442 replies to this topic

[The Brain]

So because you and smarter people than you can't figure it out it must be god.... Sure

[brianjakub]

What if all of you are wrong. What if there was no beginning? What if everything there is JUST IS and there was never a point where there was an abscence of anything.

You, me and everyone else are trying to draw conclusions based on a very limited and incapable (in the grand scheme of things) mind.

Sorry, but the level these arguments have degraded to are just childish and petty.

If you want to speculate, that's all well and good. But the 'I'm right and your wrong' is tiresome after the collective pages in all the atheist vs theist and similar themed threads. Disagree and debate sure but at least have the grown up courtesy to respect a differing view point regardless of the source and that goes for both theists and atheists.

The title of this thread is a leading question...... We still do not know how the universe began and from what. We do not know if we are but one universe inside a multiverse (and how that started). We still do not know about dark matter and do not know how many dimensions could exist.

Without occupying all dimensions how can you generate all the answers? If something 'lived' occuping only 2D, the universe and laws would look a lot different. How could one possibly derive answers from so much missing information?? I propose that us existing in 3D is equally missing out on a lot of information.

Another thing to consider is dark matter which makes up apparantly the majority of the universe. We dont even understand it. And from Wiki

According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.^[3][4] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.^[5][6]

We cant observe it so who is to say before the big bang there wasn't a lot of dark matter or similar. Maybe so much of this dark matter/energy converged and blew up? Maybe the big bang is nothing but a huge antimatter/matter explosion??? (perhaps dark matter has dark anti-matter) Of course I am only speculating.... Point is, It's possible that the 'Big Bang' existed inside a matter occupied universe and was not its birth from 'nothing at all'. It wouldn't matter if we could use a telescope to see 'time before the big bang' (we have come close to the point of it) we wouldn't see anything but that doesn't mean that nothing was there.

Another thing. If each particle of matter has an antimatter component and we are made up of matter, then where is all the antimatter? For CERN to produce just 250grams worth of antimatter will take it 2.5 billion years... How many grams of matter are around us?? Why is antimatter so elusive considering it should be made up in equal parts

Anyway here is an article in New Scientist speculating on where all the antimatter could be or ended up
http://www.newscient....html#.VJnz5AAs

I like a debate and I like being corrected or counter points made (how else to learn things) but it would be good to read a thread that's full of stimulating ideas instead of childish bickering. Let's face it, we only exist within a fraction of a fleeting moment inside a universe thats essentially infinite. It's silly to argue as if we know whats really going on.

[brianjakub]

What if empty space is made up of perfectly interlocking quantum particles we call dark energy? What what is the area where empty space comes into contact with matter perfect inner lock is broken causing quantum foam which is dark matter? What if matter is just embedded universes of dark energy? I think that would make the Higgs mechanism dark matter and the Higgs particle the quarks that construct that dark matter

[serp777]

 

 

 

Oh dear god....

Hay, you are religious. So do you think God is involved? How about relating to what has been said.

I don't relate to nonsense

 

Do you have a more logical explanation besides stating there is enough disorder in the non-observable universe to allow for all the order we observe here to happen by chance.  That's the only one I've heard so far, and even that one is statistically impossible.  That's nonsense, not logic.  I don't think it's nonsense to say complex order requires intelligence.  Please, myself and a lot of people smarter than me want to learn.  Why not stop the labeling and name calling and explain why my idea is nonsense or provide an alternative idea.    

 

 

Its a baseless assertion to say complex order requires intelligence. First of all you have no proof that it requires intelligence. Even if there is an original intelligence there no reason a complex order couldn't arise without that intelligence that already exists. Second intelligence is a complex order, so you get an infinite regression if you propose that complex order requires intelligence because intelligence is a complex order which requires intelligence and that intelligence a complex order so that requires intelligence and so on and so fourth.

 

And can you show mathematically that that one is statistically impossible?

 

And finally just because you think the first sentence is illogical and nonsense doesn't mean anything; that's just an argument from personal incredulity.

Edited by serp777, 15 January 2015 - 04:06 AM.

[serp777]

What if empty space is made up of perfectly interlocking quantum particles we call dark energy? What what is the area where empty space comes into contact with matter perfect inner lock is broken causing quantum foam which is dark matter? What if matter is just embedded universes of dark energy? I think that would make the Higgs mechanism dark matter and the Higgs particle the quarks that construct that dark matter

 

I can tell you don't have a physics degree. You're just spouting physics jargon and trying to seem knowledgeable when you really probably couldn't do any of the mathematics to prove any of these assertions. I'm also pretty sure you have no idea what any of this actually means.

 

The higgs particle isn't a quark and doesn't construct dark matter for starters. The higgs particle is called the higgs boson which obviously isn't a quark, it is in fact a spin-0 boson. It is excited from the higgs field during high energy conditions, such as those at CERN.

 

 

These what if statements don't mean anything basically. And who knows what embedded universes of dark energy are. And highly doubtful that has anything to do with the higgs mechanism. These perfect interlocks breaking and causing quantim foam which is dark matter means nothing. Its not a sensible statement.

[brianjakub]

I stand corrected I should have said Higgs boson instead of his particle. I should have said virtual particle instead of quark. all I'm saying is if there is order to empty space and there is more order the further you get away from matter then gravity becomes a change in spatial density. I was just trying to give of physical picture to their words and math can you give me one? how does it come out of space something being put in order

[shadowhawk]

"It's a baseless assertion to say complex order requires intelligence."  Reading this I agree with you.

[shadowhawk]

How about mathematics?

 

 

 

 

 

[The Brain]

How about giving up on god, 2015 years and still no god, what don't you get ...

[shadowhawk]

I suppose you think you have said something rather than nothing,  Wrong...  Based upon what you have said, there is nothing here.

[The Brain]

You need a new hobby, this god stuff just isn't working out for you...

[brianjakub]

 

What if empty space is made up of perfectly interlocking quantum particles we call dark energy? What what is the area where empty space comes into contact with matter perfect inner lock is broken causing quantum foam which is dark matter? What if matter is just embedded universes of dark energy? I think that would make the Higgs mechanism dark matter and the Higgs particle the quarks that construct that dark matter

 

I can tell you don't have a physics degree. You're just spouting physics jargon and trying to seem knowledgeable when you really probably couldn't do any of the mathematics to prove any of these assertions. I'm also pretty sure you have no idea what any of this actually means.

 

The higgs particle isn't a quark and doesn't construct dark matter for starters. The higgs particle is called the higgs boson which obviously isn't a quark, it is in fact a spin-0 boson. It is excited from the higgs field during high energy conditions, such as those at CERN.

 

 

These what if statements don't mean anything basically. And who knows what embedded universes of dark energy are. And highly doubtful that has anything to do with the higgs mechanism. These perfect interlocks breaking and causing quantim foam which is dark matter means nothing. Its not a sensible statement.

 

 

[brianjakub]

  Orville Wright couldn't do the equations to figure the lift developed by an airplane wing, but he could imagine and build a wing, and then tie it into a complete working airplane.

    

I propose a Quantum Creation Event (QCE) where space was into compacted universes so it would be ready to receive the signals of creation, transmit them across the entire universe, and provide the building blocks for a medium to store them.  I think the shape of these universes can be represented by twisting or spinning the vacuum energy of space, into universes of equal size, called virtual quarks or photons.  These virtual quarks are then placed in the shape of a diamond touching each other, called a virtual particle. Every virtual quark is spinning at the speed of light with opposite virtual quarks spinning in opposite directions.  Two virtual quarks opposite each other must orbit each other at the speed of light on a reference axis.  This reference axis is then running through the center of the other two other virtual quarks constructing the diamond shape of a virtual particle.    Every reference axis, of every virtual particle is in a 90-degree reference to all other reference axes in the ether.  Every pair of virtual quarks is orbiting around a reference axis in the opposite direction to the pair of virtual quarks in the virtual particles next to it.  This allows all virtual particles to interlock like gears.  But unlike gears that spin on one axis, the virtual quarks of the virtual particle are rotating (pulsating) around each other on two axes, and interlocking like gears in a three dimensional matrix.

     Each virtual particle is made up of these virtual quarks, spinning on both its reference axes, at the speed of light.  This makes every virtual particle a three dimensional universe, or space, of its own.  Each pair of points or balls in a virtual particle make up a string.  As, these strings interlock, they will form long strings that carry the gravitational force across the universe. (Which will be discussed later in String Theory.) 

    If you repeat this interlocking pattern throughout our universe, in all 3 dimensional directions, you will have a three-dimensional spatial matrix, of interlocking standing waves, with 90-degree reference axes throughout.  A universe-wide singularity (waters of Gen 1:1), became an instantaneous Big Bang, of universe wide, uniform order, in a QCE.  A three dimensional, perfectly clean canvas of light, made up of virtual particles formed out of virtual quarks.  This is what scientists call the space-time continuum. This matrix, or the ether, is a universe waiting to be painted with the spheres of atoms and molecules. The ether will seem as a vacuum because virtual particles, virtual quarks, and photons are too small to detect in the normal sense.  The ether must logically be there, whether we can sense it or not, to carry the energy waves we observe as radio waves, light waves, etc...  Hawking tells how James Clerk Maxwell predicted this.

  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2  Maxwell’s theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton’s theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to.

It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed. In particular, as the earth was moving through the ether on its orbit round the sun, the speed of light measured in the direction of the earth's motion through the ether (when we were moving toward the source of the light) should be higher than the speed of light at right angles to that motion (when we are not moving toward the source). In 1887Albert Michelson (who later became the first American to receive the Nobel Prize for physics) and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth's motion with that at right angles to the earth's motion. To their great surprise, they found they were exactly the same!  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

    Einstein in the special theory of relativity said everything is limited to the speed of light, as Hawking explains.

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

The fundamental postulate of the theory of relativity, as it was called, was that the laws of science should be the same for all freely moving observers, no matter what their speed. This was true for Newton’s laws of motion, but now the idea was extended to include Maxwell’s theory and the speed of light: all observers should measure the same speed of light, no matter how fast they are moving. This simple idea has some remarkable consequences. Perhaps the best known are the equivalence of mass and energy, summed up in Einstein’s famous equation E=mc² (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light), and the law that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light.  A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 2

 

 Since Michelson and Morley, and Einstein made these observations science didn’t think the ether existed. It was the fact that they didn’t imagine the structure of the ether that they came to this conclusion.  If a signal is sent as a wave it must travel around the outside edge of each virtual particle that constructs the matrix of the ether.  But, each of these virtual particles are spinning or pulsating on its reference axes at the speed of light.  That means it is limited by how fast the particles are spinning or pulsating.

    So, why can’t they detect the ether, if it regulates the speed of light?  As in the experiment, no matter how fast a flashlight is moving through the ether, as soon as the light wave leaves the flashlight its speed is relegated to how fast a wave can travel through the ether, which is made up of virtual particles rotating (pulsating) at the speed of light.  As the wave enters the ether it travels around the outside edge of the virtual particles.  The outside edge is rotating at a fixed speed established by God at the creation of the universe.   This established rotational speed of the virtual particles of the ether establishes the speed of light through the medium.

A baseball-throwing machine that uses rubber tires to throw a ball could illustrate this.  No matter how fast you insert the ball into the machine, it comes out the same speed on the other side because it’s relegated to the speed of the wheels.  And you can never insert the ball faster than the wheels are spinning.  For that same reason, nothing can travel through the ether faster than it is pulsating or rotating, which is the speed of light. 

     Light travels through the fluid as a wave.  This wave excites and vibrates the virtual quarks (photons) of the ether, which are particles.  Since, the ether is a fluid-like matrix constructed out of particles, this makes light appear as a particle or photon as the wave travels from one photon to the next through the ether.  So, light is an energy wave traveling through the fluid of the ether, but due to the particle nature of the medium it is traveling through it can appear as a particle to us at times.

  So, could the Higgs Boson be one of these virtual particles made up of 4 virtual quarks?  They haven't actually detected a complete Higgs Boson, just the particles it decays into as it possibly absorbs back into the matrix of the ether.  But it does appear that it takes massive amounts of energy to knock one out of the interlocking ether at CERN.

  Could gravity be caused by an area of lower spatial density in the space time continuum as a result of a disruption of the matrix around matter, by that matter.  And finally could the strong, and weakelectroforce be caused by etheric pressure exerted by the surrounding matrix on matter.   The ninety degree axis relationship of the axises of the virtual particles in the ether could explain the origin of magnetic fields.  And if this 90 degree axis relationship is the foundation of the particle arrangement in the atom, would it explain the atomic orbitals of hydrogen at rest energy.   http://en.wikipedia..../Atomic_orbital

[shadowhawk]

Outstanding prior post.  Obviously thought out and I am still thinking about it.  Let me post another video on fine tuning of the universe.  The fine tuning goes very deep and the "something," we find is remarkable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[brianjakub]

 ether corrected (2).jpg   94.24KB   0 downloads This illustration and explanation might help to better understand my proposal of how space might be constructed.  The four balls represent four virtual quarks, called photons.  Each virtual particle is made up of these virtual quarks, spinning on both its reference axes, at the speed of light.  This makes every virtual particle a three dimensional universe, or space, of its own.  Each pair of points or balls in a virtual particle make up a string.  As, these strings interlock, they will form long strings that carry the gravitational force across the universe. The shape of the virtual quarks are not actually spherical but whatever shape is needed to fill all of the space.  What is the most important thing is that each virtual quark is a universe with a specific spin on a specific axis, orbiting with another virtual quark around a reference axis. These universes of virtual quarks are embedded in the universe of the virtual particle, which consist of four virtual quarks.  So the space time continuum is a three spatial dimensional space made up of virtual particles, which are really embedded compacted universes containing there own three dimensional space.  Each pair of virtual quarks are a two dimensional string interlocking with the string of the adjacent virtual particle.  These interlocking strings carry all forces.  The breaking of the ninety degree interlock (see Higgs mechanism, symmetry breaking Wikipedia below) where matter disturbs the matrix of the ether, and lowers the spatial density of the ether, thus creating an area of lower spatial density in the ether.  Out of this change in spatial density arises the gravitational force.  This is similar to wind rushing into a low pressure system in a weather system.  A low pressure weather system could then be said, " to cause a curvature of the atmosphere" like gravity is said, "to cause a curvature of space."  Both draw matter into them.  As a low pressure system draws in air and moisture it creates a thunderstorm that dissipates the extra energy it draws in back into the atmosphere.  The extra energy the earth draws in from gravity speeds up the atoms of earth.  Some particles are just accelerated and turn molten at the earth's core and radiate heat back into space, but some molecules (like iron) have their axises lined up by the acceleration of gravity, and create a magnetic field by realigning the virtual particles of the ether.  So a molten core and magnetic field are like the thunderstorm of gravity.  

 

http://en.wikipedia....Higgs_mechanism

In the Standard Model, the three weak bosons gain mass through the Higgs mechanism by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. Normallybosons are massless, but the W⁺, W⁻, and Z bosons have mass values around 80 GeV/c². In gauge theory, the Higgs field induces a spontaneous symmetry breaking, where instead of the usual transverse Nambu–Goldstone boson, the longitudinal Higgs boson appears.    

[shadowhawk]

[DukeNukem]

The whole idea of fine tuning is probably the tail wagging the dog:

 

The constants of the universe indeed allow the existence of life as we know it. However, it is much more likely that life is tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. We survive on Earth in part because Earth’s gravity keeps us from floating off. But the strength of gravity selects a planet like Earth, among the variety of planets, to be habitable for life forms like us. Reversing the sense of cause and effect in this statement, as Metaxas does in cosmology, is like saying that it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.

 

https://whyevolution...e-case-for-god/

 

[brianjakub]

how does gravity select? I keep hearing people say things like evolution chose certain characteristics in animals so they could survive in a certain environment how did these inanimate things choose? Do they keep mixing terms like choose and random because random doesn't sound logical to the average person when looking at the amount of design in the universe?

[brianjakub]

The whole idea of fine tuning is probably the tail wagging the dog:

 

The constants of the universe indeed allow the existence of life as we know it. However, it is much more likely that life is tuned to the universe rather than the other way around. We survive on Earth in part because Earth’s gravity keeps us from floating off. But the strength of gravity selects a planet like Earth, among the variety of planets, to be habitable for life forms like us. Reversing the sense of cause and effect in this statement, as Metaxas does in cosmology, is like saying that it’s a miracle that everyone’s legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.

 

https://whyevolution...e-case-for-god/

 

 

[brianjakub]

How can you make the above statement without explaining why it is more likely the other way around?

[DukeNukem]

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked article, which provides the explanation.

[shadowhawk]

I'm guessing you didn't read the linked article, which provides the explanation.

 

I read the article and it does not provide any explanation of fine tuning.  Please explain how?. 
 

[brianjakub]

maybe the undiscovered principal talked about in the link will be discovered at the second coming of Christ

[serp777]

 

Its too bad that the universe isn't fine tuned for life. Constants could be changed so that more life emerges, or life is easier, or that humans sin less. A completely different set of constants could create a universe with entirely different beings.

 

In fact, most of the universe isn't fine tuned for life. The earth isn't even fine tuned for life that much. Increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere to be 5% and suddenly the surface is inhospitable. Take out most of the greenhouse gases and its a frozen wasteland.

 

Life evolved around the conditions of the planet and the laws of physics in order to reproduce most effectively. The fine tuning argument also presupposes that the universe was designed so that life could emerge spontaneously without a miracle or intervention from God. This means that life and particularly humanity are not special, and that God probably doesn't care about what we do with our genitals. Its unlikely he's not that petty.

[Cris Barrows]

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

 

This appears to be as simple as - if there was ever a point when there was nothing then there wouldn't be anything to start something. Or in other words a beginning is impossible - something must always have existed.

 

And we have no precedent for "anything from nothing". The suggestion that quantum events can cause something to appear spontaneously from nothing doesn't help since that "observation" exists in a universe that already exists, i.e. there was something. We simply cannot make any meaningful predictions about the case where nothing existed, not even space - there is no precedent to draw upon.

 

As for complexity requiring intelligence - Again there is no precedent. We know of nothing complex created by an intelligence. Computers currently appear complex and are developed by man's intelligence, but there was never a moment in history when man's intelligence suddenly created a complex computer. If that were possible and since computers seem so useful then why didn't an ancient Egyptian create one?  Computers are evolving and it is not that man's intelligence is creating them but that man's intelligence is simply a component of the evolutionary process. Our observations tell us that everything complex has always been the result of earlier simplicity. 

[serp777]

 

Why is there SOMETHING rather than NOTHING?

 

This appears to be as simple as - if there was ever a point when there was nothing then there wouldn't be anything to start something. Or in other words a beginning is impossible - something must always have existed.

 

And we have no precedent for "anything from nothing". The suggestion that quantum events can cause something to appear spontaneously from nothing doesn't help since that "observation" exists in a universe that already exists, i.e. there was something. We simply cannot make any meaningful predictions about the case where nothing existed, not even space - there is no precedent to draw upon.

 

As for complexity requiring intelligence - Again there is no precedent. We know of nothing complex created by an intelligence. Computers currently appear complex and are developed by man's intelligence, but there was never a moment in history when man's intelligence suddenly created a complex computer. If that were possible and since computers seem so useful then why didn't an ancient Egyptian create one?  Computers are evolving and it is not that man's intelligence is creating them but that man's intelligence is simply a component of the evolutionary process. Our observations tell us that everything complex has always been the result of earlier simplicity. 

 

 

This is a very valid point. Everything in computing is constructed from small, very simple parts and logic. Everything done by a computer is essentially completed by the NAND and NOR gate, which are functionally complete. These are then composed of FET transistors which are incredibly simple and easy. Given that just two different transistors--the PMOS and the NMOS-- can make all of computing possible, the universe likely follows a similar principle. Life also probably came about in a similar process--using very basic structures like the nand and the nor gate. its a little more complicated than that but you get the idea.

 

However, I think that not only has something always existed, but I take the stronger position that the very concept of absolute nothing is a philosophical imagining and is inherently illogical. Even the religious should take this position because God is something and he has always existed. Why would there be nothing instead of something?

 

Furthermore, any definition of nothing has certain attributes and properties that are inescapable. It has the property that there isn't anything or rather that there is the absence of something. This alone shows that it is contradictory because it does have something--the property that there isn't anything.

 

It has other comparable properties too--that nothing is different from something. And since we know that something exists, if nothing is a valid concept and it is real, then there is an infinite amount of nothing in any point of space--it has no volume or dimension so you could put an infinite amount of nothing anywhere. Ultimately why is there something rather than nothing is a bad question--the better question is how everything couldn't exist.
 

Edited by serp777, 13 February 2015 - 08:07 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Every thing that begins has a cause.  The cosmos begin, therefore everything has a cause.

[Cris Barrows]

Every thing that begins has a cause.  The cosmos begin, therefore everything has a cause.

That implies that the cosmos is everything, but also that the cause is outside of the cosmos. But if there is something outside the cosmos then the cosmos cannot be defined as everything, which invalidates your quote "The cosmos begin, therefore everything has a cause". 

 

If the cosmos is everything then it cannot have been caused or had a beginning since such claims require something else. The only possible alternative is that the cosmos has always existed. 

[shadowhawk]

No the cosmos begins.  That does not mean there is nothing else.  In fact you are correct, it implies something beside the Cosmos that does not need a cause.  I said, the cosmos begin to exist and it did.

[serp777]

Every thing that begins has a cause.  The cosmos begin, therefore everything has a cause.

 

How does something begin which had no time before it? Causality works based on time, and doesn't work when there is no time.