Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Science of God

page: 17
57
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Thank you Matrix. I will read up and endeavour to be able to hold a convo about this with you!




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Well, I am speaking of M Theory which I believe is connected to String or is the successor to String.

Same difference. The theory formerly known as strings


I know that both theories were very poo-pooed a couple of decades ago but apparently no one is laughing now.

It's really the other way round. String theory began developing in the Seventies and was all the rage in the Eighties and early Nineties. Since it hasn't made any testable predictions that will confirm or refute it, a lot of physicists have been losing interest. Lee Smolin argues that the concentration on string theory within the scientific community has hurt physiscs. He wrote a book about it.


Not to raise your cynicism & prejudice

There is no need to be insulting, MatrixProphet.


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?

We don't. Personally, I have no interest in questions that cannot be answered. I suppose you'd call that cynicism, or prejudice, or a lack of 'spirituality'. I call it a lack of time.

* * *



Originally posted by Toughiv
If someone wants to briefly explain it ill be more than intrigued to read

Rushing in where angelhair pasta chefs fear to tread...

The Holy Grail of physics is a unified theory of all the physical forces. Classically*, there are four of these: electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravity. What is sought is a self-consistent theory that accounts for all four, that allows each to be thought of in terms of the others.

Three of these forces - the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces - were unified by the 1970s. Gravity, however, has defied unification.

Eventually, somebody came up with a theory in which 'strings' (don't ask what they are; there's no answer) vibrating at different frequencies give rise to all the different fundamental particles, including the so-called 'force carriers'. Thus all forces, in string theory, arise from the vibration of these mysterious strings. That includes gravity. Applause all round.

However, there are multiple possible string theories. More recently it was seen that you could unify them all in something called 'M theory' by replacing strings with membranes or 'branes' (again, don't ask; the word seems designed to remind us that brane theorists are brainy fellows but is otherwise without meaning). M theory demands eleven dimensions (to string theory's ten), but most of them are invisible because they're tiny (you can't go very far in them) and/or 'curled up' (again, don't ask).

Brane theory is incomplete. It is also untestable. But it is, we are told, mathematically consistent, and with the right tweaks it can be made to fit what we observe in the universe around us. All the same, I find it unconvincing and distasteful, though I have nothing but respect for the minds that conceived and devised it.

Neon Haze, a real physicist who is also an ATS member, favours Smolin's loop quantum gravity ideas over string theory. He authored a legendary thread on LQG which still gets the odd post in it from time to time.

Also for your weekend reading:

All about string theory and I do mean all

Introduction to M-theory for laymen in Wikipedia

String theory in a hard-to-crack nutshell

Also the first link in my reply to MatrixProphet above. Enjoy!

 

*Meaning 'if we forget about dark energy for now'.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



There is no need to be insulting, MatrixProphet.


This was in response to your glib remark regarding a female God blowing bubbles. I thought you intended the comment to be snide.



We don't. Personally, I have no interest in questions that cannot be answered. I suppose you'd call that cynicism, or prejudice, or a lack of 'spirituality'. I call it a lack of time.



But is this not how science works? Are not scientists continually looking for answers to an unlimited number of questions? If people don't question, it would not be long before everyone became an automaton with only one set of beliefs, without questions being admissible.

But we all have our fields of expertise. I honor your understanding of physics and will also honor those who have their fields of expertise and will continue to research their wisdom. To me; we cannot afford to NOT research all the possibilities. There are too many boxed opinions as there is.


It's really the other way round. String theory began developing in the Seventies and was all the rage in the Eighties and early Nineties.


I am quoting the authorities on this subject; Dr. Kaku, Dr. Lisa Randall & Professor Brian Greene. They apparently differ in that they felt there was a lot of scoffing back then. More are showing an interest now (in their words). You will have to take it up with them, I am too unfamiliar with this.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
This was in response to your glib remark regarding a female God blowing bubbles. I thought you intended the comment to be snide.

I was thinking about an old painting by Millais, subsequently used as an advertisement for Pears Soap. Though it turns out to be a little boy.


I am quoting the authorities on this subject; Dr. Kaku, Dr. Lisa Randall & Professor Brian Greene.

All string theorists but, more important, publicists for string theory. They're hardly the most respected physicists around, though, are they? A wicked person once said that Michio Kaku is to physics what Kenny G is to jazz. That's a bit strong - he was in at the beginning of string theory and he has done some real work (indeed, they all have) - but they are not the authorities they are popularly taken to be.

Here's the transcript of an Edge interview with the founder of string theory, Leonard Susskind. As you can see, he's quite defensive about his theory, insisting that 'it's going to win!' There are links at the bottom of the page to responses from other physicists, many of whom disagree with Susskind on that.

In fact, string theory, M-theory, etc., are the subject of loud, acrimonious debate among physicists.

Please understand that although I am not keen on string theory, I have no horse in this race. Ultimately, Nature will show us who is right; either that or we shall never know.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I was thinking about an old painting by Millais, subsequently used as an advertisement for Pears Soap. Though it turns out to be a little boy.



Thank you for your explanation.

I will gladly read your links. I LIKE the possibilities of M Theory as it seems so out of the box. But as you said, nature or time will likely inform us eventually, especially as technology advances.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I think someone named mark fiorentino furthered (or slightly altered) the idea of twisted space-time actually being matter. He's dubbed it super-relativity or something of that nature. Certain twists determines charge, etc.

I think it is much simpler than that. Space-time is heavily based on light. Time is only a measure of change not vice verse (any change is a measure of time). Think, does time have to exist for change to happen or does something need to change to bring about a measurement of time? Do we really need extra dimensions to explain whats around us? There's solids, liquids and gases and combinations of the three with varying sentience. They're all made of the same "basic" material yet they all have vastly different characteristics.

Why does some matter "think" yet other matter remain lifeless? The only real difference is that the matter that thinks can interpret and harness the electricity inherent in its make-up. The different states of matter have a meausreably different amount of "electricity" regarding their atoms. EM composes everything around us yet it is written off as just a piece of the puzzle. We can even make inanimate matter have "logic" with an input of em. The matter that composes us and everything else has polarity. Though with an opposite charge, the chemical properties are identical. When they combine, there is a pure em discharge, not a magical particle that gave one piece positively charged mass and the other negatively charged mass or one that gave them both gravity that just went into another dimension so the idea of said particle doesn't leave any lingering complications.

When a star goes supernova, matter with high gravitational pull gets compressed to have an extremely increased pull of the same force. If you set set off explosions around a magnet here on earth, the force will compress the magnetic field increasing its pull momentarily up to 25 fold. A magnet with a strength of 1,000 teslas was acheived in this way. To put that into perspective, the strongest sustainable magnet is around 40-45 teslas. EM is far more important than just a force of nature, it is THE force of nature. There may be an intermittent variable concerning em waves that we haven't discovered yet or its right in front of us and we haven't put it all together yet.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Now, a thread that is worth respect.
Congrats to the starter of the thread.


Now on to the evolutionists.
I swear evolutionism is a religion, they got their own thing going on.

I always thought of it like this. It's beyond us.
Who will say that there is nothing is simply a little bug, I meant no disrespect when I said 'BUG". That is what we are, we are so small.
We do not even have an understanding of some of the things that go
near us in our area of conduct.

For me the concept of god has always existed, not in religion, but in my environment, in everything that surrounds me and makes me be.

It's simply impossible that everything happened random, it's simple logic, even we can understand that as humans. We did not create science, it was there for us to pick up, yet science makes sense, it's logical.
In fact everything is a blue print, everything works because of another relation in relation to another relation and so on. If one of the things that had a relation to the next cause in line worked some how otherwise then everything would break down and from infinite everything would turn to zero.

Logic is what makes things work.
Did logic pop in to existence?
Did someone invent logic?
Did logic have no start like it has no end?

Evolutionists are full of BS.
Evolution is just a tiny little thing compared to the patterns that are so
complex. I herd well before this post that atoms look the same but yet they form water, land, colors, transparency and a lot of other things.

Did evolution have an effect on atoms?

I also herd that all the atoms in the universe work at the same exact frequency for some reason,
if one part of the pattern would work different then all would collapse.

Where is your evolution now? It's all simetrical.


Besides fossils and remains there is logic.
Unknown things forms atoms, atoms form bigger particles, particles form fossils. 1 forms another 1 and another 1 and 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.

One solar system, one galaxy, one universe, one multiverse?

Sure you got a lot of galaxies but they all form one universe, sure you got a lot of solar systems but they all form one galaxy.

1 is the universal language and if it did have a start it started from 1 and it ended at 1 because numbers are just a bunch of ones.

A bunch of people form a crowd but they are all individuals.
A bunch of identical objects form a superior number, but the fact remains,
put under the microscope none of the identical objects are identical, they are individual objects.

Only atoms are the same, but from what a read here they do not even exist, it's just like a hologram, a single pattern that is identical in every part. Once affected in a spot it all changes to an other identical pattern.

This brings me to the fact that everything that is , is a single pattern, a mainframe, matrix.

Evolution hahahahha, unknown things make evolution possible.

You evolutionists amuse me, evolution does not create logic it's the other way around. Evolution is only possible from a level, the structure that sustains evolution is a constant, like a foundation that is there and does not evolve. If the universe popped in to existence by evolution then we would see random changes and wonders all around us that would puzzle us everyday. Can any of you imagine evolution at sub atomic level? One single change would spark a mountain of changes.

It's like a stick, you move it from it's base it has not moved at all and that is the sub atomic level. But if you look at the other end of the stick it has moved a lot and that is evolution. For things to evolve there is a constant.
Picture a compass if you will, the base of the compass will remain in the same position while the other parts will move away.

Conclusion: evolution is not the result of things popping in to existence.
Period.



[edit on 7-6-2009 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


I disagree. How is it impossible that all of this came about randomly? Lets say the chance of everything being the way it is was 1 in 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 it does not matter. Since, before the Universe there was an infinite amount of time for all possibilities to be realised.

Logic. You argue logic is created. Prove it. How can you? You cannot. If you are arguing for an omnipotent God, is that said God bound by laws of logic also? Can that God made a 2 sided triangle?

I really dont see where you are going by saying evolution was not created by everything just popping into existence. Whether or not the Universe was created, matter did just quite pop into existance and evolution followed.

The way I see it is, Humans are just a highly developed virus. Overall our main objective is to procreate.

Id say if you are going to argue science vs design, then I would argue how can atoms, which are infinite create a transcient life?

Also, when you say logic was there for humans to pick up. No. If we didnt have the ability to perceive logic / patterns, then it wouldnt exist to us. Evolution brought about our ability to reason and see patterns. Are you arguing God is behind the brutal process that is evolution?

Thanks!

Brad



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Explain this to me. And tell me why there doesn't have to be any intelligence behind any of it.

A Human wants to build a house.
What are the odds of that happening?
The odds are quite good right?

Now:
What are the odds of a house being built without the Human?
The odds are quite poor right?

Now:
What are the odds of a human being built randomly?

Who is the brain behind a human.

Matter

or

Energy?

Human evolution is nothing but a copy of the original two. You are nothing but a copy of your parents matter and Energy that has been combined to create you. And your kids will be a copy of you and your mate.

Now have you ever considered the thought of How you where made compared to how the two originals where made. The first human.
There is quite a big difference i bet?

Creating a human by random:

That's like waiting for Energy and Matter to get the equation right all by it self. Right?
Because what you are saying is that there is no brain behind our original creation. Like your parents are the Idea behind creating you?
So we should thank Energy and Matter for creating us randomly? IS that right.

But how do you explain that science also say that nothing happens randomly. Is there a contradiction within science?
Then who is right when it comes to this question built by random or built by a Idea?

We humans can build things because we have the function of creating ideas. If we didn't have that function we wouldn't be able to create or understand much at all.

We humans are among many energies and matter combined that can build things out of random materials. But the odds of random matter and energy creating a specific thing based on a goal is like Zero?






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Not a good analogy, the house itself is a relative concept. Unless you are trying to refer to the Universe as a house, in which case you are arguing for design. I say it is a brute fact that the Universe is the way it is. Simple as. If you have an infinite amount of time, all possibilities will eventually be recognised. For example, you lock monkeys in a room, assuming they have infinite materials and life, eventually the full works of shakespeare will be written.

"Now have you ever considered the thought of How you where made compared to how the two originals where made. The first human. There is quite a big difference i bet?"

How? plus where does this concept of two originals come into play? I think somebody is reading Genesis too much. If Humans came about through evolution, then its a high probability that there were more than two.

"But how do you explain that science also say that nothing happens randomly"

Science doesnt. Look up Chaos Theory. Just like looking at the earth from space, the oceans seem smooth and orderly, when you zoom in you realise that the seas are choppy and disturbed.

Then who is right when it comes to this question built by random or built by a Idea?

Nobody. Its 50/50.

"But the odds of random matter and energy creating a specific thing based on a goal is like Zero?"

What goal? Specific? Who said anything was specific? Its all trial and error. Sometimes the conditions are perfect for life to flourish and so it does, others are more brutal and lots of things die out or adapt.

Thanks!

Brad

 
Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.


[edit on Mon Jun 8 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 



Yes this is what you get when you let Google do all the thinking for you


Why don't you try and do some equations on your own. I bet a new whew will appear


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Mon Jun 8 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


google do all my thinking?? im just being argumentative...



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Evolutionists are full of BS.

When people say this, it usually means they misundertand evolutionary theory. Often, the misunderstanding is wilful.


It's simply impossible that everything happened random

Why not? Anyway, nobody says it did. Mutation is random, but evolution by natural selection is not.


Logic is what makes things work.

Energy is what makes things work. Logic is a set of rules for thinking straight.


Did logic pop in to existence?

No, the laws of the universe did, at the same time as the universe itself.


Did someone invent logic?

Yes, his name was Aristotle. Perhaps you've heard of him.


Did evolution have an effect on atoms?

Atoms evolved from quarks and leptons very early in the lifetime of the universe.


I also herd that all the atoms in the universe work at the same exact frequency for some reason, if one part of the pattern would work different then all would collapse.

You heard wrong for some reason. Atoms, when excited, vibrate at different frequencies. Spectroscopy


numbers are just a bunch of ones.

Looks like you heard wrong again. Complex numbers


A bunch of identical objects form a superior number, but the fact remains, put under the microscope none of the identical objects are identical, they are individual objects.

Heard wrong yet again!

Emergence

Critical Mass

Crowd Psychology


Only atoms are the same

And again! Periodic Table


they do not even exist

And again! Properties of Atoms


Evolution does not create logic it's the other way around.

And again. Evolution created Aristotle, who invented logic.


The structure that sustains evolution is a constant, like a foundation that is there and does not evolve.

Wrong again (of course). The only constants in the universe are the physical constants - and nowadays we're beginning to wonder even about them. The universe is ever-changing. Always has been. Nothing stays the same for ever.


If the universe popped in to existence by evolution then we would see random changes and wonders all around us that would puzzle us everyday.

Why? How does evolutionary theory predict this?


Can any of you imagine evolution at sub atomic level?

Yes: hot, fast and nasty.


Conclusion: evolution is not the result of things popping in to existence.

Well, who ever said it was?


Period.

Yes, they're an awful bore, aren't they? Don't worry, you'll feel better in a day or two.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Can any of you imagine evolution at sub atomic level?

Yes: hot, fast and nasty.


Astyanax, at last we have a physicists' analogy to recreational procreation



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Astynaxx you said quarks and leptons evolved into protons and neutrons, how is this so? Evolved? I.e. that there were different forms of grouped quarks and leptons? :S

Cheers,

Brad



posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Right as a reply to my post. Quarks and leptons did not evolve into neutrons and protons. They were "confined" to protons and neutrons at about 10^12 K.

Also, as a another note. We have established that there has been evidence from Cephid Variables to suggest the rate at which the Universe is expanding is accelerating. Overall, that would mean that the total energy throughout the Universe is increasing? Yes...since KE = 1/2mv^2. Right, in-keeping with theory of relativity, (change)Energy = (change)Mass x C (3x10^8ms-1)^2. Would that not mean that the mass of the Universe is also becoming greater? Meaning that point is nil, since gravity will therefore increase at a proportional rate?

Maybe I am wrong, just something I thought of today


Cheers,

Brad.

[edit on 14-6-2009 by Toughiv]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Toughiv
 


Well, I would suggest a couple of things to be careful about. Importantly, we cannot observe the whole universe and anything we do observe is constrained as a historical event. I admit, I cannot be faffed to find the post where we discussed this previously.

The limits of observation, at any one point but also collectively tend to confirm that the universe is expanding and the acceleration is increasing. This doesn't confirm that the universe *is* expanding as a whole.

We don't even know what shape the universe is so the supposition of uniformity of the matter contained within it is not necessarily applicable. We have built models based on uniformity but this is not necessarily "truth".





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join