Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Science of God

page: 16
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Time is a man made measurement of space..


All that is is space..

Without life their would be no need for time..

It is not universal..

Unless you believe ITS ALL ALIVE..



Good luck




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax I think you misunderstand, SugarCube. The evidence doesn't come from watching supernovas and galaxies expand. It comes from observations that clearly show light from very faraway objects undergoing a nonlinear increase in redshift with distance.
:
I fear my links have been falling on stony ground.
I provided the references for all this stuff in earlier posts.


I believe that you have misunderstood me. In quoting your original post, I was not indicating the expansion of supernovae and galaxies within their own right, but as point markers within an expanding universe just as you have explained. My own point was that the expansion of these notional markers does not preclude an expansion of the space boundary behind which they reside.


Originally posted by Astyanax No, the universe does not have a centre of that kind (i.e. a point). Its expansion is isotropic, not outward from a point - just as is, incidentally, that of an inflating balloon. The expansion is everywhere the same; it is counterbalanced by gravity in the presence of large concentrations of matter (which is why galaxies and ATS members don't fly apart), but it is still very much there.
:
This isotropic expansion is also the reason why the 'rip' in space shown by your diagram does not occur.


Again, I agree, but I feel that you have interpreted my diagram incorrectly which makes you think that I disagree - perhaps caused by my negligence in stating that I have represented a "slice" of the universe rather than a 3-dimensional model. It is not clear that the expansion is "everywhere" the same and some models have been put forward that suggest a giant "slug" shaped universe.

However, just as the blast from a regular explosion need not be regular and uniform according to the foibles of the initial reaction, so the universe need not be regular even though it occurs from a point at a notional explosive centre (not necessarily a dimensional centre). With this in mind, the isotropic expansion does not indicate why a rip cannot occur.


Originally posted by Astyanax Again, (the limit of space) is a misunderstanding, somewhat similar to spy66's: the universe is not contained within anything, nor is it expanding into anything. There is no evidence for boundary effects at the limits of the universe; we cannot, in any event, observe those limits, since parts of the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.


There is no misunderstanding on my part: you are confusing my assertions in your reply, which quite surprises me. Clearly, at the immediately observable limits, the matter of the universe is expanding into space. My point is that space itself may also be expanding and, as you indicate, into nothing at all (i.e. a non-dimensional aspect). Yes, I agree, we cannot observe that boundary between physical space and the non-dimensional zone.

As for evidence, there is no evidence as to whether it does or does not exist, however, the donut-shaped universe (i.e. a 3-D ring) is accepted as a possible shape for the universe and I am merely asserting that the hole in the middle may not have always been there.

I would also indicate that regarding topology, the donut could be slug shaped or (even) cup shaped as long as the hole is not precluded. Depending on where you live, although topologically different, the donut may also be "spherical" and with a hole in the middle where the jam is injected. Clearly, my point is that the absence of matter in a zone may be significant to the point whereby it has an effect on space itself.

I think I need to work on some more diagrams to help explain myself fully.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 



Ive got to admit, the prospect of expanding into a non dimensional zone is completely mind boggling.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


So, here is a diagram to help explain my previous posts:



We have 2 universe topologies, the "round" and "long" balloons which are essentially the same and the "donut".

Now, "space" is the black zone and the non-dimensional zone is the white plain on which they reside. I had to nip and tuck the diagram so the time cone isn't what it necessarily appears to be, if you see what I mean.

So, after the Big Bang we see expansion of space, the black stuff, and matter also filling it but behind the bleeding edge. As matter expands through space and time it forms stars, planets and all kinds of celestial bodies.

However, there is no evidence that there is anything "beyond" space; space is the medium in which the matter resides but does not necessarily exist beyond the inception of matter (i.e. as a pre-existing infinite zone).

The skin of each balloon represents a non-permeable border between the reality of space and the non-dimensional zone. Matter expands within the confines of the balloon essentially in an outward direction toward the skin.

Hopefully this clarifies some of my other posts.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I do not think our comprehensions via a dimensional understanding is correct in what it is that it really is we are swimming around in, from person to planet to the universe to the expansion of the Universe, within the great heights of its Life it lives within..

Just as if we were not alive, we would know nothing, or not exist, from what we understand and if we do not exist, well then neither would the science of God, or the science of the Universe, for if we were not alive it would not exist, to be observed, which therefore would make it nothing as well.

Its all about the life.. That is the science of God. Just because we do not understand it now, does not mean we will not remember it either. Perhaps it just goes back to the nothing at all..



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Adrifter
 


I'm not sure that I entirely grasp what you are saying, Adrifter, however, you raise a paradox that concerns a question of existence for anything that is not experienced. Would God exist without mankind? In a religious sense, God did exist before mankind. In a wider sense of God as a mechanical action of creation (i.e. the application of a "tag" to the creative process) then we may assume that God also existed before mankind since we have the fossil evidence to prove it.

Now, as an existential we may consider how we fit into the great scheme of things but this does tend to make us believe that we are somehow pivotal in the universe - however, contrary to this we may understand that stars will be born and die regardless of whether we continue the human practise of whooping and stick throwing and all die out tomorrow.

We may know nothing of God per se, that is the nature of God, but we may go some way to understanding the process and method that is employed in the universe to create and sustain what we perceive about us. If God is anything, surely "it" is a creative force and the largest example of a creative force that we can experience must surely be the universe itself?

Although beyond our comprehension in entirety, we can conjecture on a method and process of the universe that, in many ways, brings us closer to a spiritual cognition of the inseparability of life and the apparently inanimate matter which surrounds us.

Although accepting that our comprehension is limited, it is perhaps comforting to know that simply by being here we play a role in the cycle of a great architecture that stretches beyond our imagination and across time and space itself.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 


What I meant to say is.. God would not exist without life. The World, the universe, Nothing would exist without the life to experience it. In my opinion. How could that be a paradox if it exist without the witness of life or for that matter intelligence? Why must it make sense in a human way of wit and intelligence? I respect the art of science but when it comes to the universe and how it ticks. Humpf we don't know anything.
I dunno I wish we could sit at a table and talk about it, instead of a 2d message board. Aristotle talk I like..

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Adrifter]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Adrifter
 


Stuff did happen before life formed on this planet though. The great thing about light is we know how fast it travels. When we see light from a certain distance away we know how long ago it happened. The universe is billions of years older than our solar system. Stuff happened before life, at least life here. So then by your logic the only one left to observe it into existence would be god.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by Toughiv
 


So, here is a diagram to help explain my previous posts:





[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]


This diagram just show us how far away from the facts we really are?

The Big Bang cone looks like a shaped charge if you ask me. Why would a Big Bang explode in just one direction?

That just dont make sense at all.

There must be a mass surrounding the Blast that is greater then the force of the blast if the universe is to be shaped like that?
Or to be like any of the shapes on that diagram???

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Hi Spy66, the cone shape is simply a representation of a timeline, from the big bang to the development of galaxies and what have you. It doesn't represent the universe in entirety.

I was trying to use the timeline concept to illustrate the expansion of the various shapes over time, but I clearly failed in my enterprise
Sorry if I misled anybody.

In terms of the other shapes, it seems just as likely that the universe could expand in an irregular fashion as opposed to a perfectly symmetrical sphere. We do not know enough about the big bang to ascertain whether it was a regular expansion from a point or a "spewing" of material like the solar flares from the Sun.

Such irregularity could generate an elongated tube or a "rugby ball" shape. The donut is a representation of the concept of the creation of a non-dimensional zone where matter has expanded beyond the central ring and space, as a symbiotic presence, also recedes to create a "hole". The flattened shape of the donut could equally be spherical but with a contained hole in the centre.

Back to the drawing board for me!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
This thread is going to keep me up all night.


Originally posted by SugarCube
In quoting your original post, I was not indicating the expansion of supernovae and galaxies within their own right, but as point markers within an expanding universe just as you have explained. My own point was that the expansion of these notional markers does not preclude an expansion of the space boundary behind which they reside.

No, no! SugarCube, please read the link, here it is again. What we are talking about is a lot more subtle than stars moving apart in the sky.

The objects being observed don't reside behind any boundary, unless you mean they're beyond the zone of 'nearby' galaxies for which the Hubble expansion is linear; these objects still occupy the same space we do and it isn't as if we've seen them moving in the sky or anything.

As for other geometrical models, WMAP and its ilk have joykillingly eliminated every possibility - all those anyone has been able to think of, anyway - but one: boring old flatness. It's a pity; that toroidal universe of yours would be fascinating, cycling through endless repeats along two of its dimensions.

You'll love this link, I promise you.

* * *


Originally posted by Toughiv
Imagine spacetime as the balloon and the air inside matter, i dont think it works like this. That is what i was trying to get at. More like the balloon is the extremeties of Matter itself.

Don't take the analogy too far. But more accurately: the air is spacetime, the balloon skin is just its current boundary of expansion. Its wavefront, if you like. Matter and energy move through spacetime like, oh, I don't know, fireflies and firefly-flashes.


I know Time + Space exist, but they only exist because of matter.

Could you explain a bit more? Do you mean that time and space are defined by the existence of matter? It's true that without mass-energy there would be no state changes and therefore no way to conceive of extension or duration. However, even pure vacuum has an energy value according to Einstein's field equations for General Relativity.

As a general comment, those equations define the range of possibilities of the kind of stuff we've been discussing over the last few pages. Not that they come leaping off the page at you or anything - the implications have been laboriously teased out over decades of time and oceans of midnight oil by scientists from his day to ours. You needn't ask me about them; I've forgotten nearly all the little maths I used to know. To those better equipped in that department than I am, however, Uncle Albert shows the way forward.


You dont know that mankind wont be around at the time

Long before the universe gutters to its final, spectral quietus, energy differentials would have fallen below the minimum required to sustain any kind of highly organized process - a biological organism, an AI, an uploaded personality-state or even some kind of self-sustaining energy matrix like Fred Hoyle's Black Cloud. The stars will long since have burned themselves to ashes. Even black holes would have drizzled out existence in a quantum mist. Temperatures in the universe would vary in a range that never strayed very far above absolute zero. You might have to span a distance between here and the ghost of Arcturus to glean enough energy to power a lightbulb. And this is before - maybe trillions of years before - the universe offially expires.

We'll be gone long, long before then.


Funnily enough the End of the Universe has been prophecized in a lot of religions.

The end of the world, certainly, but don't most of these eschatalogical religions include another eternal 'world' inhabited by God and his court of heavenly attendants, to which the blessed go to live after they die? Indian and East Asian tradition favour a cyclic universe of repeated creation and destruction.

Religions mostly come from a time in our history when the concept of the universe, as separate from earth (plus optional extras heaven and hell) only existed among a handful of philosophers. The founders of the great religions weren't very well up on it.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Or life somewhere else..



ya got me thinking bro.. Thanks, Got me wondering..



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax The objects being observed don't reside behind any boundary, unless you mean they're beyond the zone of 'nearby' galaxies for which the Hubble expansion is linear; these objects still occupy the same space we do and it isn't as if we've seen them moving in the sky or anything.

As for other geometrical models, WMAP and its ilk have joykillingly eliminated every possibility - all those anyone has been able to think of, anyway - but one: boring old flatness. It's a pity; that toroidal universe of yours would be fascinating, cycling through endless repeats along two of its dimensions.


Why are we disagreeing on this when in fact we agree? We are talking at odds about points that are not in contention, excepting the assumption that I am talking about something else.

Yes, everything observable occupies the same space as we do; the boundary I speak of is the boundary of the limit of the farthest reaches of the big bang and as I have labelled it, the limit of the dimensional universe. I don't see why you believe that I am at odds with this, especially after I produced such marvellous diagrams


The balloon has expanded, we are in the balloon, space is bounded by the balloon skin, everything is within space, the universe is within the balloon - we just don't know for sure what shape the balloon is.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Adrifter
 


Ah but there's the problem! When the universe first popped into existence, in that nanosecond was there life elsewhere?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 



For the acceleration to increase, we would have to consider another impetus, caused not by the kinetic energy of the big bang but by a different phenonema.


Please forgive me - I am a simpleton in this area of knowledge, but I want to ask; what phenomena?

Also, is it not possible that gravity is weak because of its penetrating or concentrating by the many branes of dimensions, as gravity is not bound by branes?

If our universe and possibly others are actually membrane bubbles, how would this effect any expansions?

Thank you!



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 

If I misinterpreted what you were saying, I apologize. It's a difficult subject.

* * *

reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Originally posted by MatrixProphet


Originally posted by SugarCube
For the acceleration to increase, we would have to consider another impetus, caused not by the kinetic energy of the big bang but by a different phenonema.

I want to ask; what phenomena?

There would have to be a constant force acting on space, causing its expansion to accelerate. If the Big Bang was an explosion, it would have stopped pushing the universe outward as soon as it was over. The expansion of the universe would be due solely to inertia, and its rate would be decreasing due to gravity. All this is derived - correctly - from Newton's laws of motion.

For the expansion to speed up, there must be another impetus. We call it dark energy. We don't really know what it is, but it - or something that creates the same effects - definitely is there. See links in my earlier posts to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey press room, and Wikipedia entries on the Hubble constant and the metric expansion of space.


Is it not possible that gravity is weak because of its penetrating or concentrating by the many branes of dimensions, as gravity is not bound by branes?

Could you clarify what you mean, please?

We've left string theory out of this discussion so far and, personally, I couldn't be more pleased bout that. String clarifies nothing, simplifies nothing: it just multiplies entities unnecessarily. However, it's your call. Explain what you mean, with references, if necessary, and we'll discuss it.

Only, when you say


If our universe and possibly others are actually membrane bubbles, how would this effect any expansions?

you incur the dire Recursion Warning (see my first post on this thread). Sure, if there's a Brane Multiverse in which our universe is just a Brane Bubble, conditions in the former might affect the latter. But where did that come from? For all we know there really could be a God cavorting about the place. Maybe He's just a little girl blowing bubbles. But then we are forced to ask: where did she come from?

[edit on 4/6/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



I slept on this one. Yes I do have a life, but I did spend some time thinking alternatively in this framework of reality I live in.

I think the point I am trying to make without trying to prove the make up of the existence of the Universe and its birth. Again I think the universe and everything associated with reality would not exist without the presence of Life.

it would not be witnessed by intelligence, therefore it would be nothing for nothing is intelligent enough to identify it. Without senses or perceptions it would be nothing. regardless of how long it stood in place.

Now with that said, it is imperative to imagine their is a intelligent designer. Which therefore brings me to conclude that their is a good sense that their is GOD, who created the universe and all that other stuff we don't understand. I think what is most important thou, to all that reads this, is without life no matter how old all of it is, it would not be perceived as anything. Therefore I believe it would not exist. I think the universe has allot to do with life and being alive. I dunno how I read the bible allot and the bible says our minds are not big enough to understand it. So I don't think we will ever really understand the nature or make up of it all. Anne rice once wrote, sometimes you have to goto the religions to try to find the answers science cannot provide.

Anyhow thanks for the response.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you for answering my first question.


We've left string theory out of this discussion so far and, personally, I couldn't be more pleased bout that. String clarifies nothing, simplifies nothing: it just multiplies entities unnecessarily. However, it's your call. Explain what you mean, with references, if necessary, and we'll discuss it.


Well, I am speaking of M Theory which I believe is connected to String or is the successor to String. I know that both theories were very poo-pooed a couple of decades ago but apparently no one is laughing now.


I refer to Dr. Lisa Randall who is considered an expert on M Theory (which I certainly am not! Hehehe). But as long as we, or you all, are discussing the science of God, I cannot see why this cannot be introduced into the discussion.

I realize that cosmologists are not equipped to test this theory out, but it is not stopping many from questioning it.



For all we know there really could be a God cavorting about the place. Maybe He's just a little girl blowing bubbles. But then we are forced to ask: where did she come from?


Actually it is not to raise your cynicism & prejudice but to allow for freer thought. I am not mentioning God. But now that you mention it...if we cannot know much about the invisible universe or dark matter as you say, how can we know the answer to the latter?


I am more interested in parallel universes and am attempting to understand more about it. I am watching many videos, so I am not closed minded and wish to learn. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


I have no knowledge of string theory. I have watched a TV program about it, but no real knowledge on my part. If someone wants to briefly explain it ill be more than intrigued to read. Other than that, I'll learn what it is all about at some point this weekend.

I think it would be good to bring this into the discussion, it is another perspective. The more perspectives you have the better.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 



Theoretical Physics involves some of the following:

It was believed that dark matter was made up of atoms, now it isn't. It is a thought that the particles that made up matter was just that! But now the new thinking is; that they are actually made up of very tiny strings (the smallest element in the cosmos) made up of very strong energy.

They say that the strings cut off the violent energy that conflicts with relativity. This is because quantum is dealing with the very small while relativity is dealing in the large picture.



So we cannot use the familiar forces to access these dimensions only the force of gravity can move into these other dimensions. So our only hope is the force of gravity to enter these other dimensions, and getting direct evidence that they are there.

String theory consists of tiny little strings like a rubber band each vibration of the rubber band corresponds to sub atomic particles. That is why we have thousands of these sub atomic particles which are not particles at all. They are nothing but musical notes on a tiny vibrating string. - Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics


The strings “marry” quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity. It needs at least 6 dimensions to make it real.

So it is thought that our universe and multiple universes are connected to an umbilical cord attached to a parent universe.

Einstein tried to fight this concept of String Theory (as it conflicted with Newton) until he reached a point where he found he could not. He then became more interested and wanted to define: "The Theory of Everything."

The String Theory involves 10 dimensions while M Theory involves 11. The dimensions of String Theory are very tiny while M can be very large. The only way these dimensions may be detected is with gravity, which can be measured as it is flowing in and out of these dimensions with light reflecting from it.

You might want to check out this thread discussing dimensions. Good thread!









 
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join