mrc25
Meteorite
Posts: 13
|
Post by mrc25 on Mar 26, 2010 10:02:40 GMT -5
I wanted to post this comment on the youtube message boards, but unfortunately the character count was to small
ps. this is my response to Dans recent daily vlog called "SA=3.14x10^11 LY sq."
1) We would have to assume that we were at the centre of the universe which scientist claim isn't true
2) There would be no way of proving the theory because you would have to send a probe 5 billion light years from the earth and hoped it came back. Which is impossible because even when they were sending a probe to mars they had a team of people steering the probe from earth and it took 4+ hours for new info to be sent from earth to the probe that simply said turn a bit right. this would mean that as the probe got further away the time it would take for info to be sent back to earth would grow to crazy amounts of time ex: 100 years or more and eventually the probe would crash and die. And then we would have to send the probe back.
3) the one thing that could be very true is the fact that Dan said if you went far enough out into space eventually you would find nothingness, which could be true because if the universe is limit less then you should be able to reach a point where there is no material in space.
i would love to hear what others think about what i thought so please leave a comment below
ty
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 26, 2010 10:07:44 GMT -5
1) We could very possibly be the center of the universe. I doubt it, just because the odds are pretty small, but it's still a possibility.
2) Well Dan was relating his theory to religion, which is a faith-based system of beliefs. Religion has never been proven, only disproven. So he's not proving his theory, he's asking you to disprove it.
3) Yeah this has always interested me. According to Futurama, at the end of the universe you can just see the parallel universe next to it with a hillbilly version of yourself. ;P
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on Mar 26, 2010 10:24:20 GMT -5
There is also the thing of the earth being 4 billion years old. The funny thing is, the universe could be much much much older. The point being, the earth might not have been created at the beginning, which throws the whole 4 billion light years out the window :-(
|
|
|
Post by hey light on Mar 26, 2010 10:34:42 GMT -5
It definitely isn't. Science has proven, pretty much beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
|
|
|
Post by ifyouwantblood on Mar 26, 2010 10:45:17 GMT -5
I don think there is a way to disprove it, but if there is its probably a technicality. But this thought experiment is a great way to start thinking about the universe. But i started thinking about what created the supercomputer, and why? And if it was created? And what if it breaks? i am going to say that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE IT right now. Go ahead, i dare you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2010 12:43:31 GMT -5
Dan Brown: you have an interesting theory, but I have 2 objections: First a question. You said the screen is 4.8 billion light years away from Earth because Earth is 4.8 billion years old. So in 1 billion years the screen will be 5.8 billion light years away? And was the screen 3.8 billion light years away from Earth 1 billion years ago? Does this mean the screen expands? Does it mean someday it will be possible to reach the limmits? Anyway, moving on. You said: "I have this theory. Science, I won't stop believing this theory unless you disprove it." What happens is that you have the burden of proof. You made a theory that is not easy to prove or convince people to believe in. Therefore, the person who has to prove the theory is you, and it is not science's job to prove or disprove your theory (although you can use science to prove it). It is the same way with any theory.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on Mar 26, 2010 13:50:47 GMT -5
I don think there is a way to disprove it, but if there is its probably a technicality. But this thought experiment is a great way to start thinking about the universe. But i started thinking about what created the supercomputer, and why? And if it was created? And what if it breaks? i am going to say that YOU CANNOT DISPROVE IT right now. Go ahead, i dare you! This is the basis for any argument against a deistic god. Many religions claim that life is too complex and thus must have had a creator. Even Dan believes that life itself is to complex that a creator must have started the big bang (or DNA). Dan is a deist, as opposed to a theist. A theistic god not only created the universe, he also has general characteristics seen throughout many religions. These include the ability to destroy, build, love, communicate, listen to our prayers, care about our problems, disapprove of our sex lives/orientation/gender identity, and so forth. But of course both of these gods, on the basis that he created life, shoot themselves in the foot. Who created the creator? If your saying life must have been created because it is too complex, so you postulate a more complex being, than by your definition, that being must be created by an even more powerful/complex being. This is Dan's vicious cycle of false logic. A supercomputer. Who built it? God? Or was it always there? And if it was always there, why would it have built (or made) us? Why does it fool us into thinking that we are where we are in the universe? Or to thinking that it is not there? Or lets think about it another way. If there is a supercomputer whose sole purpose is to fool us into thinking it is not there, lets just think it is not there. That is the way it appears to be right? Same with God. Tell him to show himself! Does he refuse? Why? If I were to speak to him today and he were to ask me, Jonathan, why did you go through such great lengths not to praise me, I would simply respond: "God, you are sick! You went through such great lengths to prove you don't exist, by not showing up when we need you, by not talking to us face to face, and by not doing anything miraculous you have been claimed to do (like separate seas, feed thousands with very little, create new life forms), and you expect me to believe in you? And to praise you? If i don't praise you, then it is because you didn't put it in me to praise you. Because, lets face it, you created me, right? So in that case, it wasn't a flaw in my being. You gave me a logical mind, and I am using it to the best of my ability. This was your flaw when you created me." And this is why Dan fails. Because not only is there no proof of this supercomputer, but because if there was a supercomputer, it is currently trying so hard to prove to us that it doesn't exist that for all intent and purpose we should live our lives believing that it doesn't!
|
|
|
Post by eatahead on Mar 26, 2010 16:19:21 GMT -5
Have you guys considered completely exaggerating the concept to make it realistic? Wrap your mind around that maybe there was no beginning for the creator, that it's just been, and that he has been here forever and that he always will be here.
|
|
|
Post by eatahead on Mar 26, 2010 16:20:48 GMT -5
Maybe the universe and everything that ever and has never existed is all some sort of Dan Brown experiment?...
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Mar 26, 2010 16:21:56 GMT -5
the matrix
|
|
|
Post by eatahead on Mar 26, 2010 16:22:51 GMT -5
lol. maybe I am being influenced by that fact that I watched that movie yesterday?...
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 26, 2010 16:54:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Mar 26, 2010 17:01:24 GMT -5
Welcome, to Dan Brown's Universe.
I think Dan is using this as a metaphore for God ie: Supercomputer=God
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 26, 2010 17:44:49 GMT -5
It's a poor one because there's lots of ways it can be clearly proven wrong. With the God theory, the religious can just change the definition of God every time they're proven wrong. By using supernatural terms that cannot be defined in the real world, religion can talk around issues by making up better excuses for where God is hiding.
If it's possible that there was no creator for the creator, then it's possible there was no creator for the universe. Since there is an absolute void of evidence for the existence of a God, it would be more logical to believe that nothing created the universe than that a God did who was in turn created by nothing.
However, there is one other option, the most logical yet, that nobody ever seems to consider but us atheists. That is that "I don't know yet" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Religions like to stick "God" anywhere where the answer should be "I don't know yet."
Who created humans? God did. Until we learned about evolution, that is. Who started off the life that evolved? God did. Until we learned about abiogenesis, that is. Who created the universe? God did. Until we find out what really did, that is. And when we do, surely the religious will move God back to the next gap in knowledge, claiming He is responsible for that.
It's far more appropriate to say "I don't know yet" than "God must've done it."
|
|
mrc25
Meteorite
Posts: 13
|
Post by mrc25 on Mar 26, 2010 19:31:11 GMT -5
I'm so glad people are dicussing things here i just wanted to say that there is no true 110% way of finding this out based on our known technonlogy today
ty for reading
[glow=red,2,300]-MRC25[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by leviroseman on Mar 26, 2010 22:05:35 GMT -5
mmm........maybe!?!
|
|
|
Post by sarahendipity on Mar 26, 2010 22:10:39 GMT -5
It's lupus. Your argument is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 27, 2010 9:19:30 GMT -5
Best House reference ever.
WIN
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Mar 27, 2010 17:21:12 GMT -5
I'm so glad people are dicussing things here i just wanted to say that there is no true 110% way of finding this out based on our known technonlogy today ty for reading[glow=red,2,300] -MRC25[/glow] You're right, we can only be 99.9999999999% sure. Do you feel lucky?
|
|
|
Post by noobsensei on Mar 27, 2010 19:35:32 GMT -5
Dan's theory is basically a variant of the Simulation Hypothesis. Science can't disprove it...and IMO there is good reason to suspect it may be accurate, such as the bizarre way quantum objects behave when they think we aren't looking.
|
|