Universe created by God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xmo1, May 5, 2018.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    I have a telescope. I've seen the heavens. Is Dark Matter real? Is Dark Energy real? Is quantum duality real? The galaxies have observable forms and shapes. The stars obey laws, and are constructed of specific things, and behave as(with) beginning and ending. Even irrespective of life - this universe must have been created by God. There is at least one thing in the universe greater than me in my mind. One is a creator, and one is a destroyer, or are they just the same thing?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    The lesson you could learn from using the telescope is that you can observe stuff and if you cant see it it pribably is not there.
    I dont believe dark matter exists and I dont believe God exists.

    If there is so much dark matter then get me a trailer load of it so I can put it in the garden.

    If God exists I would like him to change the free will rule such that victims can decide not to be victims.

    Now even though I dont believe in dark matter it does have support via our best tested scientific theories and observation.

    Unfortunately God has no supporting evidence at all and wishing him to exist is wonderful but sadly wishing has not produced a God.

    I hope you enjoy your telescope...what type of telescope do you have and what do you observe?

    I am into astronomy and have more telescopes than I can admit to...I mostly do astro photography which lets you see so much more.

    I find when looking at all thats above you realise just how much stuff is out there and just how incredibly insignificant we are such that the problems in my life fade into insignificance...

    Doing astronomy may cause you to get a handle on the fact the God story is made up by folk who never looked thru a telescope...I attach a photo that I took of Omega Centuri perhaps the nicest of all the globular clusters out there...count the number of Suns in that unit...over a million I am told but please count them for yourself as you just cant believe any thing another human will tell you...particularly their made up nonsence about there being a God.

    Alex

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    And why must there be a creator and or destroyer?
    If you think there must be is not support for any proposition.
    Try...there could be..
    Because that really works when you dont know and have no way of knowing.

    I like the steady state model of cosmology simply because it is closer to I dont know than the prevailing big bang model.

    BB hints at a creation point which for me parrallels it to the God made it idea.


    But if you choose to have a God in the mix let me ask ...where did this God come from and when did he get here?

    Let me guess your answer...God has always been here he has always been around...but does that help you with working out origins?...steady state is the same ..always been here always existed.

    Look who really knows but just because we dont know that is no reason to create a creator as humans must do.

    I DONT KNOW IS THE ONLY TRUEFUL ANSWER.

    Making stuff up is no more than a lie..to those you tell particulary yourself.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,459
    If you can make a list, astronomically, and/or perhaps move the topic to religion?
     
  8. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    Sometimes I get into a mood that is really close to innovation and invention, and I write. Oops.
    The hall monitors should allow a more liberal editing, moving, and deleting policy out of consideration for Friday nights, as if.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2018
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    Absolutely.
    Just remeber Friday night is just the start of monday morning.
    Alex
     
  10. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    That's a very nice photo Alex. What was the exposure? Have you got any of the planets?
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    Thank you for the encouragement.
    That photo was a result of a stack of 120 single exposures each of 30 seconds.
    The telescope I used in that effort was a 80 mm f5 triplet ( a fantastic scope) I used an unmoddified DSLR Nikon 24 meg camera on a iso setting of 400.
    I used short exposures to hide the fact my polar aligment was rather poor and to obtain sharp round stars.
    The scope sat on a HEQ5 equatorial mount unguided (ie no camera to guide the scope) so polar alignment was reasonably close really.

    I dont bother with planets these days and at the risk of going off topic totally here are a couple thru a cheap 70-200 mm Nikon camera lens to demonstrate what cheap gear on an equatirial mount can produce.
    The processing could be better but I have yet to settle on what softeware I will use in the future.
    Processing is as critical as the capture perhaps more so.
    Thanks again
    Alex

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    The first image includes the Southern Cross (the four stars represented in our flag) and the dark region is refferred to as "The Coal Sack".
    The naked eye sees only the four stars and the dark patch, all the other stars come out by virtue of the long exposure.

    The second is the Large Magellan Cloud a small nearby gallaxy visable to the naked eye in the Southern hemisphere.

    Both images were stacks of 100 individual captures of 30 seconds each at 400 iso with the camera upon a HEQ5 equatorial mount.
    Alex
     
    Seattle likes this.
  13. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Alex. When I was little and picked up a library book the pictures would be just like yours in quality, and that was by the professionals then 1980s. I'm not really into photography, but love seeing amateur work, especially when it nearly equals the professionals in any photography subject. No planets, too common for you 'professionals' ? I give you a project... When you get a shot at Mars, see if you can capture some white at a pole. I say that because, I was once surprised to see white at a Martian pole when looking through a friend's 8'' reflector. Mars was a salmon pink disc with a smudged spot of reddish brown and a white pole. I also commission you to take your best picture of Saturn. Results to be shown on this site.
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    First thank you.
    I find planets difficult really because you need to opperate at such very high magnifications they become a pain to place in the field of view.

    I also use a 8 inch f5 reflector (1000 mm focal length) for imaging but for planets I would need to use my 150 mm refractor that would probably do it.

    It is only a doublet lens so I would probably have to use coloured filters ..my guide camera would be perfect in that scope as it takes video and the way you go for planets is to capture say a couple of minutes of video at a high frame rate and stack them.

    I would have to add two barlow lens to increase the focal length to 6000mm which together with a small imaging chip would make me cranky.

    I have been thinking of having a go maybe at Saturn but Mars and Jupiter dont interest me...although once set up I would do them...the main thing stopping me is I cant find my filters...I cant promise anything.
    Getting the gear tunned takes a great deal of effort with the gear I have to do it right I would need another 150 mm but a triplet ($7000) or a Smidt Cassagrain say 8 inch which ironically I am thinking of buying not for its long focal length but to just use the mirror via a system called fastar to drop to f2 which is so very fast making very short exposures possible.
    Probably get it for planets...
    Other thing is time ...you get little opportunity of dark and no clouds low wind etc...so I have a list before planets.
    Alex
     
  15. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Alex, you seem to be enjoying yourself with all that equipment and know what your doing. I remember you talking about wild dogs, aren't you scared at night? I can see now what you mean about taking pictures of planets as compared to nebula and globulars and such... A planet being a small 'dot' whereas a nebular and cluster present an area. I relieve you from the Mars and Saturn challenge.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    No they are not a problem for humans as much as for live stock and the dog will bark if anything or anyone is anywhere around.
    Real wild dogs the dingo would not be a worry in fact I wish we had some around but the wild dogs are actually domestic dogs that have gone wild and they can be a concern.
    Alex
     
    sweetpea likes this.
  17. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,857
    From Xelasnave.1947 Post 3
    I sympathize with your POV.

    In my youth, various cosmologies vied for dominance: Steady State (aka Continuous Creation), some version of Big Bang, alternating bangs & crunches, & perhaps others.

    Steady State required creation of a small amount of mass in each somewhat small volume of space to fuel the expansion & prevent a noticeable decrease in the density of the universe.

    I was fond of Steady State, but it was shot down by the discovery of Quasars. They were extremely distant from the solar system, indicating that the universe was very different in the distant past.

    BTW: Fred Hoyle, the main advocate of Steady State stubbornly argued for his cosmology in spite of the evidence against it. I do not remember if he finally accepted the mainstream view.
     
  18. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,857
    BTW: There was humor in some of the early arguments about cosmology. For example
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    I expect that he would never have accepted the mainstream view as he seemed like a very intelligent person who would not be convinced by the evidence being offerred to prop up what was seen by him as philosophy rather than science.

    He was more aware than we are today that the big bang was presented by a catholic priest after he and his colleagues had discussed the cosmic egg idea for at least twenty years and that they may have become determined to steal yet another Pagan belief for no other teason than humans have believed such in the past so the idea has in effect been tested in the market place.

    I find it unfortunate that the best brains have been educated in private schools that behind it all harbour a belief in a God which even if they reject the belief find a need to construct cosmology with room for a God.

    The big bang almost appologetically can only tell us about the evolution of the universe but damn it leaves the moment of creation happily open for the God botherers to point and say God did it...and sadly that is the way it is...there is no conflict between science and religion..the Pope gives God seven days for creation and the big bang avoids the question unless you take the inflationary epoc as creation...yes fron zip to everything in less than a zillionth of a zillionth of a zillionth of a second as Neil De Grasse qualifies it...and the folk who reject God are happy with the zillionth of a second science did it creation...
    Is that more sad than saying we dont know.. well yes it is but folk need something to believe so in that regard the big bang idea is great even though it is basically a Pagan idea that has been around as long as humans could communicate I expect.

    Of course to question the big bang brings the attack that you reject the science and that you question general relativity.

    And thats fair enough but GR is geometry employed to support the philosophy and folk then claim as the geometry is perfect so too is the philosophy...not in my view, not in Fred Hoyles ...I think he would have been able to see the geometry was employed to work for the church and to support the latest idea they stole from the Pagans.

    Anyways I am happy to admit that I dont know how the universe began and prepared to consider it on the basis that it has always been here. ... I doubt if the universe has a problem as to why it has always been here and certainly not concerned with any reasons humans offer as to why it could not have always existed.
    Alex
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    And quasars...
    We see them in the past certainly but if one "developed" next door today say 3 million light years away we would not know about it for 3 million years... ☺
    Alex
     
  21. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,922
    I don't know. It does seem that some astrophysical observations suggest the action of more gravity than can be explained by the masses of the matter visibly present. The most obvious explanation for that is that there is additional mass present that we can't detect that's having a gravitational effect on things.

    There are various assumptions built into that, such as the observed motions being governed entirely by gravity, gravity only being the product of mass, that we are correctly estimating the mass of the luminous stuff we see, and so on.

    Accepting those assumptions, the question is what accounts for the additional mass. One school of thought favors so-called 'machos' (massive compact halo objects) which would be things like brown dwarfs, rogue planets and other conventional matter that just happens to be invisible to us at the moment. I'm personally inclined to think that interstellar space might be filled with planet-like things that aren't orbiting stars, asteroid and comet-like material etc. Lots of mysterious dark places in the interstellar voids. But I don't know if that would total anywhere near the amount of mass that seems to be missing.

    The other school of thought favors so-called 'wimps' (weakly interacting massive particles) which would be a new exotic form of matter that possesses mass but interacts with other matter minimally if at all in non-gravitational ways.

    So my layman's opinion at the moment is that we have good (but not excellent) reason to suspect a mass deficit that needs explaining, but we don't yet know what accounts for it.

    I'm more skeptical about dark energy. That hypothesis seems to be dependent on the idea that the expansion of the universe is speeding up slightly. And that in turn is dependent on various assumptions. Among them is the belief that all examples of a certain kind of star have the same constant luminosity. They are referred to as 'standard candles'. If they all have the same luminosity, then their observed brightness is interpreted as an indicaton of their distance. That in turn is compared to red shifts and it seems that the red shifts are greater than expected for some of them.

    So is the luminosity of our standard candles varying with time, or is it the red shifts (and hence the expansion of the universe)? I don't know.

    Interpreting quantum mechanics is a notorious can of worms.

    I have no trouble agreeing with you that the universe is far more mysterious than most people imagine. It isn't just dark matter, dark energy and quantum physics. Those are the kind of questions that conventional science might someday answer.

    I wonder why existence exists at all. I ask why it displays the order that it seems to display. I ask what mathematics and logic are, how we know about them, and why physical reality seems to conform to them.

    But I don't see how we get from a bunch of unanswered questions to some deity from mythology. That's a leap that I'm not willing to make.

    So I'm quite happy calling myself an agnostic regarding the big metaphysical questions.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
  22. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,857
    From Xelasnave.1947 Post 17
    Note that all observed quasars are billions of light years away from Earth. The nearest is circa 2.5 billion light years away.

    Quasars are objects from the distant past. None are believed to be have developed later than 2-3 billion years ago. Note the following.

    The discovery of Quasars killed Steady State cosmology, which claimed that the universe had not changed in any significant manner over the course of its history.

    I think there is an inactive quasar at the center of our galaxy, circa 30,000 light years from us.
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,035
    Yes.
    There are not many that have been observed.
    I thought the discovery of the back ground radiation was the killer blow for the steady state.

    Quasars are believed to be rapidly feeding black holes at the centers of young gallaxies but I think there is some support for the idea that merging gallaxies may see the black holes therein supplied with sufficient matter to have a quasar develop.

    And as I said if that was happening right now someplace ie today and a new quasar is starting to burn then our observation can not be made for how ever long it takes that light to get here.

    I have often thought that if quasars are the violent displays of early gallaxy development there should be many more quasars observed... billions not thousands... one could expect that at a certain time in the past we would only see quasars given the accepted idea that every gallaxy has a black hole at its center and the universe has an evolutionary start approximately 13.6 billion years ago.

    In other words at the time gallaxies formed we should observe billions of quasars.

    The steady state idea perhaps did not have sufficient numbers in the ranks to manage the flaws found in the model in the same way BBT managed its flaws notably the sameness problem with the inflation fix or the lithium fix with the "it was there but now its not so its absence is proof BBT is correct" mega patch.



    I think that is the current view.
    I also think the current view is that at the center of all gallaxies there is a black hole.
    These black holes now have nothing to feed upon as it is believed that they have cleaned out all the material.

    The early cleanouts would result in displays we call quasars.

    What I find curious is the observations of what is believed to be the Milky Ways black hole show stars in orbit and thrown away rather than dragged in...and you could think there should be more stars in this region...what does it mean? I dont know but it goes against ones early views of black holes dragging everything in...if you are not lined up perfectly for a direct hit you are slung away at a rapid rate.

    The BBT runs into the same problem as the God story...where did God come from? Or for BBT where did the singularity come from...or simply put what came before ...steady state has the best answer it has always been and always will be so dont waste your time seeking a point of creation.☺
    Alex
     

Share This Page