[redacted]

If it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.

Dammit, once again I can't tell who that is narrating... the British guy at 20 or so seconds... he sounds familiar

Yes, why is that?

How come the many and various creators of the universe never mention this cool stuff in their books?

Seems impossible that we`re the only life in this universe, even the only intelligent life seems like a stretch.

of course life is everywhere

That number of merely 60 times bigger isn't a typical universal scale number, so I looked back at the figures given here and online, and it seems that when people compare the sizes of galaxies, for some reason, they only compare their breadth, and not the other two spacial dimensions.

IC 1011 may be 60 times larger across, but we're not comparing linear distances. Even if we assume every galaxy has the same thickness, that's 60 x 60 x 1= 3,600 times bigger in volume. If we imagine IC 1011 is also thicker, that would have to get multiplied out to get the true volumetric comparison. So if it's 60 x thicker (who knows?), then it's actually 216,000 times larger (volume).

>> ^messenger:

That number of merely 60 times bigger isn't a typical universal scale number, so I looked back at the figures given here and online, and it seems that when people compare the sizes of galaxies, for some reason, they only compare their breadth, and not the other two spacial dimensions.
IC 1011 may be 60 times larger across, but we're not comparing linear distances. Even if we assume every galaxy has the same thickness, that's 60 x 60 x 1= 3,600 times bigger in volume. If we imagine IC 1011 is also thicker, that would have to get multiplied out to get the true volumetric comparison. So if it's 60 x thicker (who knows?), then it's actually 216,000 times larger (volume).


To summarise "That's a fuck of a lot of stars..."

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^messenger:
That number of merely 60 times bigger isn't a typical universal scale number, so I looked back at the figures given here and online, and it seems that when people compare the sizes of galaxies, for some reason, they only compare their breadth, and not the other two spacial dimensions.
IC 1011 may be 60 times larger across, but we're not comparing linear distances. Even if we assume every galaxy has the same thickness, that's 60 x 60 x 1= 3,600 times bigger in volume. If we imagine IC 1011 is also thicker, that would have to get multiplied out to get the true volumetric comparison. So if it's 60 x thicker (who knows?), then it's actually 216,000 times larger (volume).

To summarise "That's a fuck of a lot of stars..."


Stop with the technical jargon, egghead

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^Mammaltron:
How come the many and various creators of the universe never mention this cool stuff in their books?

This is one of my biggest conflicts with religion. Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still. Also, I suppose the Bible is more concerned with the "why" question of humanity rather than the "how" question.


your last sentence hits it. The Bible/Quran/Torah/Sruti/etc are not science books or history books even tho some tend to read them as such

Hey, just because we could fit 216,000 of our galaxies into IC1011 doesn't mean we aren't the center of attractive in the universe.

It should probably make someone a little skeptical of that idea though.

I feel tiny.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I feel tiny.


It's alright you can buy pills on the internet for that.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.

I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.

I love going outside on a clear night with a pair of binoculars and looking at Andromeda.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.
I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.


Remarkably well named too. 92atm and over 700°K on the surface? sounds like hell to me

Err...except for all the times the bible mentions stars, which, of course, we used to actually see at night.

Were you expecting a postscript along the lines of "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
>> ^Mcboinkens:

This is one of my biggest conflicts with religion. Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon.

Do you think there is a galaxy named OU812?

>> ^deathcow:

of course life is everywhere


I'm inclined to agree. Considering the shear wealth of life on this planet alone with it's ability to survive what we thought just fifty years ago was impossible conditions. It sure seems to me that life isn't just a possibility, but the norm. It's certainly been shown in the lab that life strives to exist, that it just isn't a random event. And we as well now know that life began on this planet very early in it's own life. Indeed I think that even intelligent life (though I think that is a bad term in and of itself) is inevitable given time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Given life on any planet I would not say that intelligence is inevitable. For us, intelligence and self-awareness was just a particular adaptation - that didn't have to happen, we could have gotten an extra row of teeth instead.

Still though, given the vast amount of potential life-bearing planets out there, it must happen sometimes - and that's enough. That's why i think something like the Prime Directive is keeping us isolated. I also doubt that radio waves are used for interstellar chatting. Subspace communication FTW!

>> ^Xaielao:

>> ^deathcow:
of course life is everywhere

I'm inclined to agree. Considering the shear wealth of life on this planet alone with it's ability to survive what we thought just fifty years ago was impossible conditions. It sure seems to me that life isn't just a possibility, but the norm. It's certainly been shown in the lab that life strives to exist, that it just isn't a random event. And we as well now know that life began on this planet very early in it's own life. Indeed I think that even intelligent life (though I think that is a bad term in and of itself) is inevitable given time.

[redacted]

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon. No planets, galaxies, nebula. Then again, they didn't have words for those objects back then and it would have been a little difficult to explain something they didn't know existed, but still.
I don't disagree with your general point but I thought I'd mention that Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus.

I don't see how that is relevant. Lucifer is latin(lucem ferre) for light-bearer. Obviously there would be overlap for the 3rd brightest object in the sky and an angel(turned evil) named that. It doesn't mention the planet Lucifer in the Bible, only the fallen angel.


From your response to shimfish I see that what you were looking for was new knowledge; that wasn't clear to me in your original post.

But know that, in the Vulgate, the word lucifer appears only twice and neither time does it refer to Satan. In 2 Peter 1:19 it refers specifically to the planet. In Isaiah 14:12 it's used metaphorically for the king of Babylon. Not until the King James translation, I believe, was "Lucifer" used as a name for Satan.

http://www.cresourcei.org/lucifer.html

60 times the size? Now I feel like my penis is small.

>> ^berticus:

If it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.


I just finished watching Contact today after a decade since my previous viewing and then here I see your quote from it. Funny.

Fuckin galaxies... How do THEY work?!

Goddamn cliffhanger.

i think you've clearly missed the point of the various holy books. theyre not science books. theyre not history books. its no different than taking any philosophical or theological book, ancient or modern, and calling bullshit on account of it not mentioning some far off nebula as if that means anything as it pertains to philosophy and/or theology

"why not mention something like, 'god created the stars, including the sun'? then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our sun" why not? because what the hell does that have to do with the philosophical nature of the scriptures?

again, you want it to be a science book but its not and why should it be?
>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^shimfish:
Err...except for all the times the bible mentions stars, which, of course, we used to actually see at night.
Were you expecting a postscript along the lines of "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
>> ^Mcboinkens:
This is one of my biggest conflicts with religion. Not one mention of anything outside of the sun and the moon.


Errrrrr.......you clearly missed the point of my post. No mention of anything humans didn't already know about. If I created a full-fledged universe, I'd definitely hint at the fact that there were other things outside of the Earth, Moon, and points of light that are blatantly obvious. Also, it seems to differentiate between the Sun and stars. Why not mention something like, "God created the stars, including the Sun"? Then people would be like oh, all those points of light are just different versions of our Sun. "In 1600 A.D., Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for heresy, for asserting that the Sun is a star, among other things. It wasn't until the mid-1800s, after the work of Galileo, Kepler, Huygens, Newton, and finally, Friedrich Bessel, that it[meaning the sun was a strar] could be proven. The distance to other stars was calculated, and it was found that stars were about as bright as the Sun, when you account for the difference in distance. Also, chemical composition and surface temperature could be determined, and this added further evidence."
It mentions Pleiades and Orion, both of which received there name prior to when the book of Job was written, so no credit there. Besides, those are just constellations.
Why would you not expect any sort of indication that space was bigger than we though? Why leave us in the dark? Why not reveal that the Earth is a globe and not a flatland, like it implies when it mentions the four corners?
"The Third Day
The first appearance of dry ground. The further cooling of the surface set in motion a process of natural contraction, uplifting and motion of the crust (the process continues today, called "plate tectonics"). The earth changed from a smooth one-level molten "cue ball" to a planet with an irregular surface with ocean basins and continental landmasses. With dry ground available, the first plants were made to grow in great abundance. (Genesis 1:9-13)
The Fourth Day
With the sky now clear, the sun, moon and stars were dependably visible. They were to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years." The sun marked the day (sunset to sunset), the moon the month (new moon to new moon), and the stars the seasons (constellations are seen in particular seasons e.g. "Orion" is visible in winter in the northern hemisphere, which is summer in the southern hemisphere). (Genesis 1:14-19)"
A mention of dirt, but not gas? It just bugs me that the only things mentioned were the things that were already known about.

Nothing about that says planet. It simply states with analogies that prophecy is a guiding light in the darkness. Nothing here about how Lucifer (or morning *STAR*) is a planet. Back then it was just another bright spot in the sky, and thus *tada*! a star.

2 Peter 1:19-21

New International Version (NIV)

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

>> ^berticus:

If it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.


or it wasn't "made" for anybody, we're just here for the ride

[redacted]

[redacted]

@RadHazG: First, pointing out that they called the planet a "star" does not change the fact that the dot of light in the sky was Venus. Second, your argument is addressing a point which I already admitted was a misunderstanding of Mcboinkens's original comment. Third, lucifer means "light-bearer", not "morning star", so your argument would fall apart even if it were relevant. "Morning Star" is an English creation.

@Mcboinkens: "It doesn't mention the planet Lucifer in the Bible, only the fallen angel." ... "Right, neither time does it refer to Satan."

2 Peter 1:19 sounds to me like they are, at the very least, using the planet's name metaphorically. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's clearly not a reference to Satan like you originally claimed.

In Isaiah it's clearly metaphorical as the King sought to rise higher than God only to fail and fall, the same way Venus rises low in the sky in the morning but then sets without ever climbing very high.

[redacted]

@Mcboinkens:

There is a very important fact underlying this entire argument about Venus that you seem to be missing. Mentioning a bright point of light in a Bible verse is not the same thing as mentioning a planet in a Bible verse.

The Peter verse is not mentioning anything other than a bright source rising in your heart. Not at all a reference to even anything astronomical, so that's not worth mentioning anymore. The Isaiah passage could be referring to anything in the sky, or even anything at all quite frankly. It could be talking about the moon, or the sun, or any other star, or planet they thought was a star.

Furthermore, that metaphor is complete trash, because if it was referring to Venus, it would be completely wrong, as Venus travels across the entire sky, just like any other planet. There are nights where Venus is very high into the sky, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

There is no use arguing about it though, the Bible is written and won't change.

[redacted]

Another cool science video derailed with the usual tedious religion discussion.