Supernatural? The games has a touch of magic, and sometimes a flash:
Aren't you the lucky one!Just to be really, really annoying, but keep within the parameters of the subject heading - if you have sufficient altitude, with all the right conditions...could you have a circular rainbow?
A circular rainbow - now that would be far out.
Warne was the better psychological bowler, McGill had a better strike rate. Always thought that interesting.Shane bloody Warne. A genius.
I would suggest my belligerence is in your head. I'm just excited that my thread has stumped all the great minds on this forum.You are under no obligation to reply to replies that are off-topic or not to your liking.
I would suggest that you tone down the belligerence.
Aren't you the lucky one!
Astronomers prove 200-year-old theory about why it gets dark at nightAnd since the question of light travel time from distant stars has been raised, this is the time revisit Olbers' Paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
"...is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.[1]"
Note that this is not an argument about Infinity as such, but an argument for an expanding universe.
Just to be really, really annoying, but keeping within the parameters of the subject heading - if you have sufficient altitude, with all the right conditions...could you have a circular rainbow?
A circular rainbow - now that would be far out.
Astronomers prove 200-year-old theory about why it gets dark at night
The universe is much bigger than previously thought so the sky should be filled with stars – the reason it isn’t was put forward two centuries ago to explain ‘Olbers Paradox’
Ian Johnston Science Correspondent
Friday 14 October 2016
A theory that explains why it gets dark at night – dismissed by scientists for 200 years – has been proved right by new research using images from the Hubble Space Telescope.
German astronomer Heinrich Olbers famously pondered the “dark sky paradox”: if there was an infinite number of stars in the universe, how could it get dark at night as every point in the sky would contain a star.
He suggested clouds of hydrogen could be blocking the light.
But later astronomers estimated there were actually 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe – not enough to fill the sky – so this theory was not needed to explain why it gets dark.
However, astronomers have now calculated there are about two trillion galaxies after using the Hubble to look back some 13 billion years to the dawn of the universe.
And Professor Christopher Conselice, a Nottingham university astrophysicist, who took part in the Hubble study, said: “The extra factor of 10 or more [times the number of galaxies] is able to fill in the sky with stars.
“But most of that light, or all of the light from the most distant galaxies, is being absorbed by hydrogen gas which is between us and them.
“That was one of the ideas Mr Olbers had suggested, but people discounted that and we kind of brought that back as a solution to the problem.”
Professor Conselice said the existence of the clouds of hydrogen had been demonstrated by other astronomers by examining the spectrum of light.
“We just didn’t know there were galaxies behind that hydrogen wall,” he said.
In addition to the galaxies that cannot be seen for this reason, there could be more that we cannot observe because they are so far away the universe is not old enough for the light to have had time to reach Earth.
“The honest answer is, possibly, but we don’t know,” Professor Conselice said.
“There could be multiple universes, there could be stuff behind what’s called the horizon, the limit we can see, which is basically the amount of distance light could have travelled since the beginning of the universe.”
The research was published in the Astrophysical Journal.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ers-prove-theory-olbers-paradox-a7360931.html
So we're still confused, but at a much higher level!![]()
Mungoman,
Re the circular rainbow.
Apparently that is how they are seen from space.
INT21
I'm talking about the origins of the universe. Seems to me there are only two options...
Theory A) something came from nothing
TheoryB) Something always existed
...
Problem is with Theory A and Theory B is that they are not logical. Something from absolute nothing is impossible and the idea that energy/matter ALWAYS existed is equally illogical.
You cannot have an infinite past. This is something you either get or don't get.
But the universe plainly exists so one of the theories has to be right. I put it to you that the universe came into being from absolute nothing but we should see this as a supernatural act.
And this is why I mentioned 'God' above . The OP said it's supernatural because then and only then with a supernatural origin could a being like 'God' create reality ex nihilo. He seems to be a closet Christian apologist here trying to make an argument for 'God' though he hasn't said as much. But anyone who posits a supernatural origin must be a theist of some sort by definition.TheInspector..
...there has never been a confirmed case on anyone creating something out of nothing...
But there is a complication.
The Original Poster holds great trust in Professor Michio Kaku's views.
And Professor Kaku is know to have said ' It all depends on how you define 'nothing' '.
INT21
Wouldn't 'supernature' be natural to the realm it exists in ?
I'm not sure what you mean. The OP's post was that the universe is supernatural implying a 'Godhead' by definition.One could posit Supernature exists without a Godhead.
That sums up the problem with this thread. From the start nothing was properly defined, so as a philosophical exercise it was a nonsense from the word Go. You can't make a silk purse from a pig's ear.I'm not sure what you mean. The OP's post was that the universe is supernatural implying a 'Godhead' by definition.
Supernature is another term .and not necessarily connected to the word supernatural.
the universe is supernatural implying a 'Godhead' by definition.
As I understand it the term as it has always been understtood, implies God or some sort of Being that is responsible for all that we know in that area.I don't have this as part of my paradigm... explain please?![]()