I Am Not An Astrophysicist, But I Play One Online

In response to the piece by ABC news that 16 percent of American science teachers believe in Creationism, I posted this comment on The Huffington Post:


Creationism is in direct opposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy and is not founded scientifically, therefore should not be taught in science class.

Good source: Atheist Universe by David Mills

Shame on the rise of anti-intellectualism in America. As we allow these attacks on science, the U.S. will suffer economically, technologically, culturally and globally. It’s these conservative christian isolationists that are dooming America and causing America’s loss of hegemony that the isolationists so fervently believe in.

My comments led to the following debate:

Myshkin57: Eh… conservation of mass is not a good reason to reject it. A good reason to reject it is that there is no reason to accept it. Further, the problem with creationism being taught as science is not its inconsistency with other scientific theory; most scientific theories were inconsistent with the scientific theories at the time they were first proposed. The problem is that it is not science (i.e. not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, etc.)

Delvin McGee: by that notion so does the Big Bang Theory

TMAN: Except that those laws or better yet, the particular laws of the Universe we inhabit were a product of the particular vacumn fluctuation as part and parcel of the Big Bang. Should another fluctuation occur within our Universe the Laws of Physics we observe now would be gone as would we.

Many of the most important elements of the Big Bang are “theory” in name only and have been supported, verified by rigorous scientific research, experimentation and testing.

ME: Big Bang does not defy the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:
Currently, all matter in the universe is expanding and will continue to do so until it exceeds critical density, at which point gravitational forces will cause the universe to collapse on itself, called the Big Crunch (you can wiki it). As all matter returns to a single contiguous point, the theory suggests that our universe of mass energy will explode in yet another Big Bang.

Therefore, mass-energy was not created. It has always existed and has most likely always been expanding and contracting.

TMAN: The increased rate of expansion has nothing to do with the Universe “exceeding critical density”. In fact the exact opposite is proposed as one “hypothosis” where matter/energy continues to expand and cool thus dissipating, for “eternity” “the BIG FREEZE”

Visable Mass-energy and the laws pertaining to them (they are the same) are a product of this Universe only, initial conditions sets the “laws”

You are aware that the expansion of the Universe also includes (though not often mentioned) the creation of the “new” space it is expanding into, as it expands, arent you?

ME: ah, excellent debate.

let me proffer that as the universe expands, space stretches – which contradicts the idea that new space is created.

TMAN: “let me proffer that as the universe expands, space stretches”

-Into what?

When I used the term “space” into which the Universe expands, I mis-used the word. My bad. Outside the “boundry limit ” of the Universe is nothing. The Universe (which contains within itself all of “space” and time, expands into that nothing that the Universe has expanded its boundry limit to. This is next to impossible to visualize or comprehend but mathmatically thats what is said to be happening as we speak.

ME: i see what you are saying, but what about the multi-universe hypothesis?

outside our universe is simply another universe, perhaps contracting, and that our universe is not simply expanding into nothing. the number of universes could be indeterminate.

So far, I have yet to receive another response from TMAN. Seeing as how I pulled most of what I asserted out of my ass (aside from the information I picked up from David Mills), I’m curious if anyone out there has any thoughts or corrections or suggestions.

UPDATE: TMAN finally answered my last response: Yes, thats possible or even the latest rage, “vibrating, interacting Branes”. At that point it’s a little over my head.

But, it’s magnificent isn’t it? And the thing is, it appears that it’s set up to give us exactly what we ask for. So it’s imperative that we learn and understand all that we can then take responsibility for our actions within the known and understood Universe. One doesn’t need fables if one is intellectually and physically engaged with it.
Thanks, TXpastafarian, for the dialogue.

To which I answered: I agree. It’s the discussion and quest for knowledge that matters. Anytime!


0 Responses to “I Am Not An Astrophysicist, But I Play One Online”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 95,975 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None

%d bloggers like this: