• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Universe Is Supernatural

Supernatural? The games has a touch of magic, and sometimes a flash:

 
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.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing about rainbows I noticed. I sometimes see one from the front of the house and sometimes out the back but they are always in the same place. Position relative to the sun I suppose.
 
MungomanII said:
Shane bloody Warne. A genius.
Click to expand...
Warne was the better psychological bowler, McGill had a better strike rate. Always thought that interesting.

Anyone notice how England don't trust Rashid with the bat for some reason?
 
Yithian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
Let me be more specific, your tone has garnered complaints from posters who exist beyond the confines of my head - that's why I've taken an interest in this thread.

There's been no great sin committed, I'm just politely requesting that you approach this topic in a slightly less confrontational tone.

That is all.
 
rynner2 said:
And 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.
Click to expand...
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! :twisted:
 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-...origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe
Thought that was interesting.....I don't fully understand some of it especially the math bits but it 'supports' the original ideas from Theologians of the past like Aquinas, that 'God' exists (or some kind of creator) and the universe is a 'supernatural' event ( which certainly is not an original idea).

What always has bothered me is from where does 'God' arise then...?
 
MungomanII said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen one. When the sun is low in winter months the light can be bounced upwards via ice crystals producing a circular rainbow overhead. It's an amazing sight.

Incidentally, I'm seeing more Double Rainbows these days having previously never seen one.
 
rynner2 said:
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! :twisted:
Click to expand...

I'm no scientist but I would have thought it would come down to the dissipation of photons emanating from a central point.

Like this...

A single photon from our sun could travel to the end of the universe. Finding that little fella might present a challenge to you and I (or to the cat), at that great distance. The sun sends photons in all directions at random over a wide range of wavelengths. The number of photons per square area of surface illuminated by our sun decreases as a square of the distance. The intensity of light walks in step with that distance formula.


Inverse Square Law on HyperPhysics Concepts by Georgia State University, Physics and Astronomy Department: Home - Physics & Astronomy
 
Mungoman,

Re the circular rainbow.

Apparently that is how they are seen from space.

INT21
 
With the sun at the right position, circular rainbows can sometimes be seen from the bows of a ship, in the spray created by the bow wave. The 'rainbow' will be centred on the shadow of your head.

Something similar happens in the spray from a garden sprinkler, if you view it from above.
 
fudgetusk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let me first state that I don't insist that there only be two options. There are at least two others, off the top of my head, even though I don't fully accept them either.

However, let's confine ourselves to your two options:

A. Nothing came from something.
B. Something has always been there.

You claim both are equally illogical. However, when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (however improbable) must be the truth. Or at least, so I have always been led to believe.

Now, to my knowledge, there has never been a confirmed case on anyone creating something out of nothing. There's always been some ingredients they had to use. So, as far as we can tell, it's impossible and, by extension, so is option A.

That's leaves us with option B. There has likewise never been a confirmed case of something truly being negated from existence. Matter and engery can not be created nor destroyed, merely changed. For example, salt water can be desalinated, but the elements remain.

Therefore, all available evidence indicates that something has always existed and that option B is the correct one.
 
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
 
Yes, but the definition of nothing is the one thing they seem disagree with Kaku with.
 
INT21 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wouldn't 'supernature' be natural to the realm it exists in ?

Merely a different set of rules.


INT21
 
sunsplash said:
One could posit Supernature exists without a Godhead.
Click to expand...
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.
If supernature is natural then we are still looking for an origin method.
 
Last edited:
dr wu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

That's why many of us didn't bother with it, and Fudgetooth's arrogant attitude didn't help.
 
Perhaps you could clear the air a bit by defining 'nothing'.

And maybe what you would call 'supernatural'.

INT21
 
Frideswide said:
I don't have this as part of my paradigm... explain please? :huh::)
Click to expand...
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "natural", first used: 1520–1530 AD)[1][2] is defined as being incapable to be explained byscience or the laws of nature, characteristic or relating to ghosts, gods or other supernatural beings or to appear beyond nature.[3]

If you have another definition that is commonly used I'm all ears.
o_O
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top