Originally posted by Domesticated
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn’t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
I think it's because the mass at the center of solar systems and spiral galaxies is rotating. You know that space itself is distorted and bent by mass, but mass has another effect too.. If a heavy object is spinning in a certain direction, it actually twists and "drags" space around it in the same direction.. This is why you don't see some planets going clockwise and others counterclockwise around our sun. They are all caught in the wake of the same gravitational spin radiating out from the sun, which makes their orbits all go in the same direction. The same applies to galaxies.. The black holes at the center of spiral galaxies are not static and unmoving.. They are likely rotating at incredible speeds like massive cosmic tornados. This drags surrounding suns into the same circular orbit over time..leading to the spiral appearance.
So to answer your question..When the sun caught the first planets in it's gravitational field, they probably were flying around randomly in different directions including "up" and "down"...but over time the gravitational drag from the sun's spin led to a more "flat" orbit of the planets..and that same effect leads to a relatively flat orbit of suns around supermassive black holes in spiral galaxies. ;)
Cloudburst
Read MrJiveBoJingles' post further up. Complete planets aren't flying around randomly in space waiting to be caught up in a solar system. :wtf:
1. LOL: so, you're basing your belief on the big bang on FAITH! your argument is the same as 'i don't have to prove god exists!'
2. this is just silly. how do we know things? do you simply believe what everybody else tells you? of course not. is it the majority is right then? i hope not!
You don't need to understand it .. thats my point. I would say a good 50 % of people who believe in evolution don't actually understand how it works and are in awe when missing links are discovered lol. Does that make them smarter with regards to creation compared to the average religious idiot? Of course. They are simply looking at the statistical facts and concensus of the scientific community. You don't need to understand the structural engineering and integrity of the concrete in an appartment building to live in one. Don't you see how silly your argument is?
You are trying to make a comparison of fairy tales to science (Theories represented by continuous experiements and statistical probability of proven outcome.)
The way our society and civilization has developed isn't because everyone knows everything about everything. We have people who specialize in certain things and are certified and recognized by that community.
quote:
i'm simply saying the entire point of science is to be critical and not take things for granted. there must be research to prove the PROBABLE reality. it takes education to be able to critique advanced scientific theories. if you don't have the basic understanding of scientific workings then how the hell are you going to understand their theories??
I am definatley not debating the nature of science. But one can obviously take its side without understanding even the basics. If you wish to understand the theories by all means go ahead. Sure the big bang can be disproven, why not. But the facts are that genesis and most religious doctrines are all fable so they can be readily dismissed without a doubt. Do you have doubts about the big bang? sure many of us do. But to proclaim that this is a plausable idea without understanding it would still be acceptable rather then saying god miraculously made everything in 7 days. Why? Because you have an understanding that science has taken us thus far and the scientific community has come to the concensus that this is a probable theory for creation.
quote:
saying the big bang happened, but not knowing how is similar to saying god exists, but i don't know why. in my opinion of course :)
Fine ill give you that. But its not similar to saying that god created the earth in 7 days and jesus was his son who walked on water.
Theory with some testable hypothesis and observation compared to pure FABLE
I'll let you do the math Einstein.
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
You don't need to understand it .. thats my point. I would say a good 50 % of people who believe in evolution don't actually understand how it works and are in awe when missing links are discovered lol. Does that make them smarter with regards to creation compared to the average religious idiot? Of course. They are simply looking at the statistical facts and concensus of the scientific community. You don't need to understand the structural engineering and integrity of the concrete in an appartment building to live in one. Don't you see how silly your argument is?
You are trying to make a comparison of fairy tales to science (Theories represented by continuous experiements and statistical probability of proven outcome.)
The way our society and civilization has developed isn't because everyone knows everything about everything. We have people who specialize in certain things and are certified and recognized by that community.
I am definatley not debating the nature of science. But one can obviously take its side without understanding even the basics. If you wish to understand the theories by all means go ahead. Sure the big bang can be disproven, why not. But the facts are that genesis and most religious doctrines are all fable so they can be readily dismissed without a doubt. Do you have doubts about the big bang? sure many of us do. But to proclaim that this is a plausable idea without understanding it would still be acceptable rather then saying god miraculously made everything in 7 days. Why? Because you have an understanding that science has taken us thus far and the scientific community has come to the concensus that this is a probable theory for creation.
Fine ill give you that. But its not similar to saying that god created the earth in 7 days and jesus was his son who walked on water.
Theory with some testable hypothesis and observation compared to pure FABLE
I'll let you do the math Einstein.
i'm talking about lay-scientists, not people who go to a drs office if they're sick! you're analogy about the person using concrete but not knowing how it's made is not the same.
i'm saying it's more like a person with no experience building his own house, thinking that, since he's seen concrete before he can use it. THAT is what you're doing saying darwinian theory is true if you have no idea why.
i'm not saying it's not true, but i'm saying i wouldn't be boasting about something i didn't understand. A lot of people do, and make themselves look extremely stupid doing so (unless they're talking to similarly clueless people, in which case it's just another load of hypocritical n00bs chatting each other up).
once again, i'm not defending religion, so i have no idea at all why you keep bringing up the comparison as if i'm defending it :conf:
science IS fairytales unless you know what you're talking about.
Science is based on empirical proof. You're saying it's fine to skip the proof!
sorry, but saying you believe in evolution is exactly the same as saying the world was built in 7 days unless you know what you're talking about.
since you like bagging religion, you should realise that yu're sounding extremely similar to a religious nut... i'm not defending religion at all, but at least everybody knows most of them are full of ...
"science is the way, the truth and the light! i don't have to know how it works, it just works!!! WHAT?? SHUTTUP!!"
Gauss
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Can someone answer me a question please?
I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I’ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:
So what happens if you go ‘up’ or ‘down’? Surely these directions are as infinite as going ‘forward’ or ‘back’, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn’t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answer as well.
Cloudburst
quote:
Originally posted by Gauss
This is a great question and I'm curious to hear the answer as well.
Originally posted by EgosXII
this sums up my beliefs about people who believe in science, but aren't scientists.. :p
Atheists are also stupid when they are atheists. Why? Because they categorically state that God does not exist. That makes them just as bad as religious zealots (well ok, maybe not as bad) but at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by Fledz
Atheists are also stupid when they are atheists. Why? Because they categorically state that God does not exist. That makes them just as bad as religious zealots (well ok, maybe not as bad) but at the opposite ends of the spectrum.
wtfbbq? It is not illogical to lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, that makes you an a-spaghettimonsterist. Do you believe Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun? If not, I suppose you are an "ateapotist". There are lots of ateapotists in the world but they aren't labeled criticized for it..but for some reason people like to do it to atheists. I agree it makes no sense to say categorically "THERE IS NO GOD"..but you will notice most atheists don't do this..not even Richard Dawkins. He says the chances of one existing are extremely improbable..and given the lack of evidence he holds no belief..but he never says with absolute certainly that there isn't one. That would be unscientific. ;)
Fledz
Shhhhhh, I'm trying to bait PKC with that one since I know how much it riles him up :stongue:
Omega_M
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Can someone answer me a question please?
I have always thought of space as being a two-dimensional plane, so if you want to travel from Earth to Mars it would be much like travelling from point to point on a completely flat plain in a desert. I’ve always heard it described and drawn this way too, such as below:
So what happens if you go ‘up’ or ‘down’? Surely these directions are as infinite as going ‘forward’ or ‘back’, as the universe extends in all directions. Or do these concepts not have any relevance to space?
If the answer is that solar systems and galaxies tend to form as flat discs like coins, then this seems strange to me. Gravity works in all directions, and shouldn’t solar systems and galaxies form as spheres instead? Why not?
Our reference here is the central sun and the fact that all planets are pretty much distributed around it in a single plane, just like the flat desert you described. And there's a reason why this is so, and it actually gives us a clue of how planets must have formed.
If you were to go "up" or "down" you wouldn't travel to any of our planets. You would come out of the planetary disk and sort of look at them from above or below. There are however galaxies "above" us and "below" us and all around us. The "flat coins" are distributed all around us and their planes are also distributed in all directions. They are not parallel to the flat plane of our planets.
Originally posted by Capitalizt
wtfbbq? It is not illogical to lack a belief in something for which there is no evidence. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If not, that makes you an a-spaghettimonsterist. Do you believe Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun? If not, I suppose you are an "ateapotist". There are lots of ateapotists in the world but they aren't labeled criticized for it..but for some reason people like to do it to atheists. I agree it makes no sense to say categorically "THERE IS NO GOD"..but you will notice most atheists don't do this..not even Richard Dawkins. He says the chances of one existing are extremely improbable..and given the lack of evidence he holds no belief..but he never says with absolute certainly that there isn't one. That would be unscientific. ;)
