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.


The Science of God

page: 18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Toughiv
Astynaxx you said quarks and leptons evolved into protons and neutrons, how is this so? Evolved?

No, what I said is a little different.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Atoms evolved from quarks and leptons very early in the lifetime of the universe.

Quarks and leptons didn't turn into protons and neutrons, but protons and neutrons evolved from these fundamental particles.

In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup... the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions...

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup...

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen... Source

Baryonic matter is made up of quarks and leptons. My apologies for any confusion that may have been caused by my phraseology.


Originally posted by Toughiv
We have established that there has been evidence from Cephid Variables to suggest the rate at which the Universe is expanding is accelerating.

Actually from Type 1a supernovas. Edwin Hubble used Cepheid variables to establish the expansion in the first place.

Overall, that would mean that the total energy throughout the Universe is increasing? Would that not mean that the mass of the Universe is also becoming greater?

No, but given the reason you're asking, this is a really excellent question; I'm not a physicist to be able to answer it authoritatively, and sadly the only ATS member who really is a physicist (as far as I know; doubtless there are others) appears to have been banned a few days ago.

What I can tell you is that the amount of mass-energy in the universe is certainly not increasing. What is happening is that one form of energy is being transformed into another. It looks at first glance like dark energy -> kinetic energy, but I doubt it's as simple as that because, as far as we know, dark energy doesn't interact directly with matter - it acts on space itself.

Don't forget that the expansion of space is nonrelativistic - that's how points in space can end up moving apart from each other at superluminal velocities. I doubt that the applied mathematics of relativity apply to it any more than Newtonian mechanics does.

Any real physicists out there who can answer this?

(Braces himself against the avalanche of pseudoscientific nonsense that is sure to result from the above inquiry.)

[edit on 15/6/09 by Astyanax]

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Astyanax
Braces himself against the avalanche of pseudoscientific nonsense that is sure to result from the above inquiry.

Oh ye of little faith,

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 06:44 AM
haha. thanks for input astynax and sugarcube

Does it really moved at superluminal speeds? Or is the space bent/folded then its travels across the shorter distance?

I.e. imagine you palm flat, the distance from the bottom of your palm to the tip of your middle finger is going to be larger than a scenareio where you close your hand. If you get what I mean. It is theorectically possible to do this, since we see space time is bent by the mass of the Sun. Its just recreating artifical gravity or some sci-fi like that which is hard

Is there naything you have read, that you could link, that shows the expansion is no relatvistic (whatever the word is


posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Toughiv
Does it really move at superluminal speeds? Or is the space bent/folded then its travels across the shorter distance?

We're talking space itself. It's stretching. No multidimensional trickery need be involved. A supporter of string theories may tell you different - maybe he'll explain it by telling you that one of his famous curled-up dimensions is uncurling or something.

Tell you what, though: we've reached a point in this discussion so fundamental (in physical, not logical terms) that pretty much any weird idea you can come up with may be said to explain the situation, so long as:

  1. your weird idea is mathematically consistent

  2. no embarrassing phenomenon actually contradicts it

In other words, we've reached a point beyond which only real physicists, with postgraduate degrees and research grants, are qualified go. Many of my fellow-members will disagree, believing that even unqualified speculation has its uses even if its conclusions can never be supported or justified. I wish them happy imaginings, but this is where I bow out. I know all too well where my own competence ends.

Is there naything you have read, that you could link, that shows the expansion is no relatvistic (whatever the word is

Sure. Let's start with good old Wikipedia:

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light (meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe - Para. 2 of entry

And then

Discussion of superluminal recession at Bad Astronomy Forums

Superluminal Recession Velocities by Davis & Lineweaver (excellent paper, linked to in the above discussion)

Rather deep discussion at Physics Forums Library - is superluminal recession real or an observational artifact?

Slightly less deep discussion.

Hope that helps. There's one particular paper that makes it all wonderfully clear, even the maths, but I keep looking for and not finding it. If I ever do, I'll post it here later.

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 04:30 AM
I reckon the science of god is about to send us back in to a new ice age


Mod Edit: Please see Terms And Conditions Of Use 4) Advertising. Thank you - Jak

edit on 19/9/10 by JAK because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:26 AM
Superb post OP. Flatland vid explains nicely how we could exist beneath the heavenly realms. Love it.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:36 PM
The universe is all connected like an intricate geometrical web of which everything is part of, made of and sensitive to, this pattern is intelligent and God is the highest intelligence, and that which controls this intricate web, the Ultimate Energy, so many possible descriptive terms, essentially that to which all energy belongs.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by DaMod

It's all connected ultimately. Supernatural is just natural we haven't experienced yet.

As as demonstration, quantum mind theory can now prove God.

According to Roger Penrose's model, Orchestrated Objective Reduction (or Orch-OR for short) self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. This makes sense as minds can collapse wave-functions by observing them, just as physical measuring apparatuses can. If we assume it's all one substance (since dualism contradicts itself) then this means that collapse = observation. Thus self-collapse = self-observation = mind.

Then we have the wave-function of the universe, Hawking's Phi (which he thinks makes God unnecessary). The question of course is how Phi collapses. Since there is by definition nothing physical beyond the physical universe, it can't be caused by externally, by an observer or a measuring apparatus. Thus there is only one other mechanism for collapse -self collapse.

Thus the Wave-function of the Universe must necessarily self-collapse, but self-collapsing wave-functions are minds. Therefore, Phi is God!

So when Hawking tried to use Phi to disprove God, by essentially saying "here this explains it all so we don't need God" it was quite ironic, because the thing he's using as an alternative to God is unwittingly God!

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:41 PM

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

Evo-lution only works at the surface while the base remains unmodified, it is only at the surface that things may
seem different, different waves of the same ocean. The base elements don't get modified. from what I know atoms have been atoms for a very long time without evolving at all.

edit on 25-7-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

Problem. All of it. Theoretical. Speculative. NOT CONFIRMED!

the·o·ret·i·cal adj ˌthē-ə-ˈre-ti-kəl, ˌthir-ˈe-
Definition of THEORETICAL
1a : relating to or having the character of theory : abstract
b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative
2: given to or skilled in theorizing
3: existing only in theory : hypothetical


the·o·ret·i·cal also the·o·ret·ic

On a theoretical level, hiring more people seems logical.
The idea is purely theoretical at this point.
The danger is more than just a theoretical possibility.

Late Latin theoreticus, from Greek theōrētikos, from theōrein to look at
First Known Use: 1601

Synonyms: academic (also academical), conjectural, hypothetical, speculative, suppositional
Antonyms: actual, factual, real

antithetical, catechetical, exegetical, hypothetical, parenthetical


The best educated guess is still a guess. Yet, like many do with the Christian's bible, many also label it as fact. Wonder why.
edit on 26-7-2011 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17   >>

log in