"it is likely that we will find habitable planets circling small stars"

[DarkReign]

Very well. You are correct in saying that human religions have aspects of control structures in them, some more than others. Religion (or religious authority) can be and is a very bad thing when in the wrong hands. In a non-theistic universe, this explanation for religion is good enough. On the other hand, if there is a god, we would be well served to figure out what we can about him, and hopefully "get on his good side." I mean, if he's God, he gets to make the rules, no?

I dont think God (your term, not mine) needs to be pleased for our succession. You are what you are. That feeling you get when you help someone in need? That feeling you get when you wrong someone purposely?

Follow that compass and there is no God I can conceive that would damn me to ruin for checking out my neighbors wife when shes washing the SUV's rooftop.

Now ... are there any good alternatives to the expanding universe? I know Einstein got stuck on the eternal, static universe (as did the early Mormons!!), but he eventually came around.

In a word...no. But you already knew that.

[DarkReign]

And if I was damned for such a thing?

em.

[peewee's lovechild]

Dark matter or dark energy are very vague terms on purpose. Theyre catch-alls.

Nothing more. So when someone or something suggests harnessing such a force, they are referring to the potential energy IF such a material exists outside of very controlled lab experiments that leave unexplainable trace debris that exist for less than a femtosecond.

Its not a dead end, in my mind. But its more than beyond our scope of understanding at the moment (and that moment is going to be very, very long).

That explains it.

But, it would be cool if it's true.

[DarkReign]

That explains it.

But, it would be cool if it's true.

Very cool, indeed.

To be fair, dark energy is different than dark matter....but they are no less used to explain the unexplainable.

Dark energy most likely refers to the forces/matter unseen at the atomic level.
Dark matter most likely refers to the forces/matter unseen at the cosmic level.

Or a little of both. That why its vague.

[Don Quixote]

You indeed have a moral compass. Non-believers are certainly moral, too, sometimes as moral, or more moral, than believers. I make no pretentions, for instance, to have all my stuff together. I am curious, though, as to what you attribute this "moral compass" to. Your upbringing? (Sure, but where did your parents get it from? Their parents?)

Kant, I think, had the best non-theistic ethic (although he was a believer) out there. An act is moral, according to him, if all people at all times could do it and no harm would come. Or something like that. That's a decent ethic, although I am entirely too busy to critique that and other ethics at the moment. Get back to me in August.

I actually believe the moral argument (from the perspective of all men at all times having some sense of right and wrong) is the best of the arguments for God's existence. However, the Big Bang seems to be a big help for the cosmological argument (what was before the Big Bang? We dunno ... was there anything?) This is not an existence of God thread, but I guess you can't avoid it when talking about the universe. Which is fine.

[DarkReign]

I have a feeling they'd be eating slop like in the Alien movies.

Doesn't sound like much of a life for me. Give me sunshine, Spurs games on the TV, and pretty women.

Amen. But really, our control or understanding of matter at the point of space travel suggests such things as food would be the least of our problems.

But thats just me.

[Don Quixote]

Maybe the least of your problems!

I want catfish, and shrimp poboys, and chargrilled oysters. And jambalaya.

[DarkReign]

You indeed have a moral compass. Non-believers are certainly moral, too, sometimes as moral, or more moral, than believers. I make no pretentions, for instance, to have all my stuff together. I am curious, though, as to what you attribute this "moral compass" to. Your upbringing? (Sure, but where did your parents get it from? Their parents?)

I think that moral compass is God. Thats as close and as far as you will ever be...until the hereafter....maybe, no guarantees.

Kant, I think, had the best non-theistic ethic (although he was a believer) out there. An act is moral, according to him, if all people at all times could do it and no harm would come. Or something like that. That's a decent ethic, although I am entirely too busy to critique that and other ethics at the moment. Get back to me in August.

Unfamiliar with Kant. Add that to "blackbody radiation" under required reading.

I actually believe the moral argument (from the perspective of all men at all times having some sense of right and wrong) is the best of the arguments for God's existence. However, the Big Bang seems to be a big help for the cosmological argument (what was before the Big Bang? We dunno ... was there anything?) This is not an existence of God thread, but I guess you can't avoid it when talking about the universe. Which is fine.

Again, no argument from me. Especially when speaking in cosmic perspective, the end and the beginning are always a left turn from the conversation. I always welcome it until someone pulls out their "Holy Book of Ownage" as some sort of standard to be adhered to. Referencing is fine, all perspective is good perspective no matter how brief, but those unable to have a conversation outside of their belief's constraints is a waste of time. Thats all.

[DarkReign]

Maybe the least of your problems!

I want catfish, and shrimp poboys, and chargrilled oysters. And jambalaya.

Star Trek Replicator....problem = solved.

EDITED: Oysters?! Well folks, we have our first space candidate. His mind wanders no further than his loins...the perfect candidate for a multi-generational space voyage.

[Don Quixote]

Well ... I think referring to scripture, and only scripture, at this point would not be helpful. I hold scripture (Old and New Testament, nothing else) to be true and authoritative, and it enables us to know God truly but not exhaustively. (We need Scripture because there is quite alot about God that we would never know, unless he tells us. For instance ... most people, even non-believers, have this sense that God somehow loves them. Where would they get this idea from? Nature? A wild guess? No, that comes from scripture. That's not to say it's wrong or misguided, but stuff like that lies outside the realm of science.)

This means that the Christian ought to recognize other sources of truth than "just" scripture. I'm perfectly comfortable talking about science, time travel, biology, marriage, etc., as are you and I suspect most normal people.

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, the replicator. How did the original crew of the Enterprise eat?

[DarkReign]

I'm perfectly comfortable talking about science, time travel, biology, marriage, etc., as are you and I suspect most normal people.

I dont share your optimism on this subject. I can barely breathe in a crowded room full of people having a conversation like this thread.

I am not the smartest person in the world or in this thread. But I can literally feel my IQ dropping in those situations. I am the most quiet person in a live conversation of such things. Barely a peep.

Which is why forums like this are the best for such things. Your argument must be thought out (I didnt say well thought out) and it usually has a point, counter-point.

"Speaking" here about this stuff is easy because you always get "your time" by nature of the written word.

Ive lost a lot of respect for people I used to be very good friends with back in the day to a point where most if not all I do not speak to anymore. Not so much for their religious beliefs, morals or scientific a en (easily overcome....very easy), but because they are so ingrained with the same, tired I have heard from countless other sheep they all start to look the same.

Therefore, they are categorized the same. Its like a blank face with an opening in the lower portion reading from the "How to Look, Act, Sound and Believe Like Everyone Else" handbook.

[Don Quixote]

I admire your honesty and decency. And humility ... not enough of that around here.

Time for the forum to put a burning "t" in front of me ...

[Don Quixote]

Time for me to go

[Cry Havoc]

I dont share your optimism on this subject. I can barely breathe in a crowded room full of people having a conversation like this thread.

I am not the smartest person in the world or in this thread. But I can literally feel my IQ dropping in those situations. I am the most quiet person in a live conversation of such things. Barely a peep.

Heh. 99 out of 100 people just want to spout their viewpoints and then get pissed at you for disagreeing with them. That is what sucks about situations like that.

[DarkReign]

Time for the forum to put a burning "t" in front of me ...

Time for me to go

?

[DarkReign]

No joke. They don't advertise that one on TV. But the doctrine of eternal progression (men become gods) is a fundamental one for them. This is polytheism (or perhaps monarcho-theism; we become gods, but there's one God; it's hard to nail them down).

I did, I think, a nice piece of work on their metaphysic last summer, if you're interested.

I would be interested, actually. I have strange fascination with all religion.

EDITED: I was going to edit the last sentence, but since it sounded so Japanese accent-ish, I thought it funny.

[Extra Stout]

I realize the paradox of Big Bang. Are we ever expanding? Or are we expanding only to eventually collapse? How can we expand forever with such an immeasureable massive object(s) at the very center?

If so, are we the first iteration? Moreover, is Big Bang completely and utterly flawed?

I completely understand.

Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.

scientists are approaching the entire universal picture from a Big Bang perspective only because if Big Bang is true, then so many things are explained. Not all, just most, maybe even as little as some.

But if that very frame of reference we stand in is wrong, then our conclusions will reach an end under said reference (at some point). I am not saying we are at that point, just that that time will come (if it ever does).

They've actually not only detected the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang, but also have mapped it, can tell you which spot in the universe it took place, and what conditions were like in the immediate aftermath.

[Extra Stout]

Wasn't there a theory that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source.

I thought I read that somewhere.

They don't even know what it is. How could they know if it can be used as a fuel source?

[peewee's lovechild]

They don't even know what it is. How could they know if it can be used as a fuel source?

I don't even remember what the concept was, just that I read in an article some time ago that dark matter/dark energy could be used as a fuel source because it was supposed to be abundant and it is probably the substance that fuels everything else in the universe.

It's been a while since I read that. That's why I was asking for clarity on it. You guys seem to be on top of those things.

[<�‡�>]

�|�� �|���|���|�|�� �|� �|�|�|
���|�|�� �|�|���|��|
� �|�|���|��|

���|�|�� �|� |���|�|�� �|���|� |� �|� �|�|�|���|�|�� �|�|���|��|


- <�‡�>

[DarkReign]

Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.

I realize the conclusions drawn by the observations, but I dont pretend to know their overall implications.

One wild step forward seems to be the dark matter postulate. Or should I say the "we dont know wtf it is" theory.

To be clear, Im not ripping the science community for coining such a phrase. The term is needed to be sure.

Im not a scientist as I am sure I have demonstrated, but all things considered, this is a roadblock (a gigantic one) but certainly not a dead end.

But no less profound and...anticlimatic.

They've actually not only detected the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang, but also have mapped it, can tell you which spot in the universe it took place, and what conditions were like in the immediate aftermath.

I expected this post after going to the bathroom (where all good reading material is kept).

I re-read the Scientific American I was referencing when I explained dark matter/dark energy.

It would seem this "force" governs the distance of cosmological en ies almost exclusively (seeing as its density is close to Planck), especially galaxies and their early formation/collision tendencies.

That basically, dark matter is proven not by evidence of "it" but by what the universe would be like in the absence of "it". Very crowded.

All in all, its basically a given that the universe was created from a center (I never doubted it, just restated the "theory" portion of BB for perspective). But what in the could possibly be equal to gravity's force, but it seems to have overcome it and that rate is accelerating!

So, youre right. The real questions one should asking are...Will this invisible force(s) overcome us at some point and tear matter limb from proverbial limb at some point? That there is an end, only it isnt a return to center, but an obliteration in the farthest reaches of the not yet inhabited-by-anything space?

[DarkReign]

�|�� �|���|���|�|�� �|� �|�|�|
���|�|�� �|�|���|��|
� �|�|���|��|

���|�|�� �|� |���|�|�� �|���|� |� �|� �|�|�|���|�|�� �|�|���|��|


- <�‡�>

I vote "Best New and Original Troll" right now.

EDITED: at the favorite team. Classic.

[Don Quixote]

I would be interested, actually. I have strange fascination with all religion.

Well, good. I like studying comparative religions as well, and my main area of interest is Islam and the cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other strange groups) and the Christian response to them. I don't say that every religion is right or even good, but they are all an attempt to deal with issues that we have faced since the beginning (sin, right and wrong, mercy, etc.) And I suspect that you would agree that pure atheistic naturalism (i.e., no God, we evolved by chance, we die, that's it, tough) cannot provide these answers any better than religion can.

[Don Quixote]

Cosmologists have answered the questions in your first paragraph, and the answers are mystifying. Not only is the universe going to expand forever, the rate of expansion is accelerating. The current understanding of physics cannot explain this.

Yes, I have hear about this. But can the universe truly expand forever? I mean, it can expand for maybe a trillion more years, but at some point the system has to wind down completely, we get infinite entropy and "heat death."

This is fine, by the way. I'm more interested in the Big Bang, actually. Do you see any theistic implications from it?