A REASONABLE CASE
A discussion about religion, reality and reason
COINCIDENCE TWO (The Setup)
22nd Dec 2013, 1:43 PM
INTRODUCTION, Page 1
INTRODUCTION (GROUND RULES) Page 2
INTRODUCTION (EVOLUTION) Page 3
COINCIDENCE ONE--Page 1
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 2
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 3 (The Briefness of Beryllium)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 4 (Remarkable Resonances)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 5 (GOLDILOCKS AND THE JUST-RIGHT RESONANCES)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page 6 (Eliminating Aliens)
COINCIDENCE ONE, Page Seven (Qualifications and Updates)
COINCIDENCE TWO (The Setup)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 2 (The Ghostly particles)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page 3 (Cooking a Supernova)
COINCIDENCE TWO, Page Four (Made Perfect in Weakness)
COINCIDENCE THREE (A Weak Grasp of Timing)
A WEAK CASE FOR A WEAKLESS UNIVERSE
COINCIDENCE FOUR: HOW STRONG A CASE?
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page One: Two-Dimensional Characters
COINCIDENCE FIVE, Page 2: HIGHER DIMENSION DILEMMA
PAUSE FOR REFLECTION: WAP, SAP, FAP, PAP And CRAP
SETUP FOR COINCIDENCE SIX AND SEVEN
COINCIDENCE SIX: 1/1836 IS YOUR LUCKY NUMBER.
COINCIDENCE SEVEN--You'll Get a Charge Out of This.
OBJECTION ONE: The Size of the Universe
COINCIDENCE EIGHT: Neutron-Proton Mass Difference, or Sometimes it doesn't pay to be Neutral
COINCIDENCE NINE: ANTIMATTER ANGST AND ANOMALIES
OBJECTION TWO: THE PUDDLE IN THE DESERT
COINCIDENCE TEN: A FINE LINE, or THE ALPHA FAIL
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART ONE
COINCIDENCE ELEVEN: EXPANDING CONSTANTLY, PART TWO
COINCIDENCE TWELVE: QUANTUM OF SCIENCE or SOMETIMES BOHR-ING IS GOOD
THE PHILOSOPHER'S FIRING SQUAD
SIX COINCIDENCE CAUSES
EXPLANATION ONE: TAKE A CHANCE
EXPLANATION TWO: HIGH PROBABILITY---POSSIBLY
EXPLANATION THREE: NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF...CREATION?
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSES ENSEMBLE! (Or--Multiple Choice!)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN SPACE: BEYOND THE FIELDS WE KNOW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN TIME: DEJA VIEW
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: PROLOGUE (IMPOSSIBLE BUT TRUE)
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: INTERPRETING THEIMPOSSIBLE
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MANY-WORLDS: HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT TOO.
EXPLANATION FOUR: UNIVERSALITY IN MODAL REALISM: DOES EVERYTHING POSSIBLE EXIST...SOMEWHERE?
EXPLANATION FOUR: ENSEMBLES: AN OVERVIEW
EXPLANATION FIVE: SMOLIN'S SELECTION
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY OR REWINDING THE WATCHMAKER
EXPLANATION SIX: THINKING CREATIVELY: APPROACHES AND LIMITS
EXPLANATION SIX: SOMEONE ELSE'S LAB EXPERIMENT
EXPLANATION SIX: SOME IMPLICATIONS
CHOOSING AMONG THE EXPLANATIONS
TORNADO IN JUNK SCIENCE
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PROLOGUE)
THE PROBLEM OF VALUES
EXISTENTIAL CRISIS IN EXISTENCE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART ONE
SOCIOBIOLOGY'S SHORTCOMINGS, PART TWO
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART ONE
SOCIAL RELATIVISM ISN'T RELEVANT, PART TWO
IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIVE CLUES
ARROGANCE AND FAITH
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO
SPECIAL CLAIMS, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
VOICES AND PRESENCES
(A) PURPOSE FOR THE UNIVERSE
AN ORDERED UNIVERSE--MADE TO ORDER?
FREE MINDS AND FREE WILL
THE PROVIDENT REALITY AND THE EQUALITY OF RAIN
THE HIDDEN NATURE OF THE CREATOR
THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION
Rate this comic
22nd Dec 2013, 1:43 PM
I don't want to give the impression that we aren't pretty sure the first generation of stars were just hydrogen and helium. As shown
, primordial clouds have been found that are just hydrogen and helium, no higher elements. (It also discusses in detail the difficulty of trying to catch glimpses of that earliest generation of stars.) We'll probably see a lot more when the next generation of infrared space telescopes are launched around 2018.
The universe starts to become less opaque relatively early, about when it's 380,000 years old, but doesn't get to less than 10% opaque till it's about a billion years old. So it's a gradual thing.
The important thing is that supernovas are essentially to spreading the elements that are "cooked" in stars out to the rest of the universe.
Annnnd that's essential to Coincidence Two.
22nd Dec 2013, 4:05 PM
Sure a lot of what you are saying may sound great if you base your findings purely on creating something from something, but what if it were possible to create something from nothing without the need of a God...
Steven Hawking said, “Because of the law of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
29th Dec 2013, 2:12 PM
We'll get to gravity; and string theory, which Hawking is basing his statement in the GRAND DESIGN on.
Hawking's a brilliant man, but many of his peers are not quite as sanguine about string theory as he is.
And string theory's ensemble-explanation for many of the coincidences explored here, for reasons I will eventually get into, is lacking in many respects.
Again, this will take a little time to get this all out here.
12th Jan 2014, 3:10 PM
There are something's I too disagreed with Hawking, such as when he was taking about when the expanding universe eventually started to reverse directions and collapse; time would go also backwards; He then said you would be seeing everything in reverse. This made no sense to me, because your brain would also be going in reverse so you wouldn't see anything differently than before; being said that could mean the universe is collapsing right now, but from our perspective it appears to be expanding.
Post a Comment