Rhetoric 3302 Questions

The very first thing that I decided to read was the chapter 24 reading!! That was pretty interesting!!I have no clue still what cosmogony is but if it is the same aspect of cosmology then maybe I get what it is a little bit!! The idea that the universe is expanding is pretty interesting too!! It is expanding especially on earth we get new people on earth all of the time!! People are dieing less often so the universe is slowly getting more harder to move around and find a place to live because people are living longer and having more babies. the whole universe is expanding not even just the earth where finding new planets past pluto that are existing that we are just finding out about, but have probably been there for a long time. In my mind there is no doubt that the universe is expanding, but probably for the good of the people and things that live on this universe or I should say in this universe!! I believe that we are not the only ones in this universe that there is more out there then us and God!! A supernatural if I must say!! The Big Bang has been talked about in this universe since I was a little kid and probably ever since it happened people have been talking about it. Some things are just talked about to much in my mind and this is one of those things that has been talked a lot about and it gets kind of annoying!! I can totally agree with the next article called One big Bang, or were there many? I can agree with this theory that the earth evoloved way before the Big Bang. I believe that we were here long before the Big Bang ever occured not neccesairly us, but a living thing whether it was dinasours or some other kind of being. I believe one day someone will figure out the state of the universe and be able to tell everyone when it started maybe it could happen I really don't know!! Wow the first image you told us to look at is spetaculer I could truelly believe that all those things are galaxies that were here before the planet earth and before our galaxy was even thought of. There all so very pretty!! The other pic ture you wanted us to look at is even more amazing on how close they got to those galaxies with the telescope or radar!! It is so beautiful and pretty I could look at those pictures forever!! Well that's all we had to blog on this week so I'm out!!

Twentieth-century cosmologies

Hubble’s observation that nebulae are rushing apart and away from the earth seems to have been one of the defining moments in the origins of “big bang” science. Interesting to note that there was no consistent conflict between religion and science concerning the big bang theory (i.e. many religious people opposed the theory, while many supported it—it seems much different than the evolution debate). There really is no reason why, for religious people who don’t have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the Big Bang theory needs to be at odds with religious belief. The big bang theory says nothing about what (or who) caused the “big bang”.

One Big Bang, or were there many?

It is difficult to understand the true science behind the theory that there were many “big bangs” and that time existed before “our” big bang. I can only trust that scientists with knowledge in these matters are hotly debating these ideas (self-regulating the quality of their theories) to arrive at theories such as these. Proponents of this theory point out that the inference that time must have started with the big bang (“our” big bang) was never based on any real reasons. The belief here is that the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large—which is exceedingly contrary to traditional religious teachings. However, from a purely conceptual standpoint, the theory that there doesn’t have to be a beginning of time is no more difficult to conceptualize than an infinitely-existing and omnipresent God, is it?

Hubble photos

These photos offer a great deal of insight into the true extent of the universe. The fact that the views we are seeing in these photographs represent a patch of sky just 1/10th the diameter of the moon is profound. How completely and utterly insignificant Earth is! And is it so difficult to believe that somewhere out there, someone else is looking through their own “8-foot long soda straw” at our galaxy?

If anything the McConnell essay was too short. Maybe thats indicative of the lack of any real religious objections too modern cosmology. It is easier to debate something which has a physical context, biologists can point to a chimpanzee and provide the evidence that says share a common ancestor, which creationists can counter with Adam and Genesis. It is much harder to point to the darkness of space and lay out the mathematics behind string theory. I realize that is what the Hubble Deep Field photos are for, to provide a physical context, but I can pet the chimpanzee, I can't visit space. Perhaps creationists think the same way, that until there is a physical challenge, say an extraterrestrial on the White House lawn, cosmology is so abstract that it isn't an issue.

Randerson's article leaves me asking a simple question, “So if there are other Big Bangs where did they come from?” I'm not saying Dr. Turok's hypothesis isn't interesting or is devoid of merit, but it still leaves that lingering question. The matter in those Big Bangs he is proposing has to come from somewhere, unless he is also proposing a revolution in thermodynamics as well.

I've been a big fan of the Hubble telescope since it was launched, and the Deep Field photographs are just a small example of how important it has been to expanding our understanding of the universe. But I am probably the only one who finds them slightly morbid. The light from those objects in the pictures are billions of years old, by the time it reaches us the stars have burned out. They are dead.

One big Bang, or were there many?: What? More than one Big Bang?? I’d never heard of that approach before. According to the article there doesn’t seem to be much evidence backing this theory up – so, would you even call it a theory –or just a guess? I know that it is hard to find concrete evidence on the subject because the universe is incredibly large and complex, but predicting that another “big bang” won’t occur for another 10 billion years – where / how do they even come up with that number if the “theory” isn’t that definite?

Chapter 24: I think the only way to truly be able to come up with a solid opinion on the issue is to study every possible aspect of the universe – which –let’s face it – would probably take a lifetime. I am not an expert on science, nor am I entirely knowledgable on every religious viewpoint of how we came to exist – so it is hard to come up with a viewpoint. There is so much out there that we can’t even fathom. Therefore, universal evolution will probably continue and remain an unknown.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Photo: This photo was really interesting. I didn’t realize that so many galaxies even existed – though picture only depicted a mere fraction of outer space. Like the description said, “Looking into the Ultra Deep Field is like peering through an eight-foot-long soda straw.” It’s amazing to realize just how diverse our universe is – and even more amazing that we can establish a possible timeline to not only the fossil record – but to galaxies as well.

Ch. 24 "Twentieth-Century Comologies"

The Big Bang theory, comology, and the steady-state theory are so interesting to read about how everything supposedly began. I have never heard about our universe expanding, until now. I guess, I really didn't know too much about this topic. It said that our whole universe existed as a huge atomic nucleus, and since then its been expanding. It is almost unbelievable that this is happening. So does this mean that this is the creation of science doing this expansion, or is there a Creator, for instance God, who is doing this? It further goes on to say that matter is continuously being created in space. What is creating it? Hoyle and Wickramasinghe argued that there must be a necessity of a cosmic Creator, based on the calculations estimating the probability of life originating on the earth in the available time frame. Frank Tipler uses cosmological arguments to demostrate the existence of God and the certainty of an afterlife. People do think there was a Creator involved, but at this point, I'm very unsure to believe that.

"One Big Bang, or were there many?" - James Randerson

In this article, it talks about if there was only one big bang or many. The whole idea of how the universe first began from a massive explosion is very crazy, but yet interesting to hear. Also, it says in the article, that there was time before the big bang. Well, if there was, I'm curious of what was all there before the Big Bang. For example, were there planets, life, or anything? Currently right now, the universe is expanding, and will continue until all the stars burn out, leaving nothing but their cold dead remains. Will there actually be a time, when all the stars are burnt out? Does that mean the universe will completely end by burning up? In the chapter we read, it said the universe had no beginning and no end. But with the Cosmological Constant, "dark energy", is what pushes galaxies apart at an accelerating rate, and that all matter in the universe would totally dissipate. After reading this, it makes you wonder if we will ever see the next Big Bang.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field Photo

These were pretty cool pictures to look at. There are so many galaxies out in the universe, its amazing. Since there are so many, relating back to the articles we read, chances are that the next Big Bang won't be for a while. The galaxies come in so many shapes and sizes. The Ultra Deep Field represents a narrow, deep view of the cosmos, as they said, "like looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw". It is an unending sight to see.

For the chapter, "Twentieth-Century Cosmologies" I don't have a lot to say. I guess it makes sense that cosmology didn't have the same religious opposition that evolution did just because it's so difficult to comprehend. To say that the entire universe (which essentially is infinite) was created in a “bang” billions of years ago is hard to wrap your head around. It’s like trying to grasp the concept of eternity. Eventually it just loses its meaning, to the point in which most people agree that the universe is really, really big but they don’t necessarily care how it started. On a random point that wasn’t quite mentioned in the book, I find it funny that the name “big bang” was created by the steady-state supporters in an attempt to discredit the theory. I mean come on, a theory called the “big bang” sounds kind of ridiculous and mystical, who’s going to believe that? I guess everyone did.

As for the article, “One Big Bang, or were there many?” it’s an interesting theory, but I don’t know if I necessarily believe it. I don’t claim to be a physics expert, but I’ve had physics professors say that when trying to understand anything before the big bang, all theories are pretty much equal. The thing is you can’t tell what happened before the big bang. The reason why we believe the big bang happened when it did is because we simply can’t see anything past a certain point. This is where the Hubble photos come into the picture. I think it’s amazing that by looking so far into space, you’re essentially looking back in time. As telescopes and technology get better, we’ll be able to look further and further back. If the big bang theory is true, then at some point we’re going to look back and not be able to see anything.

First of all, I think I may be missing the big picture, literally! As I looked at the two pictures from NASA, I wasn't really sure what it was all about. Are they trying to prove that there are other life forms out there? Or are they trying to prove the big bang theory, because to me, lots of little pieces really aren't convincing enough. I totally agreed with Randerson when he said we can't tell how long the earth has been around. If science can't differenciate between a 15 billion year old earth and a 15 trillion year old earth, who is to say that the earth can't simply be 10 thousand years old? Furthermore, there is not a person on this earth who can control the universe, so I believe there is a lot of wasted time being put into things such as when the next "big bang" will occur!

I find it interesting that science finds an empirical way to understand the universe, and usually debunks a literal interpretation of the bible in the process. The biblical explanation of the formation of the cosmos is pretty hard to swallow, but the deeper astronomers reach into space the more extreme and farfetched deep space becomes. Our current understanding of the universe is full of mysteries and concepts that the human brain has trouble with such as the infinity of space and time. To accept Genesis is crazy and illogical, but to accept the current astronomical theories is also crazy but slightly logical. When theories arise predicting the existence of eleven other dimensions, and what that could mean, wacky fundamental Christianity doesn’t seem as crazy. I just find it interesting that the further science goes into the universe the more complex it becomes. Every barrier astronomers get past there is an even greater mystery behind it that demands a much stranger theory. And as science becomes more farfetched the less extreme certain religions become.
The known universe and the theories applied to it are so amazingly beautiful and perfect that divinity shines through. There most likely is no individual force that could be called God. But the cyclical nature, and the forces that govern our universe is where a logical and stable spirituality can be found. The nature and actions of matter and void is predictable and perfect and will exist forever. No matter will ever cease to exist it will only take another form. We will die and our body will decompose, and our mater will become something else. The human race will one day face extinction and some other species will take our place. The Earth and Sun will be destroyed, and their matter will form other celestial bodies. And hypothetically, when another dimension bumps into our own another big bang will be created forcing all matter to be transformed into something else. This cyclical nature of all things may not support a western God but it sure is a profound source of spirituality.

James Randerson: I thought that it was very possible that there could have been many different big bangs. It would take a huge explosion to create the universe. I mean if you look into the sky, it looks huge and we only see the smallest portion. The actual size of the universe is so big it really is mind boggling. I think that it is almost impossible for one bang to explain the whole universe. I also think that it is also interesting that we don’t know when the newest bang will happen. Because one thing is for certain no one would live through that explosion. That brings the question, were there people on earth before this bang. How many people have died in a bang?
C. McConnell: I thought that this chapter was interesting; I never really understood the whole theory of the Big Bang. I had heard it and all, and I am not saying that I understand it now either. I think that it is a logical explanation on why the universe is around, although I still think that a big explosion created the universe is something that I try really hard to just accept as fact. I can't explain it so who’s to say it didn't happen. I won't give an argument on the Big Bang until I have studied the subject and become more informed. I think I don't have the right to contradict something I don't understand.
Hubble Pictures: What I really found interesting with these pictures is that they can tell how old something is just by seeing it in a telescope. I think that it wouldn’t be all that accurate, but what do I know. It is just mind boggling the brilliance of science sometimes.

There was a really good Nova special on last week about the galaxy and had alot with multiple big bangs. As newton said about every action has an opposite reaction it is easy to picture the first bang set off other bangs in a chain reaction ala fourth of july firecrackers. however, to play the D.A. to my understanding, what triggered the first bang? Either Aristotle was right and the universe is timeless with no beginning and no end or there was something that created the big bang. And what happened 13 billion years ago? was it just our cozy little galaxy that was formed with the expansion? or was it all galaxies?

I often wonder if the difficulty we have in tackling the issues these sort of topics raise -- things like infinity of time and space, time itself starting and ending, an “edge” to the universe, the universe beginning and ending, etc. -- is because they really are as impossible and mind-blowing as they seem to us, or simply because we don’t have the mental ability to wrap our minds around them. Maybe the idea of infinity is a perfectly reasonable and understandable concept, given sufficient neural equipment. After all, complex math is completely incomprehensible to a squirrel, but it doesn’t mean complex math itself is a fundamentally incomprehensible concept; it just means the squirrel’s brain is not up to the task.

Obviously, we have crossed a certain mental threshold that a squirrel hasn’t, and are able to think abstractly, but it doesn‘t seem so unreasonable to speculate that our capability for understanding is, relatively, just as limited as a squirrels when dealing with issues of infinity and so forth. I suppose I’m wandering into the nature of human consciousness, however, which is a completely different issue.

Ch. 24: One point really struct me here: "claimed that the earth does ont occupy any special place in the universe" and neither does "the present...occupy any special time in the universe." That is really outside-of-the-box thinking! An intersting concept with rather confounding impacts: that The Universe just is-- and the present is irrelevant, because it is just another moment in infinity. Cool. As for the deeper issues here, not being a crazily smart mathematician, I honestly don't understand much of what is going on in these theories on a deep philosophical level. That is probably why there was so little problems with most of it-- people just don't get it to even argue it!

One Big Bang: Interesting idea. I don't see why having one big bang is better than multiple ones. Concepts like this are very difficult to look at scientifically, because observation of a big bang is clearly impossible. In addition, the evidence of these ideas are, well, complicated math so I can't discuss them. As far as I am aware, little else is really available for evidence. Science has a ways to go in understanding much of the ideas of cosmology. Perhaps this is the opportunity for those who want to believe in a God or spiritual presence to pull a "god in the gaps", at least in their own minds. Whatever makes you happy at the end of the day and lets you sleep at night is how you've gotta think. (Although I think that science should continue its explorations. What individuals think is up to them...) Personally, I am going to pull the agnostic again, and wait for more information before taking a stand.

Hubble: Pretty! Some of the planets look like seashells...
I wish you could see a moving feed! That would be awesome.

Chapter 24
The reading talked about the origin of the big bang theory and another theory the steady state theory. I believe there was a starting point of creation and that it didn't always exist as believed by the steady state theorists. The big bang theory provides relevant proof of creation because stars and planets appear to have been created since there life-span proves they have not always been there. I can see why people, especially theists, would like to believe the steady state theory that there is just one point in time that exists, and everything else is just a part of that. To an extent I believe that is true, but scientifically the big bang theory can explain the creation of all the universe around us which is a big thing. However, the fact that there was a big bang before creation assumes that there was a point where either nothing existed, or everything existed at once. I have no idea about that, but I do believe the big bang was the start of creation in this universe and there are several reasons for this. The main reasons are because I believe in a begining as described in most religions, and I believe in a higher intelligence that existed even before creation.

Hubble
The pictures of our universe are remarkable. I can't imagine that every dot represented in the picture is actually a star or a planet. Our universe is so huge and I am sure there are plenty more. I wonder what it was like for people before satellite images that showed us how earth looked and all our sibling planets. Was there ever a poll taken about who really believed the earth was round before pictures could prove it? Remember that was only about 40 years ago and there are a lot of skeptical people out there, some who believe the Appolo moon missions were staged. It would be interesting to know if there are any facts about that.

ch. 24
i had honestly never heard of the term cosmogony, or maybe had, but confused it with the other. anyways, its interesting that the basic principles presented here, observational and theoretical cosmology, remained untouched by religion in the beginning. even throughout the history of cosmology, the science/religion debate that all of this focuses on seems to take place within the scientific community. i also liked the bit of irony at the end of the chapter when it says that many religios thinkers found cosmology to speculative to even refute. to me, religion is the greatest speculation of all.

Hubble photos-
these were interesting. its pretty unbelieveable to grasp the fact that many of these galaxies and stars have been burned out for thousands of years, yet we are still observing light coming from them.

I was really amazed by the Hubble telescope image. It seems difficult to believe that those are all distant galaxies with their own stars. The Big Bang Theory goes beyond the Copernicus Revolution in making our role in the universe more insignificant. It seems like the recurring pattern throughout history in our readings.

First off, I just want to tell Josh that he can go to space if he wants to.

Chapter 24 - At the end of this chapter, the auther brings up the point that the average joe can't really become engaged in an in depth conversation to debate the big bang with relativity, because the mathematics are too tough. I couldn't agree more. I had trouble even understanding some of the ideas involved. But I could still appreciate the ideas involved, and having heard them before, find them valid. They are rather heavy on the speculation, but come on, Albert Einstein. Anyway, I think that there could be some sort of spirituality involved with this creation/expansion of the physical world, but it could be just another instance of god in the gaps. I think it is true though that cosmology and biological evolution almost go hand in hand in the minds of many, and discussions of cosmology will inevitably always lead to the same old debate. Only time and technology will tell who, what or how the universe exists and why it does. Maybe there really is a meaning to life?! One can only hope that we will find out.

One Big Bang or Many? - This article described a radical idea that I was unaware of. It seems like it could be a little off, but it could also be correct. That's the problem with these physics and astrophyics conversations, half of it goes over our heads. The theories are based highly on speculation, so who really knows if they're correct. It's the tough part about understanding and believing these radical ideas of the physicists. But still, it does make logical sense that many big bangs could have created what we know as the universe today. It's so large that it's hard to comprehend, and it seems that one explosion would have had to be really really big to shoot matter the size of planets light years away. There are a million explanations and a million counters to the explanations. I am being boggled thinking about them. Cosmology is a topic that many, including myself, will always get headaches from thinking too much about. It's something that is so mysterious that we can't comprehend it right now.

One Big Bang or many?
Honestly, I find this all kind of sketchy. Then again, I do not really believe in the whole Big Bang theory itself, so having more than one seems unreasonable. Randerson writes at the end, "We can't predict when it will happen with any precision - all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years." This tells me that it most likely will be difficult to ever prove its true. But I think they need to prove the first Big Bang Theory before anything else.
Hubble photos:
Fascinating. I find it amazing what technology can do. To be able to see the galaxies of the universe from millions of years ago is so cool. And yes, I do believe in these photos of our universe, even if I do not believe in the Big Bang.
20th-century cosmologies:
I found the last paragraph interesting. Not only, as many others mentioned, cosmology is almost too complicated to even argue, many discussions of cosmology and theology turn into conversations of evolution and theology. So, if it is so complicated, how can anyone study it?

I feel I need more information about the theories of one big bang or numerous. I don't understand how they can make some of their time estimates like that the next big bang won't be for atleast 10 billion years. Also, the size and age of the universe is such a hard concept to grasp. Now scientists are proposing that maybe the universe is infinitely old and large. I just have a hard time thinking about that.

I thought the pictures from the Hubble Space Telescope were pretty cool. I cannot believe all those little specks are actually galaxies...CRAZY!!

I am so amazed how scientists are able to come up with their theories of the universe and its structure. I would be interested in learning more about the science behind it. Will religion be more affected one way or the other if we can conclusively find out if there was one big bang or multiple? Either way it shows that the Earth is a lot older than what the bible leads on.

replica handbags
http://www.blognow.com.au/replicahandbags/
replica handbags

replica handbags
http://tlurl.com/?ZyJwsNAf
replica handbags

designer handbags
http://www.desiurl.com/7f54a
designer handbags

replica watches
http://s2.zeroforums.com/index.php?mforum=replicawatches
replica watches

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! xsdyvsdnalmb

I propose --
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy generic biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy generic biagra[/url]

Color me stupid.
How can looking out further and further into space SHOW me things that happened eons ago? And then still longer ago than that?

I just don't get it.