Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Scientific challenges to the beliefs promoted by the Brahma Kumaris so called "World Spiritual University"
  • Message
  • Author
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9674
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post08 May 2014

Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Model re-enacts the history of the universe from 12m years after the big bang until today, 14bn

Ian Sample, science correspondent
theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 May 2014

Researchers have created the most detailed simulation of the history of the universe, complete with exploding gas clouds, swirling galaxies, ravenous black holes and countless stars – born to die in violent supernovae that blast the chemical elements for planets and life out into the cosmos.

Described as one of the most complex computer models ever created, the simulation was crunched on supercomputers that took six months to complete calculations that would have taken an average desktop computer 2,000 years to process.

The simulation draws on the laws of physics and theories for the formation of galaxies and stellar evolution to recreate a large part of the universe from 12m years after the big bang until today, nearly 14bn years later. It will help scientists test how well their theories of the universe work, by comparing the appearance of the virtual cosmos with observations made using telescopes and other instruments.

"We have this problem in astrophysics that we cannot go and do experiments in the lab to test our theories," said Mark Vogelsberger at MIT, who worked on the simulation. "The only way to test them is to compare our models with the best observations out there."

The computer model simulates the behaviour of dark matter, the invisible material that coalesced in the early universe to form a cosmic web, and dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the expansion of the cosmos.

As the universe evolves, the first galaxies form with fledgling suns and supermassive black holes at their centres. Huge expanses of tenuous gas fill the spaces between the galaxies. At first, the only elements are hydrogen and helium. Heavier elements, such as carbon and oxygen, are forged inside stars, before being ejected into space when the stars explode.

The simulation models what happens in a volume of space 350m light years across. One light year – the distance light travels in one year – is roughly 10 million million kilometres. The simulation is the first to show both large-scale structures such as the distribution of gas, and small-scale features such as the number and chemical signatures of stars in each galaxy.

The scientists checked their simulation against images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and found remarkable agreement.
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1458
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post08 May 2014

The BKs have little in common with objective reality, other than, unfortunately, that they are real. So I object!

The concept of modelling and checking your models against observed reality is one way we can test things which are otherwise difficult to prove in other ways, as mentioned in the article.

The BKs test their projections, predictions and other beliefs against what?

Example: If you accept an abstract like ”Time” exists, and develop theories around it, you need to test those theories.

Time is a slippery little fish, so to test any theories, you have to observe, research and match against evidence from the past, then to see if it holds practical utility, you then do some modelling of predictions of the near future based on your theory, and observe. If it fails, you have to rethink.

If you continue to insist, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, you lose all credibility in the area of non-fiction i.e.fact. You may as well accept any belief as equally valid.

Indisputable evidence, from historical (written) records in general and confirmed by archeology, geology etc - and astronomy - disprove the BK view of the past. And the BK predictions / modelling (and revised modelling) of the future have also all repeatedly failed to match observed eventualities too.

Yet BKs continue to insist that Gyan is F-A-C-T fact, that it’s source is the highest unquestionable authority - God - whom they title Gyan ki Sakar (all knowing or Ocean of knowledge) and infallible.

They refuse to consider the notion that their "nice experiences” are just as easily created if ”the Gyan" is accepted as a moral fable, a psycho-religious analogue or normal human experience had when given the right circumstances & methods.

But they need to be ‘special”... I suppose that's pretty normal too when seen alongside other equally sincere ”chosen ones” around the place, or that have existed in the past, or that’ll come along in the future as well.
Offline

ichewgum

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 30 May 2014

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post30 May 2014

HI PP

As the written word does not convey the attitude of the writer accurately, allow me to say, this is written fairly directly but with no malice and look forward to your reply ... Your posting of this article proves nothing about your claims regarding the BK stance of the universe (an eternal Cycle in which there is the appearance of time) ... What it does demonstrate is the "in fashion" quoting of argument from authority fallacy .. You infer that people have to accept your statements as unquestionable because you've quoting some theorectical science article ? But then have the audacity to talk about objectivity !

What did take my interest is your use of the word "indisputable evidence" as my own personal research and interest over many years now has revealed that no such thing exist's regarding the un-observable past ... What we do have, are models, but these models are all built upon specific "assumed" world views ... they could very easily be wrong, including any further calculations that have built upon these assumptions !
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9674
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post30 May 2014

You use the word "studied".

At which university did you study what, and have you published any papers or even articles on the subject?
Offline

ichewgum

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 30 May 2014

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post30 May 2014

ex_I

Please quote your claim of my use of the word studied, as I cannot find it! Your questioning post appears be reinforcing the stance of the "argument from authority fallacy", has already being mentioned ! I was unaware that the only source of intelligent understanding was to found in a collective university or college ! If you have any issues regards my accurate statements please point them out !
Offline
User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1458
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post31 May 2014

ichewgum Bhai gum,

Is ex-l’s misdemeanor of saying you used the word ”study”rather than its simile ”research” ,which you did use, is that a greater or lesser crime than your saying I posted the original article, when in fact it was ex-l? oops.

Now - the topic refers to modelling. OK - simulation then. Pedant.

Modelling which have no semblance to eventualities, or other cross-verifiable realities, are thereby proven inadequate and are discarded.

So. What tests, models, experiments can you put forward that would let us check to see if BK Gyan has any more validity than any other proposition - religious or otherwise? If a proposition is neither provable nor disprovable, it joins an infinite number of other propositions that are also neither provable or disprovable. Believe anything you want, why not?

Just don’t go around telling people your fanciful proposition is true, the other no less fanciful propositions and imaginary friends are memorials of yours, and that the hard evidence which disproves fundamentals of your ”knowledge” is some giant manufactured conspiracy by devils in white coats. Bubblegum has practically no nutritional value, no matter how much or how long you chew!

I suggested in my previous post
to test any theories, you have to observe, research and match against evidence from the past, then to see if it holds practical utility, you then do some modelling of predictions of the near future based on your theory, and observe. If it fails, you have to rethink.

If you continue to insist, despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, you lose all credibility in the area of non-fiction i.e.fact. You may as well accept any belief as equally valid.

Indisputable evidence, from historical (written) records in general and confirmed by archeology, geology etc - and astronomy - disprove the BK view of the past. And the BK predictions / modelling (and revised modelling) of the future have also all repeatedly failed to match observed eventualities too.


OK. You question the word ”indisputable”. Anything of course can be ”disputed". Does that make it so? I could dispute that you, ichewgum, actually exist. I may consider that you are a figment of my imagination, or a CIA infiltrator. All of these suppositions are equally possible and therefore I dispute your existence. How do we settle this? If I put on a tinfoil helmet and you still appear here, then next step is see a shrink? No, we have some other commonsense foundation to work from.

Disputes about history are settled fairly straightforwardly - evidence for and against.

Let me put evidence forward supporting one aspect of historical timelines that contradict Gyan, and you can put forawrd what evidence you have against it. And I mean evidence, not philosophical conjecture.

Radio-carbon dating is based on observing the half-life decay of the carbon-14 radio isotope (this is similar principal used for dating by the half-life decay of uranium into lead,, and other similar processes). We know that tree rings grow to seasons, showing how many years they have grown. Tree rings are visible to the naked eye and any child can count them. If radio-crabon dating was accurate it would match The Tree rings of very old trees. If it does not match, it is not accurate.

It does. Tree after tree. So, what hard, not notional, evidence can you put forward to explain that? Is it chance? Coincidence? Maybe it is . So let’s do a cross-check.

If radio-carbon dating is accurate, then if it was used to date an object like an Egyptian pharoah’s barge that we know the age of from reliable, cross-referenced historical records, it should correlate. If it did not correlate, it would be unreliable as a means of dating.

But it does correlate! So, what hard evidence, not notional sophistry, can you put forward to explain this?
Offline
User avatar

ex-l

ex-BKWSU

  • Posts: 9674
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Universe recreated in massive computer simulation

Post31 May 2014

ichewgum wrote:Please quote your claim of my use of the word studied, as I cannot find it!

Thank Pink Panther for point out the obvious in a more polite way that I will ...
ichewgum wrote:my own personal research ... over many years now has revealed

I am half interested to find out what sort of "research" one can do without studying ... but I already know the answer. It's called, "making things up".

I suspect your "personal research" means reading Fortean Times and similar level of psi-power and conspiracy websites. Correct me if I am wrong ... tell us about the nature of research.

Did you do any practical experimental work? Have you produced any papers? How's your mathematics?

One thing I would say is individuals who use on pretentious worlds like "disingenuous" and rush off to check ' the Big List of All Known Fallacies' to deflect from reasonable questioning of their qualifications to make statements are usually total pricks who know nothing about what they are talking about, and you're straying dangerously near to presenting yourself as one.

Look, bumblebees have greater intelligence than you (at least at navigation), but I would not listen to them spout off about the laws of physics without a little demonstration of their experience and qualifications in the field.

So, link to us any paper you have written or had published. What are your scientific qualifications?

My suspicion is you have none and no experience in the field and I always find it fascinating to know how such individuals can be so sure of themselves and opinions when they have had absolutely no real experience in the field.

Related to the BKs, the answer to that lies in their hugely inflate ... and as Pink has point out recently ... narcissistic world view. In short, they ... without doing anything but sitting on their butts imagining things ... are the Masters of the Ocean of Knowledge and know all the secrets of the 5 Age of Creation etc!

Well, fine, prove it.

Gain the qualification ... write a paper ... most importantly DO THE MATHEMATICS ... and enlighten the world with your wisdom and collect your Nobel PRize. These guys are desperately waiting for you ... (link).

Return to Scientific questions for BKs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest