 PM, Apr 28 2010 |
|
Picking up our discussion where the last left off, Evolution. I cannot endorse the popular view of Evolution. To begin, I'm going to give an overview of the popular view of Evolution, and the rebut it with some arguments that contradict the theory of evolution. What is Evolution? First, I'd like to note that Evolution is a Theory, not a law. Therefore, it is open for discussion. For my overview, I choose to share a spot by Carl Sagan that gives a clear description of the popular view of Evolution. MelodySheep also created the following music video that is a bit more entertaining, but conveys the same message. To recap, The theory of evolution states that every form of life that exists is a decendent of a single celled organism. It goes that the cell started to divide, and mutated genetically until it created a new creature, and that this pattern repeated itself over and over again for millions of years until today we have millions upon millions of different creatures. That's evolution in a nut shell. I believe that a species can evolve, but not that a chimpanzee can change into a human. If humans are merely evolved chimpanzees, then how are the chimps still here? Ok, that is a dumb rebuttal, but it's a start. The first rebuttal I have is this: Genetic mutations have catastrophic consequences. The human has 23 pairs of chromosomes, and any mutation in those 23 pairs can cause serious problems both for the individual affected as well as their children, if children are even possible. A full list of human chomosome deformaties is available here. The first I want to talk about is Williams Syndrome. Williams Syndrome is caused by the deletion of 26 genes from the 7th chromosome. The syndrome presents itself by learning disabilities and physical deformations. The person can generally lead a full life, though they may never attain self sufficiency. Down Syndrome is another genetic mutation that is widely known. It is caused by the addition of an extra copy of chromosome 21. Again, individuals that suffer with this genetic disorder have learning disabilities, difficulty with self sufficiency, physical deformations and the like. Yet another gene mutation is Cystic Fibrosis, caused by a single missing gene. Though the mutation is small on a chromosome level, not adding an entire chromosome or deleting a massive 26 genes, but rather a single gene, it causes infertility in 97% of men. They are not sterile, but will find it difficult to reproduce without assisted reproductive techniques. Finally, I'd like to talk about the gender genes, specifically the X gene. There are several mutations of varying degree when an individual has multiple copies of the X gene. And we know that all individuals missing the Y gene are female. But a fetus cannot live, cannot exist even for a second without the X gene. If that gene is deleted or missing, fertilization does not even occur and the embrio is discarded. All of these grave issues are caused by mutations in the genetic code, so I ask you that if we evolved genetically from an ape, how could we if even minor changes in the genetic code cause such problems? Here is rebuttal number 2: Apes, specifically the chimpanzee, shares approximately 99% of the human genome. They are so much like us that scientists are able to use chimps as lab specimens for human research, but that 1% difference is so great that a human and a chimp are genetically incompatible and cannot reproduce together. Ethical issues prevent the research, but genetically, our genes are so different from any other creature, even apes, that reproduction would either be impossible or the resulting offspring would, again, be sterile. A donkey and a horse are genetically compatible and can reproduce together, but the resulting creature, the mule, is sterile and cannot reproduce. This sterility comes from the miniscule differences in their genetic code. Again, if even miniscule changes in genetic code produce a sterile offspring, then how much more difficult would evolution be? Both these rebuttals form an arguments for a deity that controls the genetic pools. If God does exist, and created all the animals and people on this planet, then He also has created a way to protect the gene pool of each creature, as most hybrids are sterile. The protected gene polls and the differences between different branches of the animal kingdom provide further evidence that there are some other laws that protect and govern how creatures interact with one another. View Comments |
|
| Creationism vs. Science | 12:46 PM, Mar 16 2010 |
|
One of the biggest arguments against creationist views is that the evidence points to an entirely opposite set of events that started with the big bang and ended several billion years later with us. I believe in the creation story as described in Genesis 1 (and again in Moses 2). First, it's important to look at both accounts and compare the order in which things happened. Moses wrote both his own book as well as the first 5 books of the Bible (known as the five books of Moses). So, comparing both accounts of the creation, he breaks up the series of events into days and each day is outlines here:
The first caveat I'd like to point out is that the periods of the creation are broken up in days, but please do not assume that the day spoken of is a 24 hour period not unlike the one we understand today. Let's rather correlate a Day in the creation to an epoch or a grand expanse of time. so, rather than calling them days, we can call them seasons, or periods of creation, whatever you want, but please, do not assume 24 hour periods, for this is not how I interpret it. Now, I think it's interesting the order of the creation. I believe that God described to Moses the exact order of things that our scientists have discovered through observation. Let me see if I can explain each period in the creation in relation to the periods of known universal evolution which we have observed. Period 1: Light/Darkness - Day and Night Scientists believe that the universe began with a Big Bang, a singularity that may have contained all matter that ruptured with such force that all the universe was created. Shortly following the Big Bang was an expansionary period of inflation and then it went dark. The force of the Big Bang was so great and the energy consumed and/or created was so great that the light, the number of photons, that were created must have been tremendous. A period of great light followed by the universe's dark ages could possibly be the light that God created when he said, "Let there be light!" The light was naturally divided from the darkness because darkness cannot exist where light is. Dr. Michio Kaku opened one of his television specials by stating that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." He posits that the Word was the Quantum. I believe the Word was God, just as the scriptures say. It was God, Jehovah by name or the God of the Old Testament. I believe that by following the laws of Physics, that He was able to create the universe using a means that we do not or cannot understand, but it does fit in with the creation story pretty well. "Let there be Light!" - BANG - there was light! This theory ties in tightly with String Theory, and though I don't profess to be a String Theorist, I do believe that the String Theory answers many of the questions that we have concerning the universe. I'll dive into String Theory and how I understand and apply it in my view of the universe in another post. Period 2: Created the Firmament, Called it Heaven This one is hard to explain or justify. One must turn back to our first discussion and apply faith to this one. It seems that God separated the temporal matter, the matter that our planet, star, and everything we see and interact with, from a higher level matter; a more pure matter that God is created from. I believe that the same, more pure matter resides within us, each of us, as our spirit - or if you prefer our soul. It is about here that we start treading out on the ice of theology rather than the solid ground of science, but I believe it is valid. I refer to one religious text that states that "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;" (D&C 131:7-8). Therefore, just as we are unable to see what is inside an electron, we cannot see the more pure types of matter with our eyes made of less pure matter. As with an electron, scientists believe that inside is a small particle called a quark. We've never seen one, but we believe it's there. String theory states that a quark is simply made of a closed string, or loop, that vibrates a different frequencies. At one frequency, the quark vibrates as an electron with it's negative charge. At a different resonance frequency, it generates a positive charge and can exist with a few other strings inside the center of a Proton. At yet another frequency, it is a particle of matter, it has weight. Yet another, it doesn't have weight, but it had energy - a photon. All these configurations are the same string, just at different states. Again, we'll get deeper into String theory in a bit. So I suggest that this "more pure" matter does, in fact, exist. We can see it's signature in Dark Matter and Dark energy. We cannot see the matter that creates the mass, but we can observe the mass. A Nova podcast introduces us to Dark Matter: What is this matter? I suggest that this dark matter is the more pure matter mentioned above. Matter that indeed has gravity, yet cannot be seen by our eyes or our instruments. I posit that it is this type of matter that God separated from the matter of the items that we can see and touch during the second period. Period 3: Created Land, Seas and planted all manner of vegetation. The third period is actually split up into 3 distinct sub-periods that can be explained by alleged scientific processes. Part 1: The Dry Land. The first of these sub periods was the creation of the dry land, the earth that we know and love today. The scientists all acknowledge that planets are created along with the star from the accretion disk. An accretion disk is a region of diffuse unorganized matter that surrounds and orbits a central body. Most of this matter falls to the center of the region, creating a star. The star is initially dark and cold as the matter collects, but once a critical mass is reached, the star bursts to life as fusion begins to take place in it's core. The remaining matter collects into smaller regions that, in turn, surround the central body. These smaller regions grow in size until they settle into their orbit and clear their orbits of remaining diffuse matter. The size of the planet depends on how much matter is available. The following animation shows how stars and planets form in accretion disks: Our solar system consists of eight planets and multiple comets, keiper belt objects and an asteroid belt. All of which formed at approximately the same time. The dry land appeared during the first part of creational period 3. Part 2: The Seas. Scientists believe that after the third rock was complete, that the planet was bombarded over millions of years by comets and other flying space rocks that were either purely water-ice or contained water ice in them. It is uncertain how long this part lasted, but it obviously lasted long enough to cover our planet, at least partially, with water that became the oceans. The composition of the planet and the size thereof, melted the core into a glowing ball of magma, the cover of which cooled into a crust like a chocolate lava cake. The crust was able to move around creating mountains and valleys while the oceans collected into oceans and seas. The oceans and seas appeared during the second part of creational period 3. Part 3: All Manner of Vegetation. The facts support the notion that living organisms called plants appeared first. Aristotle described plants as "Creatures that do not move." We know that life began in the seas and bodies of water, but it was the plants who first ventured out from the oceans to the dry land. Again, we don't know exactly when, but it seems that the plants left the oceans nearly half a billion years before other creatures. How did they do it? No one really knows, and that point is where evolution dies out and creationism takes over. How? I'll tell you. 99.9% of plants rely on another creature pollinate and aid in their reproductive cycles. A plant has both male and female parts, but due to the way they were designed, they cannot reproduce with themselves. They are sterile with their own parts. The pistol holds the seeds and the stamens hold the pollen. When pollen comes in tact with a seed, pollination (plantar fertilization) occurs. Some plants, such as trees and bushes, can rely on the wind to carry the pollen from one to another to aid in pollination, but the majority (99% or so) rely on an animal to do it for the, beit a honey bee, humming bird or another creature. So, if the evidence suggests that plants beat the animals out of the water by 500 million years, what creatures aided in pollination? I find that pretty compelling evidence that a God may have stepped in. Whatever the case, both the creation story and scientists agree that plants arrived on the dry ground before animals or other creatures. This is the end of part 3 of the third creational period. Period 4: Creation of Sun and moon, Set planets and seasons in motion. The creation of the planet alongside the creation of the sun makes sense when we look at the accretion disk and how the celestial bodies are created therefrom. So, it is conceivable that the planet in it's small size could have completed it's formation before fusion took place in the star. Let's assume that's correct, for we will never know. So, out of the haze of the accretion disk a light flickered to life. The star began to burn and shed light upon our small little planet. The sun is so very important for life, for without it, life couldn't exist. We are just far enough from the sun so that our planet remains approximately the same temperature - conveniently warm enough to sustain life. Not too hot, Not too cold. The planet resides in what is called the habitable zone, and any rocky planet within the habitable zone of a star should be able to sustain life. Our size is very important as well. If our planet were larger, then gravity would be stronger and life wouldn't be able to live. The dials for temperature, size, structure, ratio of water to land and the composition of this planet are just right to support life. Were it not so, then life couldn't exist. The Moon is extremely important for life on our planet. It's size, shape, orbit and position all contribute to the stability of our planet. The moon holds us upright, on an axis which creates seasons. Without the stability of seasons and the moon steadying us as we spin, life couldn't exist. Let's look at another planet similar to ours that has doesn't have a moon: Venus. Venus is almost identical to our planet in size, but vastly different in composition. So, could life exist there? Sure, why not? Just because it rains sulfuric acid and the atmosphere is 1000 times as dense as ours doesn't mean a life form could adapt to that environment. But without a moon, Venus tumbles rather than spinning on an axis. There are no seasons there, so no periods of growth and no periods of dormancy can exist, and the life that evolved on this planet adapted to the 24 hour period or revolution and the seasons to survive. Period 5: Creation of all other creatures I believe that all creatures were created, but I do not believe in evolution the science explains. perhaps this is a good time to discuss Evolution and the problems I have with Darwin and the whole Evolution train. The first thing is to define evolution. Do I believe that an amoeba can evolve into a human? No. But I do believe that a certain species can evolve, and by evolve, I mean adapt to a certain climate or ecosystem. An example: Pelicans are traditionally known as fish eating birds. They use their beak and pouch to scoop fish and water out of the sea to eat. However, lately it's been harder for pelicans to find fish, so many species of pelican have started eating other creatures to survive. Recently, they've taken to eating other birds. On the BBC Special "EARTH", a segment shows southern Atlantic pelicans flying to another island 30 miles away to pilfer chicks from another bird population. Also, if you search "pelican eats bird" on youtube, you'll see many more videos of pelicans eating other birds. They've evolved to fit their environment. Some scientist 100 years in the future might say that the fish eating pelican species has spawned a new bird eating species, thus evolved. Another dispute to evolution is a period of geologic history referred to as the Cambrian Explosion, where instead of evolving from an amoeba into a new creature, many creatures simply popped into existence in their current form. No evidence in the fossil record can verify the claims of Evolution, though every science class professes the theory as a law sans the proof. Period 6: Created man in His [God's] Image According to this period in the early bible, God created man in his image. If we are created in the image of God, then he has an image as well. His image would be that of a man, and logic suggests that if Man and Woman exist here, then a masculine god would have a feminine counterpart. View Comments |
|
| Life in the Universe | 7:45 AM, Feb 16 2010 |
|
In continuing my discussion of intelligent life in the universe, I feel almost obligated to talk about evolution, and what I believe evolution is from creationist standpoint, but I won't. I don't want to go flouting my beliefs and how they both confirm and repute evolutionist views of the universe. Do I believe in Evolution, yes. Do I believe that Man came from something else, No. That's all I am going to say about that. If you want me to spew forth my beliefs on evolution, leave a comment and I'll consider it for a future installment in this series. I do believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, not merely here on Earth. I'll even take it a step farther and suggest that there may be countless, numberless worlds with intelligent beings on them. Are they aliens with buggy eyes and green skin? No. I believe that they probably act and look like us. If the chemicals combine on this earth in a specific configuration to create an intelligent life form on this planet, speaking of the human form, then for an intelligent life form to exist on another world, the chemicals must also combine in similar configuration, creating a creature that looks human and so forth. For our purposes in this discussion, I'll define Intelligent Life as a creature that is capable of storing information outside their own body. Later, we'll talk about Communicating Intelligent Life, or intelligent creatures that communicate extra-terrestrially. Humans are the only creature on Earth that has successfully learned to store information outside of their bodies. We can see that there is a measure of intelligence in all life. Sunflowers know where the sun is and turn their "faces" towards it to get nutrients. Knowing where the sun is requires a certain level of intelligence. Cats know how to hunt. Hunting, especially the affective hunting that cats are capable of, requires a much larger measure of intelligence. They have learned how to share this information with their offspring and pass it on from generation to generation, but cats have yet to learn how to store this information outside of their own brains. Only humans have evolved enough to be able to write down their information in annals and store them for future generations. We collect these writings and store them in large buildings called Libraries. The library of congress contains volumes and volumes of information. Carl Sagan addresses this topic of intelligence in the following video. I know I pretty much recapped what he said, but I think it's important to consider that out of all the life on this planet, only one species is advanced enough to store it's intelligence outside of it's own head. Right now, you are reading this document on your computer at a dumb little website called themaskedcrusader.com. I am communicating to you from the past, for I am writing this before you read it. I am projecting my thoughts through time to a generation of readers who might read this document the day after it was written or in several years. Whatever it is, you're reading this and I am communicating with you. Humans have, for the last 80 years or so, have been broadcasting their communications through the air and, consequently, across space. Those radio waves have been moving through space at approximately the speed of light and have reached several star systems. Whether or not they contain life on them is unknown, or whether or not they contain life that is in a communicating stage in their development. Once again, Carl Sagan addresses this and the Drake equation in the following video. You can experiment with the drake equation yourself on this website. If we use the calculations from the video, there could be as few as 10 other civilizations that are currently advanced enough to communicate. On the other hand, there could be millions. If we assume that they are evenly spaced throughout the galaxy, then the odds of us reaching one is extremely low. How big is the galaxy? The group Monty Python sings a song called the Galaxy Song. In it, they describe how big the galaxy is. Here is that video for your entertainment (this video may not be suitable for minors as it contains tasteless English humor): In this song, I'm going to assume that they did their research and use their calculations for the size of the galaxy. All calculations are in light years. By Monty Python's description, the galaxy can be through of as 2 very squat cones connected. The equation for the volume of a cone is:
For our calculation, the radius is 50,000 and the height is 8,000. If we plug these values in, we can estimate that the volume of the northern half of the galaxy to be approximately 21 trillion cubic light years. Multiply this by 2 to get the southern half and the volume of the galaxy is approximately 42 trillion cubic light years. Now, assuming that the number of communicating civilizations (10) are evenly distributed, it means the closest one to us is within the closest 4 trillion cubic light years from us or about 16000 light years away. If we take the upper limit of communicating civilizations, 1 million of them in our galaxy, and assume that they are, once again, evenly distributed, then the closest one is approximately 160 light years away. That's exciting, except for the fact that our earliest transmissions have only made it about half the way there. When they receive our transmissions in another 80 years and attempt to respond to the earliest transmissions, then it'll take another 160 years to get that response. A long time to wait. So, I can confidently say that we are not alone. If there are a mere 10 communicating intelligent civilizations within our galaxy, and that all galaxies average 10 of their own, that means the known universe is teeming with life. There are approximately 125 billion galaxies in the universe, meaning that there is possibly 1.2 trillion communicating civilizations within the known universe. If there are millions of civilizations per galaxy, then there can be millions of billions of civilizations just like ours out in the expanse of space. TL;DR: We are not alone! View Comments |
|
| Our Existence in the Universe | 2:42 PM, Feb 04 2010 |
|
This topic as promised has proven to be bigger than I expected, so it'll be broken up into two parts. First, I'll discuss our existence in the universe and the science behind life. Then, in the next post, I'll talk about terrestrial life vs. extra-terrestrial life. How do we exist in the Universe? Any elementary student can tell you that we live on Earth. It is true, we live on the planet called Earth that orbits a star called Sol. Our planet is the third planet in an entire system of planets called the Solar System. Our solar system consists of one star, eight planets, and seemingly numberless other object that all orbit or coexist with our star. Our solar system is in the Milky Way galaxy, an average spiral galaxy with about 400 billion stars. The Milky Way galaxy is only one of approximately 125 Billion other galaxies that exist in the universe that we see. Could there be fewer or more galaxies? sure! it's hard to say. In my previous post, I had a video by the American Museum of Natural History on the nature of the universe. In that video, you'll notice the conical areas of matter and the expanses of darkness between them. This darkness is the empty area we have yet to map. It is caused by interference from our own Galaxy, providing a medium too dense for us to see through. It's important to note here a few things about this description: First, The names given to the celestial objects are given by the creatures living on the reference planet, this case being humans on Earth. Any intelligent creatures living on another planet may have different names for the aforementioned objects. Not too far distant, at approximately 2.5 million light years from our galaxy, is another galaxy we call Andromeda. This other galaxy is very similar to our own galaxy and I'll suggest that they are close enough to be identical for this discussion. It, too, has approximately 400 billion stars. So, there is one lucky star in the Andromeda galaxy around which a planet orbits that has an intelligent life form upon it. They look at both their galaxy as well as our galaxy and have different names for them, most likely in a different language since English is probably not spoken on every planet in existence. Second, the vast distances between planets, galaxies and such make it impossible to know how many of each exist this very instant. For example, the light from Supernova 1987a, which existed in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a small galaxy that orbits the Milky Way, reached Earth in February of 1987. The star was measured to be about 168,000 light years away, meaning that the actual explosion of the star happened approximately 168,000 years ago. This means that on January 1, 1987, before we witnessed the supernova of the star, it had already been gone for almost 168,000 years even though we could still see it as if it still existed. I use this example to illustrate that what we see in the cosmos may not still be in existence today. It, being any arbitrary object, has most definitely moved and might even cease to exist. Other objects which we cannot see yet may also exist. Wait, what - did he just suggest that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos? Yes, but we'll talk about the justification of intelligent life in the next post. For now, let us discuss how life exists at the elementary level. Everything that exists is made up of Atoms, the legos of the cosmos. Even life relies on these tiny building blocks. When atoms are organized in certain configurations, life can exist. Therefore, we must look at what causes atoms to exist to find out, ultimately, why life exists. There are four fundamental forces that exist within any atom. For atoms to exist, the forces must be precise and constant. The force names are Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic and Gravitational. These forces have very well defined values and attributes. For instance, the nucleus of an atom is made up of neutrons (which have a neutral charge) and protons (which have a positive charge). If you have ever held the positive ends of two magnets together, you've noticed that they repel each other, sometimes with a lot of force. If the positive ends of a magnet repel each other in this matter, how can two positive protons coexist together within the nucleus of a Helium atom without repelling each other? The answer: Strong force. Imagine, if you will, that there is an ultimate control board for each and everything in the world. Every force has a dial and those dials are set to specific values. Now imagine that we are able to turn those dials to increase or decrease the strength of those forces. If we turn down the Strong force dial, making the strong force weaker, even just a little less than it currently is, then the particles inside the nucleus are no longer bonded together and fly apart, either by motion or by repulsion, causing the nucleus to disintegrates and the atom becomes a disorganized mess of subatomic particles. The same thing happens if you mess with any of the dials, atoms cease to exist. Let's increase the strong force by turning the dial the other direction and see what happens. Now the force reaches beyond the nucleus and affects the cloud of electrons circling the nucleus. They now fall toward the nucleus and atomic motion either slows or completely stops, causing the everything to become very still. Again, the atoms are now compacted balls of particles whose previous motion was necessary to exist. If the motion ceases to exist, so does the atom. Taking a step back up the chain, if life requires atoms to exist, and atoms now don't exist because we messed with the strength of the Strong force, then life ceases to exist since matter ceases to be organized. This suggests that the laws of physics were organized and set to specific values, perhaps by a god. Stephen Hawking trod down this path once in a book. Here is an interview in which Professor Hawking addresses the concept of God and the laws of the Universe. Steven Hawking on God: "The question of whether God is bound by the laws of science is a bit like the question 'Can God make a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?' I don't think it is very useful to speculate on what God might, or might not, be able to do. Rather, we should examine what He actually does with the universe we live in. All our observation suggest that it operates according to well defined laws. These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the universe to break the laws, at least not when He had set the universe going." I'll discuss the impact of Laws and how they are used by a God in another post, but I think it's very interesting the language that Professor Hawking chose when discussing God. He said, "These laws may have been ordained by God." According to this Astrophysicist, the thought that God exists is plausible. So, if these laws were ordained by God, and the universe set in motion at or slightly before the Big Bang, and the science provides that life can exist, then there must be a purpose to the universe. Again, in the video above, Stephen Hawking postulated that once we know the entire set of laws by which the universe is governed, we'll then be able to think about why we or the universe exists, not how it started and keeps going. This why is only answered by theology and religion. a large population of scientists refer to religion as a myth and that there cannot be any truth to it because they lack faith. I think that we can intertwine religion and science to better understand why God has given us the universe. So, what of life, intelligent or otherwise? What of evolution? In my next post, I'll discuss life and how evolution works according to my beliefs. We'll discuss the possibility of life beyond the reaches of Earth; not as aliens as popularized in movies, but as humanoid-looking creatures who look and act like us. View Comments |
|
| Universe in the Plural | 6:47 PM, Jan 21 2010 |
|
Now that we can think about higher dimensions, I'd like to apply that thought to the Universe. Using our technology, we are able to see approximately 13.7 Billion light years out into the space. The American Museum of Natural History recently released a video on YouTube that depicts a voyage from earth to the farthest reaches of the known universe. The distances and locations of specified objects is accurate according to our technological understanding today. Take a look: I love how at the end of the voyage out (at time mark 3:35), they show the known universe as a bounded sphere. You'll also notice the vast areas of space depicted as empty where we have yet to see. This void is caused by the interference caused by our own galaxy. Now let's think about what is beyond the that sphere of universe in our own 3rd dimensional space. What could be beyond its surface? Before I start discussing this point, I want to make an observation. Earth is the center of any map of the known universe because it is merely the vantage point from which we look out upon the cosmos. We are daft to think we are the center of the universe. What if we are on the very edge and it is merely 13.7 billion light years to the center? Then the actual size of the universe could conceivably be double (or more) the size of the known universe. But I digress. Some scientists say that the Universe is infinite and expands eternally in every direction. Others postulate that it may have a boundary whereat gravity ceases to function which, when we reach this boundary, the universe will also cease to expand, but will begin to contract to a future cataclysmic event affectionately called the Big Crunch. Yet other Scientists postulate that the universe is both infinite and bounded or finite and unbounded, both stating that if you traveled for a certain distance in one direction, that you would eventually return to your starting place even though you never changed your trajectory. This suggests that space is curved, perhaps like a cosmic globe or sphere, which, conveniently, is represented in the video above.
Now, let's consider the second postulation above: that the universe has a limit that, when reached, gravity fails and expansion ceases. When expansion ceases, then the tides shift and we begin to contract, as the gravitational forces all fall onto themselves and we travel towards the Big Crunch. Let me start by saying my college education is in Computer Science and not in Physics, but that being said, I do understand some physics and math. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states that there is a gravitational force between any two objects regardless of the distance between the two objects. The actual equation is:
Where:
You'll notice that, according to the equation, there is a gravitational force between any two objects no matter their size or their distance from each other, thus everything in the universe is interconnected with everything else, if only by gravitational force. As this is a Law, it suggests that there is no limit to the force of gravity, thus there is no limit to how far an object can be from another, even if it is infinitely large. According to this equation, there is a force of gravity between me and a supernova remnant 13 billion light years away. If my mass remains constant, and the remnant's mass also remains constant, and we drift apart even farther, the gravitational force between our two objects can decrease to an infinitely small force, but it can never cease to exist. According to this law, I suggest that there is no distance at which gravitational forces ceases to exist and that there will not ever be a reversal of the universe's expansion and no big crunch. Therefore, our universe will continue to expand in all directions for eternity. This turns posit number 2 into posit number 1 from above, that there is no bound at which expansion ceases and thus we expand for eternity. (on a side note, if you looked up Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation in Wikipedia, it states that Newton himself had a reservation for his law. One which was answered by Einstein's theory of General Relativity which states that gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime, thus reinforcing the infinite and bounded argument above.) This then negates the postulation that multiple universes can exist in a single 3D space. If our universe is the only one in our 3D space, then we can apply the thoughts from the previous post that there are spaces of higher dimensions, and just as an infinite stack of 2D spaces can exist in a single 3D space, so an infinite number of 3D spaces can exist in a single 4D space. Finally, this means if only one universe can occupy a single 3D space, then an infinite number of universes can exist in a single 4D space. Again, we can also state with the same amount of certainty that there exists a 5D space in which an infinite number of 4D spaces can exist, thus infinity becomes more of a reality than merely a concept within our Three Dimensional space which we occupy. So, how does this affect my argument that science proves that God exists? It is generally accepted that God, the Almighty, is the God of the universe. The first great commandment given by God himself to Moses and restated by the Christ is that "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3 cf. Matthew 22:37). God is the god of the universe. He is the master of all creation. The argument that there can be multiple, if not infinite, universes suggests that there can be as many gods, each the master of their own universe. The apostle Paul taught in Acts 17:27-28 that we are "the offspring of God." We are His children. If this is true, which I believe it is, we can become like God or even become gods ourselves. Just as the offspring of a cat becomes a cat, the offspring of a God can become a god as well. I'll let you ponder this suggestion as we dive into Intelligent Life in the Universe in my next post. View Comments |
|
Let's assume the third and go from there for this paragraph. Our universe exists inside a bounded sphere that has no beginning and no end. If you create a beginning, you'll have inadvertently created an end. Just like the Galaxy in Men in Black is represented within a marble or jewel, so let's view our universe inside a similar marble. Beyond the bounds of our universe can conceivably be other universes of similar configuration - Bounded expanses of eternity. Just as the picture depicts, many of these universes can exist on the same plane in the same 3D space if their bounds are beyond each other's. If you have many of these types of universes, then you can have unlimited universes occupy the vast expanses of existence. If this is true, then there is no need for the 4th dimension.
| 1-5 of 8 | Next Page >> |