(via)
Recent Comments
- Michael: The bill does not apply to religious organizations for the... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Isilzha: I need that as a tattoo! on Can I hear an Amen?
- Paul: I’m not sure that Obama’s compromise will work with... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Mahousniper: And then people wonder what the harm of religion is. on John Piper and Divine Command
- Paul: No excuse for being a combatant either on John Piper and Divine Command
- Leland Somers: These people are consistent, logical and take the text as meaning... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
SO very cool.
Sweeeeeeet!!!!!
Did I hear the narrator right, when he said that some of the galaxies in the UDF may be moving away from us faster than the speed of light? What’s more, does my asking that question betray my ignorance of physics?
I reacted as well. Things simply do not move at a speed faster than light. According to relativity theory a speed of 0.7 of light added to 0.7 of light does not make 1.4. As I understand it this is due to the distortion of space and time when approaching the speed of light. A mistake by whoever made this in other regards great clip.
While it is true that objects can not move faster than light, the expansion of space-time can actually result in two objects moving away from each other faster than light, because they are so distant that space-time is expanding faster than light.
It’s very counter-intuitive, but it’s fairly well understood physics.
Here’s a link to an explanation of how the universe can actually expand faster than the speed of light: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/the_size_of_the_universe_a_har.php
I understand spatial expansion can add to the apparent speed, but I thought that nothing could even appear to an observer (even a moving one) to move faster than the speed of light. That’s why the principle is called “relativity,” because it’s based on “relative” motion. Or is it?
It is possible for an object’s distance from us to increase, due to universal expansion, faster than the light leaving that object can reach us.
If I remember correctly, it is entirely possible that there are objects in the universe we will never see because their light is falling ever farther behind the rate of expansion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29
That’s awesome. Thanks for sharing that.
Things like this produce such an emotional response in me; I cannot understand and feel so frustrated by religious folk who feel that an atheistic worldview is cold and meaningless – this is real, it’s astonishing in its existence, and amazing in its discovery. We will never run out of our enlightenment of the physical world as it unfolds – why is that not enough, why must there be superstition?
So how might someone that believes Earth is 6,000 years old respond to this? Especially this coupled with our knowledge of how to judge how long it had to take for the light to reach us.
Typically, my conversations with strictly religious / science ignoring individuals about hard evidence about specific scientific findings end with them stating something about how the way we are measuring it might not be right. Maybe that telescope isn’t really seeing what you think it’s seeing…they never say that they think god set this stuff up to trick us, but that we are wrong in our analysis.
What do you think they would say about this?
If someone, in spite of all the physical evidence to the contrary, insists on a 6,000 year old universe, there really isn’t anything you can say at that point. It’s equally impossible to argue against ‘Last Thursday-ism’.
It’s a waste of time.
A Creationist with sufficient faith in the power of his/her God, and the willingness to perform mental gymnastics in an effort to justify his/her beliefs in the face of contrary evidence, can definitely rationalize his/her way around the apparent old age of light streaming in from distant galaxies. You see, God created that light c. 6,000 years ago — but he created it in mid-journey, you see, already flying in toward Earth at the speed of light. He also created things like fossils at the same time, giving them the appearance … using radioisotopes, depth, and other factors … of being millions of years old, instead of just a few thousand.
He did all this, you see, as a test of faith. He knew we would discover things like the Hubble constant and radioactive decay, and used these as an intellectual trap. That’s right … God knew there would be scientists, he knew what they would do, and he purposely deceived them, in the very moment of Creation.
I have actually heard Creationists use this “God the Creator and Deceiver” reasoning before, but unfortunately I can’t recall where. Now, most Christians — and Creationists among them — under most circumstances do not necessarily believe that God can lie or deceive people. So even to some believers, this reasoning may appear bizarre or even blasphemous. But it is nonetheless scriptural, since God has been said, there, to have deceived people:
Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham…. He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.” (Genesis 22:1-2 (Later in Gen 22:11-13 we discover God had no intention of having Isaac sacrificed.)
Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you. (1 Kings 22:23)
O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed; I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me. (Jeremiah 20:7)
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)
The idea, then, that God could use deceptive tactics to trick people, and moreover could use the fact that they were tricked to “mark” them as wicked (esp. in 2 Th 2:12) is not alien to Christianity, especially fundamentalist Christianity. If you’ve never wondered how scary these people can be when they put their minds to it, well, now you know.
Ty: “If someone, in spite of all the physical evidence to the contrary, insists on a 6,000 year old universe, there really isn’t anything you can say at that point. It’s equally impossible to argue against ‘Last Thursday-ism’.
It’s a waste of time.”
My experience exactly. I’ve come to rely on the quote: When you talk sense to a fool the fool calls you foolish.
BTW thanks for sharing this. This has the power to open up a lot of closed minds that rely on ancient desert scribbles for their sole knowledge of this amazing universe.
you might be interested in this as well. I thought of this site when I saw it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking autotuned and put to music. This is probably the most amazing thing I’ve seen on the internet, and I really think it might inspire some people to care about science again.
Excellent video!
John M – thanks for sharing! One of the coolest videos I’ve ever seen! :)
My mind hurts…
Thanks for sharing that video Daniel. It’s very inspiring.
Good and informative,would tell my friends to see it
WOW!!!
WOW! that is … Stunning
I’m so happy they were able to make the repairs and keep the Hubble running a little while longer. It continues to take some mind blowing pictures!
Also waiting for the next generation: The James Webb Space Telescope.
Preface: I don’t mean to be inflammatory in any way, honestly.
I first watched this at work with the sound off.
I watched it again at home with the sound. Is it just me, or was there an almost religious/spiritual tone (and perhaps even in content) to the narration?
You may be right … but then, that may be exactly the point. You can have “awe and wonder” at the grandeur of the universe, without having to posit that a metaphysical entity was responsible for it all. This is a point Carl Sagan mentioned several times in his works.
Many people who are truly inspired by science/the universe use reverential tones when discussing it. Awe and wonder are perfectly rational responses to the amazing universe we live in. Metaphysical entities are entirely superfluous to it.
Pingback: Deep « A View From The West