It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Vacuum Catastrophe and the CLEAR Design of the Universe

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:54 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

The only reason that prediction is so wrong is because they made the incorrect assumption that dark energy (aka the cosmological constant) must be made up of this vacuum energy. The idea is that empty space is actually full of energy, virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and so the obvious conclusion is that vacuum energy must be causing the metric expansion of the universe, meaning that dark energy must be vacuum energy. But as you've mentioned, the numbers simply don't add up, it's the worst prediction in all of physics.

I do however have a theory capable of explaining this conundrum without requiring such an exact cancellation of vacuum energy with a small amount left over, and without modifying quantum mechanics. I'm not going to attempt to explain the answer here because it's a little complicated, but I have created several threads on the subject:

Negative Energy & Negative Space - A New Theoretical Model
Unmasking Dark Matter and Dark Energy (with simulation results)

edit on 16/9/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:20 AM
a reply to: Kashai

Absolutely possible for some.

Dimensions beyond 3D are within the consciousness parameters of those able to transcend.
edit on 16-9-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 06:27 AM
I'm just going to throw out my two cents. Since we can't prove that multiple universes exist, however we know this one exploded into existence. We also know roughly when that happened. Statistically speaking, if this is the ONLY universe, I believe earth is too young to have hit those miracle dice rolls. We're talking about the same probability of a Monkey typing out Shakespeare word for word by randomly hitting keys on a keyboard. In fact I would think it more probable for a Monkey to do that, then for life to have been created here in this limited about of time.

Again though, I'm throwing out the idea that other universes exist, since it cannot be proven. Clearly if we're in a never-ending cycle of universes being birthed, then yes I would have to concede to that possibility.

I'll have to read the video here later.

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 08:11 AM
a reply to: Aedaeum

Firstly, life wasn't just a completely random event. The laws of physics as they are allow life to emerge as a result given the right conditions. Secondly, there's some estimated 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. That number is incomprehensibly large. It's rather silly to talk about odds with such mind-bendingly large numbers. Given enough stars, each with certain probabilities of harboring life-friendly planets and some 13,000,000,000 years for life to emerge it makes little sense to say "the odds are too low!".

Even if your premise was correct (that life is a completely random event, which it isn't), give me 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 rooms each with the possibility of supporting monkeys and 13,000,000,000 years and I'll give you Shakespeare.

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: neoholographic

The universe isn't random and the question is are most things really random?

Here's a theory (my own):

There's no such thing as random. Only our inability to grasp the true nature of things.

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 12:43 PM
a reply to: Aedaeum

So why couldn't the first monkey on the first typewriter recreate the works of Shakespeare? In this scenario, each monkey has the equal chance of completing the works of Shakespeare as the next. Each monkey is unique to that instance of the 'test'. What other monkeys do has no bearing on that first monkey. In fact, this could happen more than once.

It is kind of like roulette in Vegas. Next to many tables they will have a board showing the past few winning numbers. However, those previous 'wins' have absolutely nothing to do with the current spin. It will be determined on it's own set of influences.

So, if the first monkey has the same chance of typing Shakespeare as the 127th million and the roulette ball hits 00 in the first spin and these results are truly random, why then do we need a creator? Couldn't we just be in a random universe that just makes sense when the end result is observed? It is kind of like a cake, when the ingredients are laid out on the counter it doesn't look like a cake. But when it comes out of the oven it all makes perfect sense on how it was all put together.

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 02:51 PM
a reply to: GetHyped

It has never been observed that life can be created randomly because of physical processes. I don't know how you can make such a claim. I also know how many stars their are, but I'm specifically talking about the age of earth in comparison to the age of the universe.
edit on 16-9-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 04:30 PM
a reply to: Aedaeum

God of the Gaps fallacy. "We don't know every detail of life's origins therefore it was [some supernatural entity]".
edit on 16-9-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

The real question should be, who created this particular Universe, and why do they insist on cloaking that information?

Intelligent design indeed, how many were designed before this, and what are the results expected from this Universe.

I find it a waste of time trying to figure out if it was designed, I want to know who keeps it a secret,

And why this Universe is so damned important to every other reality, it is almost like, this is the LAST attempt to be made to repair Universal DNA, Multi-Infinity DNA is now gone methinks, all the pressure is now HERE.

posted on Sep, 16 2014 @ 11:57 PM
I don'tthink you'll ever convince any of these people of intellignet design. You laid it out very well but some people will just ignore the facts forever and just barf up whatever nonsense they have to justify their way of thinking....Some people just want to believe their religion science....a reply to: neoholographic

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 04:26 AM
a reply to: GetHyped

It's only a fallacy if it can be proven as such. Since neither of us have proof, your guess is just as good as mine.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:09 AM
a reply to: Aedaeum

No, it's a fallacy because your logic is broken. Not knowing something does not mean magical explenations become valid. "I simply can't believe the universe isn't designed!" is not an argument. You've offered absolutely no evidence for any of your claims and assumptions.
edit on 17-9-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 05:33 AM
a reply to: GetHyped

lol, and you've offered no evidence of yours, so what's your point?

You call my logic broken, however it's entirely your opinion, which holds no weight what-so-ever.

*wonders when opinion suddenly became axiomatic*

Just because you can't wrap your mind around something, doesn't mean it's a fallacy.
edit on 17-9-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 06:02 AM
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Have you ever looked into SVT (Super Fluid Vacuum theory).
A Bose Einstein Condensate, within a super fluid vacuum would exhibit many behaviours of the Universe if we can just accept that space (and therefore the ultimate reality we perceive) might be quantised (i.e made up of little bits that are made up of other sub quanta and so on and we just observe averaged out effects of energy conservation).

Instead of space becoming folded or curved- SVT suggests the possibility of a density gradient of Quanta existing within space which provides a basis for some of the more un-intelligable observations we make ( curved space, black holes, dark energy, non locality etc).

Once you factor in the effects of low energy/low momenta quanta interacting differently to high energy/high momenta quanta - many so called issues between General relativity and Newtonian observations can potentially be rationalised.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: Aedaeum
I'm not the one making the claim that the universe must've been designed. The burden of proof is on you. Arguing from personal incredulity is illogical. Present the actual evidence. "It just can't be so!" Is not evidence. You speak of statistics yet show no math. Not only that, but you then (implicitely) invoke a supernatural explanation for which there is no evidence for and that cannot be tested as a more plausible answer.
edit on 17-9-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:11 PM

originally posted by: wyrmboy12
I don'tthink you'll ever convince any of these people of intellignet design. You laid it out very well but some people will just ignore the facts forever and just barf up whatever nonsense they have to justify their way of thinking....Some people just want to believe their religion science....a reply to: neoholographic

Good point and like I said, Science runs into these things all the time when they look to see what determines the outcomes. They don't find naturalness. They find fine tuning and purpose that they can't explain.

Like I said, it's like rolling a pair of dice. You have random events occur when people roll the dice but when you look at why the dice can only roll a 2-12, you know it's because of a designer that predetermined the range of probabilities that can occur.

Again, science looks for naturalness but they find design everytime they look to try and see what determines the range of probable outcomes. Look at what they call the axis of evil. Cosmologist said there's no special place in the universe and they predicted things like the variation in radiation should be distributed randomly. When actual observation came back even the atheist Laurence Krauss was surprised to see this isn't the case.

Without getting overly technical, the Copernican and cosmological principles require that any variation in the radiation from the CMB be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe, especially on large scales. Results from the WMAP satellite (early 2000s) indicated that when looking at large scales of the universe, the noise could be partitioned into “hot” and “cold” sections, and this partitioning is aligned with our ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This partitioning and alignment resulted in an axis through the universe, which scientists dubbed “the axis of evil”, because of the damage it does to their theories. This axis passes right through our tiny portion of the universe. Laurence Krauss commented in 2005:

“ But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

Most scientists brushed the observation off as a fluke of some type, and many theories were created to explain it away. Many awaited the Planck mission. The Planck satellite was looked upon as a referee for these unexpected (and unwelcome) results. The Planck satellite used different sensor technology, and an improved scanning pattern to map the CMB. In March 2013, Planck reported back, and in fact verified the presence of the signal in even higher definition than before!

There are cosmologists and scientists who recognize the signal for what it is, and recent articles have started talking about the need for some “new physics” to explain the results. Even on the Planck mission website Professor Efstathiou states:

“Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don’t know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that’s exciting”

It happens all the time whether you look at the Vacuum Catastrophe, the axis of evil, consciousness and more. It's like playing a game of Poker. The cards you're dealt are random but the probable hands that you can have are not random but designed by the person who invented Poker.

This is what we see in the universe. Things can behave randomly but they do so within a range of probabilities that can be extraordinarily fined tuned and they don't show naturalness as materialism would predict.

edit on 17-9-2014 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: Jukiodone

we just observe averaged out effects

Then this would have too include,, Chaos therory,,,cause if it can go wrong ,,it will.

Cause in any average situation,,by luck or happenstance,,something will naturally ,,fukushima up.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 12:27 PM
a reply to: BobAthome

or if it is all just a
" roll of the Dice,
,well then,,therefor the House allways wins.
then well the game is rigged,,in favour of the House.

or is Anybody in the House at all ??

though,,if there was indeed,,a house/mansion,,too roll dice in ,,in the first place,,

at least that is my take on ,,"Unified Field Theroy",,,or "the House always Wins",,,by,

Rusty Bedsprings,, and

I.P. Knighthly.

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: neoholographic

The failure in the reasoning on most of these threads is not recognizing that structure is not a sure sign of cleverness. It can be the remains of processing. Lot and lots of processing from a fuzzy state.

You use the constraints of dice gaming to illustrate external rules being imposed on potential outcomes. Initial boundaries, when perceived, are not necessarily deliberate, nor absolute in controlling outcomes. The dice may fall off the table, twirl excessively, bounce into a stack or lean upon each other. These added outcomes are not part of your ALLOWED outcomes because your vision is foreshortened by the psychological need to have a 'Prime Doer'. If you throw in the 'Now' aspect (Dice may show different results on the same roll depending on when you press the pause.) every single 'instant' instance needs to be examined independently. This would cause all of your supporting arguments to fall away, right off the table. Because every moment would need to be pressed for every iota of information to declare what the current moment means. Every analysis would bring a different conclusion.

You may be wasting your time with this pondering.

If I am going to criticize, I should brandish something other than 'nyah, nyah', so here.

The only natural burden that I see, emplaced on the Universe, is that it must evolve. To evolve it requires a platform, some constancy to base it's movement from toward a future. It does not have an initial plan to it other than this. It will winnow away that which bars its path and actively promote that which serves evolution. It will maintain the 'platform' until something better arises from it's bumptious meandering through the fractal possibilities arising from prior conditions. All of the postulations and counter protestations are about an evolved system, one for which we are still guessing as to its ground state. We really have no clue presently as to what that moment was like before the arrival of this 'heap'.

If something awesome designed this existence, it would be at least this elegant in execution. That is the mark of intelligence. The intervening sloppy and stupid moments are being honed away, eon after eon, showing the true shape of things.
A really good god would only need one parameter (Let there be...) to complete his efforts in creating an Universe. The added conditions are merely generated by the iterative actions defined by that one parameter.
edit on WednesdaypmWed, 17 Sep 2014 15:20:18 -050032014 by largo because: clarifying (if that is possible!)

posted on Sep, 17 2014 @ 03:08 PM
I'm going to say something utterly simple. It's almost embarrassing to write it, given the number of posts in this thread that I don't even understand what they're talking about.

But, in my opinion, don't we have to start from the fact that we are already here?
I mean, I've woken up in a strange bed after a night of drinking and going around the town and causing trouble, and thought "What are the odds that I got through all of that, and I still have my wallet, and my phone, and I wasn't mugged or arrested, and I found a place to sleep", but it's also silly to think that way, because it DID happen, so all the other possibilities collapsed already.

So, maybe the odds of Earth and life being what they are are infinitesimal, but if things weren't exactly how they were, we wouldn't be here to think about the way things are and how odd it is that they are that way. So in my mind, there is a 100% chance that we would find ourselves in this exact universe with such and such parameters, considering this question. Because if anything was a smidge different, we just wouldn't be talking about it at all. There's no chance that we'd be having this thread on ATS if the vaccuum was too high, or wahtever, there would be no ATS, or us, or anything.

To me it's a bit like living on top of a volcano. And then when the volcano goes off, saying "Out of the whole planet, what are the odds that a volcano would go off right under me." But that's silly, because it's only happening because you ARE living on that volcano, and that's the only place you could have been to even make that observation.

I don't know, I think I'm actually just stupid.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in