Friday, December 25, 2009

The Flat Universe Society

A couple posts ago I stated, “Scientists tell us that the universe is flat. Do you know what that means?
Do you know what it would take to change it to something other than flat?”

. One atheist said that he asked his physics prof, but apparently he’s decided against sharing what he learned. He's letting me do this first.

. Another left the comment-
“==========
These lines represent the flatness?”

Well, ok. I can use that concept. However, before returning to that, another way of looking at the issue is, at Big Bang the universe inflated to enormous dimensions literally in the twinkling of an eye. Just as the earth “appears” flat to someone with a very limited perspective from where we stand, so too the universe. However, the flat universe issue is describing, I think, much more than perception.

Unless I’m wrong, a flat universe is describing the room or lack thereof for variance in order for our universe, our life supporting universe to exist. The variance is determined in large part by the cosmological constant. The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

As suggested above, this can be represented by = = = = = = = = = =

Any variation in either direction (eg, 800 parts vs. 1 part, 50 parts vs. 1 part, 2 parts vs. 1 part, or even 1.00001 parts) more than 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
and there would be - no universe. I don’t mean, no universe NOW. I mean if this exact constant had not been put in place at Planck time, the universe would not have EVER existed.

A DECREASE in the rate of expansion less than = = = = = = = = = = and the universe would have re collapsed.


An INCREASE more than = = = = = = = = = = and no galaxies would have been able to form.

At 10 ^ -43 second after the Big Bang, the density of the universe must have been within = = = = = = = = = = of the critical density at which space is flat.

Roger Penrose has calculated that having this exquisite fine tuning taking place by accident, without any “constraining principle” being put in AT Planck Time to be 10 ^ 1,230. “The Road to Reality” 762-765.

What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the Law of Large Numbers. This has to do with exquisitely unimaginably finely tuned constants and qualities.

Even though the number of sub atomic particles in the whole universe is 10 ^ 80
Even though “impossible” is calculated to be 10 ^ 50 or greater
Even though Penrose says the possibility of our being here by accident to be 10 ^ 1,230

Atheists say this all happened by chance.

No logic? No problem. Atheists just say whatever needs to be said in order to preserve their delusion. And if you dare challenge their delusion, well then, you’re anti intellectual, anti science, anti progress.

It’s not easy for someone to live with such a cognitive disconnect whereby on the one hand the atheist says, I’m intelligent, reasonable, and logical, yet on the other hand say “One hundred finely tuned constants and qualities came together, as they are today, all at once in Planck time - and it was just luck.

In fact, it’s such a disconnect that a growing percentage of atheists have reasonably decided that someone is going to find out that the Chance hypothesis is just plain ridiculous. They’re right.

Sadly, preferring to sound like the village idiot rather than admit to anything that smacks of Design, atheists invented an origin of the universe mythology that says there are - wait for it - an INFINITE NUMBER of universes. Isn’t that just like something a Bright would say? With an infinite number of chances to give chance a chance of working, atheists tell us that it just stands to “reason” that somewhere within an infinite number of universes, there would be one universe where all the constants required for a life-supporting universe were put into place at Planck time by . . . . . . . . ta da! - Chance.

If you don’t mind believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence, this multi verse mythology sounds like a really good idea.

It’s not a good idea.

In fact it’s a terrible idea. While the multi verse mythology is a compliment to the veracity of the Design hypothesis, it makes worse the very problem that atheists were hoping to make go away.

First of all, there is no such thing and in fact there cannot be such a thing as a material infinite - of anything. What’s more, if there WERE an infinite number of universes (life supporting or not) each and every one of them would need similar constants to get started AND to remain in existence, as is the case with ours. Positing an infinite number of universes doesn’t eliminate the problem. Rather than making the atheist’s problem go away, atheists have just INCREASED their problems by an infinite degree.

A multi verse mythology doesn’t multiply the chances of our life-supporting universe existing. An absurd multi verse mythology multiplies the absurdities of atheism.

As atheists are discovering, Extreme evidence like a finely tuned life-supporting universe requires extremely absurd mythologies to explain it away.


“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
Astronomer Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections” 12

14 comments:

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

What did I tell you guys? I told you even if you answered his questions Mak would continue to use the same arguments!

Ginx said...

The universe spins. Things that spin throw out their mass into a nearly uniform flat plane. I gave you an experiment where you can observe this phenomena for yourself, the very best form of science (observation).

Makarios said...

Ginx, the universe isn't literally flat. The universe is everything. There's nothing above or below as in a spinning wet rag.

The best form of science - observation - coming from you guys, that's funny:

And we observe life coming from, ah, other life.

And we ovserve specified information coming from, ah, Intelligent Agents.

And we observe something beginning to exist because of, ah, an external cause.

Not atheists, I mean, but the rest of us observe and make decisions based upon those observations.

In atheist world, what passes for science is not observation but ideology - faith, reductionism and ideaolgy which actually overrules their observations.

Christ Follower (no longer) said...

See, again with "specified information"! LOL!

Hugo said...

Well, well, Christmas was not even over and you were already bashing atheists again Mak; that's not very nice of you, lol, ;-)

Hopefully one day you'll understand this very simple idea: non-belief in a god is never a basis for any other belief.
(Well, at least it's never the case for me...)

There is one thing you said here in the comments that I liked though: "The universe is everything". I could not agree more, and that's precisely why I do not see how I could ever believe claims about things that are defined as being outside the universe.

Hugo said...

oh and ya, Chris is right, it's really funny to read about specified information again and again... :)

Makarios said...

Hugo:
“Christmas was not even over”

Give me a break, man. I waited as long as I could - I’m a work in progress - or how about this one, I’m not perfect but I am forgiven. Pick one and gag as you wish :-)
============
"non-belief in a god is never a basis for any other belief.
(Well, at least it's never the case for me...)"

Whoa, that’s an alarming lack of insight on your part!
=============
“I could ever believe”

It is true though, wouldn’t you agree, that if something DID exist prior to the material universe (and it is possible, is it not?), it would of necessity also exist outside of the material realm of the universe?

Makarios said...

Still Stupid: "again with "specified information"! LOL!"

I know. Isn't that silly? 1,000 volumes of precise instructions without which we could not function properly and I call those instructions information. How stupid could any Christian be?

I mean, even THIS stuff isn' information. It's just black stuff on white stuff.

Hugo said...

Give me a break, man. I waited as long as I could - I’m a work in progress - or how about this one, I’m not perfect but I am forgiven. Pick one and gag as you wish :-)
lol, I'll take both, why not

"non-belief in a god is never a basis for any other belief.
(Well, at least it's never the case for me...)"

Whoa, that’s an alarming lack of insight on your part!


Huh? I don't understand what you mean, or you did not understand what I meant...

It is true though, wouldn’t you agree, that if something DID exist prior to the material universe (and it is possible, is it not?), it would of necessity also exist outside of the material realm of the universe?

No, that's where our beliefs diverge, because for me, the universe is everything, always was and always will be. It is my "god" in a way! If we ever find the cause of the Big Bang for example, well it would only push the limit of the known universe a bit farther, nothing more. If that cause happened to be a loving intelligent creator god, well so be it, it would now part of the universe.

I'll put it another way. When men used to be afraid to go at the end of the world they thought was flat because they would fall, their universe was essentially only that flat thing they were living on and the surrounding astral phenomenon they could not explain. As time passed and science explained more and more phenomenons, the universe started to expand more and more, not in the literal sense of course, I mean the definition...

Hugo said...

1,000 volumes of precise instructions without which we could not function properly and I call those instructions information...

You know that I am a tireless demon Mak, so I will try to address that again ;)
Let's use an example.

Animals of the X family have a gene containing the information that gives them their colour. There are 3 varieties of that gene, AA, AB or BA and BB. AA makes the animal white, AB grey, and BB black.
Offspring get their colour from their parents, needing at least one parent with an A to be an AA or AB, and at least one parent with a B to be an AB or BB.
Animals X live at a place where their natural predator, the mighty animals of the Y family, hunt them equally, irregardless of their colour, they just like their juicy meat.

One day, there is a volcano eruption nearby. A huge lava river forms, cool down, and forms a large black patch of soil. After a few years, plants grow on the black patch.
Because of the eruption that disturbed their environment, there are not many X survivors. After a while however, more food grows on the black patch. Animals X therefore move to live on the patch. Now, you guess what will happen. The black X will survive much better on the black patch because the might Ys are going to spot the white ones first. After a few generations, the AA version of the gene, along with the AB, will tend to disappear, leaving X animals with only one version of the gene, the BB.

Ok, I know that I just give an example of how natural selection works, which we all agree exists, so what does this have to do with your specified information concept? Well, the point is that the AA version of the gene now seems to have been designed just for the right purpose. One could think, wow, imagine if these animals did not have the AA gene, they would never be able to survive, but we know it's not the case, the information evolved naturally in the X animals. What used to be a random combinations of different colours now appears to be a steady pattern that the animals need at all cost.

Of course, the stretch to tiny components such as the ribosomes, proteins, amino acids or DNA, seem really far, but when we think of the time span that life took to evolve and the astonishing similarities between ALL living creatures, it's not so surprising. Evolution does create the information that we analyze, because the information is not information per se, there is no reason to think that it suddenly appeared just like that, no matter what you look at, it's only the result of a long process of picking and choosing between various mutations.

Does this explain the origin of life? No, but again, the idea is that if we start with the fact that evolution occurs and point to common descent, why would we suddenly give any credit to theories that claim that there must be an exception at the DNA level? Why would small complex components be consider "specified" enough to be part of the specified complexity scheme? The only reason I see, even though Makarios you will give many more, is that we do not understand how every single components evolved on its own. As long as we do not know, we cannot prove at 100% certainty that life came from non-life., and ID proponents will always jump in to claim that this or that part are special, and must have been designed, by the impossibility of the contrary, not by explaining how...

Ginx said...

This is an explaination of how flat the Milky Way is. Most astronomers are unsure of the "shape" of the universe, but my physics professor (Dr. Halpern) is of the opinion that the universe is largely flat (on a scale similar to that of the Milky Way).

Again, he believes this to be the case because systems with spin are shaped this way, and he is currently working on several papers which indicate the universe spins (so slowly that it may not have even made one complete revolution in its 13+ billion years).

Makarios said...

I get how spinning Galaxies flatten, but my brain just does not grasp the concept of the universe - for which there are no “edges” and which is expanding - more rapidly now than ever before . . . I can’t picture that one at all.

I believe George Castanza used the term discombobulated regarding something or other. Thinking about a flat universe does that to me.

Good night Ginx.

Ginx said...

My wife asked me, "If we had a spaceship fast enough to reach the edge of the universe, would we hit a wall, or would we redefine the edges of the universe as we surpassed its boundaries?"

The answer is merely a problem of semantics. The "universe" is defined as all the mass, energy, time, and space present in all of existence. Since the universe is expanding, if there is an "outer limit," it has not been reached. Therefore, it is my interpretation that anything travelling outside the "bounds" of the "universe" is not really as complex of a problem as we make it out to be.

There may be some physical barrier or limit, but a ship travelling outside the expanses of the universe would simply hurtle through the near-vacuum of space. It may be our definition of "universe" that is the problem, because we define the something, not the nothing. The something of the universe appears to be expanding to fill the nothing, like gas entering a vacuum will spread out until it has filled the container to a uniform density (a measurement of which yields what is called "pressure").

Makarios said...

I wish I could understand this stuff. I'm pretty much uniformly ignorant. But ideas like, How does something that is everything expand into ? when its already everything, well, I wish I could get it. My brain is the spaceship that hits the wall.