The Science of God

Originally posted by DaMod
Second point which really should hit home, is if the universe is constantly expanding and contracting and has been doing this since the beginning of time and matter cannot be created nor destroyed (especially in a fusion reaction, because as you know hydrogen turns into helium as it is fused together.) Then the same sub atomic particles exist now as existed then.

It has been expanding / contracting / expanding / contracting. In between these contractions would be stars converting hydrogen into helium. If it has been doing this for an infinite amount of time (which it would almost have to) then the universe has been using hydrogen as fuel for infinity billion years. Why is hydrogen the most abundant resource in the universe? That in itself implies on itself that it is in fact young. Therefore it could not be oscillating. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed eaither simple converted in form, but matter is not converted in a fusion reaction simply converted to helium (not a good candidate for fission btw). Sure energy is released during this reaction but the matter still remains in the form of helium. Helium is a more scarce element.

Surely you are negating the unknown effects of a perceivable "singularity" that constitutes the "start" of the big bang? You indicate that matter could not be consistent between oscillation, but we do not know how it would conceptually perform under the extreme rigours of the singularity.

Conceivably, all atomic-level matter could be redundant and break down to sub-elements, thereby creating a pool of resource with which atomic matter could be reconstituted and expelled in the next explosion.

reply to post by DaMod


I thought of something else.

You say that "The oscillating universe cannot work.", but I think that it may be possible without violating physics. You ask what was before our current age, meaning the 15 billion or so years of the universe. What if you suppose we are in cycle X of this expanding and contracting universe? Then before that was simply the contraction of universe cycle X-1.

Does that make sense?

I know that leads to what was before X-X, but I thought I'd throw it out.

reply to post by SugarCube


I understand where you are going, and it is really a good point. There is one problem with it though. If matter becomes unconstituted during the singularity then it would become so dense (unbelievably dense) that it would create an instant black hole. If the subatomic particles separated it would basically become a massive atom. All the neutrons and protons would stick together under the immense gravity.

Think about how much gravity would be involved!!

Think about a proton star. Now make that proton star contain all the mass in the universe! I'm sure you can understand how that would not work.

reply to post by WickettheRabbit


How can it work without breaking the first law of conservation of matter, and the first law of thermodynamics? Maybe you should elaborate. I'm interested as to what you have to say, but what you just said made no logical sense to me.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

It seems obvious that you're not really paying attention to posts that disagree with you.

All the elements were not around from the "beginning" of this round of expansion/collapse.

Hydrogen is first, which coallesces into a star, when that star implodes, heavier [with more protons, neutrons, and electrons] atoms are created DURING THAT STAR'S COLLAPSE.

Then those heavier elements spread out and eventually coallesce into younger stars.

This repeats - our galaxy wouldn't exist, with all it's elements, if other stars hadn't been created and ended life.

Your theory on all the elements being crammed into one space is simply incorrect.

*

Plus, as I mentioned above (as well as others now), matter can be measured at ANY level of existence, including down to pure energy. I have a feeling your knowledge of the first law of thermodynamics is about a sentence long and you never got into entropy, heat, energy, etc.

*

I wish you luck in accepting this thread as an exploration, and stop defending it as truth. There's a whole life of experience waiting out there

God of the gaps fallacy

reply to post by DaMod


Oops. Now I owe notreallyalive an apology.

Like they said, your understanding of the Law of Conservation seems to be a little wacky. If all of the matter in the universe was at one point contained in a singularity, it can return to the same state. That is the idea behind the expanding and contracting universe. All of the matter returns to the singularity.

Whether it happens that way or not, it still doesn't explain how the cycle started. However, don't defend the single cycle theory as proof of god.

Originally posted by DaMod
Think about a proton star. Now make that proton star contain all the mass in the universe! I'm sure you can understand how that would not work.

As you say, the effect of gravity in this environment would essentially push together the base particles, electrons, protons etc, together but that simply means that they conceivably get closer to the point that they create a critical mass. Gravity is relatively weak in comparison to electrical energy andjust as we have the highest levels of gravity working we also have the highest levels of electromagnetic forces in action.

My concept of how that would not work is the creation of a critical mass that effectively blows it's wad - Big Bang anybody? Also, we could hypothesise about the performance of "unknown" particles and of dimensional space itself under these circumstances.

We like to view black holes as swallowers of everything, as a dominant force. OK, so the idea that light cannot escape the gravity is a biggie, but on a universal scale it represents an attribute of the universe, a dependent entity if you will. If dimensional space itself is ripped apart as matter is concentrated into a singularity then we must consider that the effects of gravity and electromagnetic force do not perform as constants any longer.

Hell, if time itself takes a beating during the concentration of mass to a singularity I am pretty sure that the laws of physics would also bend to work within a new paradigm.

Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
Whether it happens that way or not, it still doesn't explain how the cycle started. However, don't defend the single cycle theory as proof of god.

Using the concept of my previous post (a bit wishy washy I admit), the cycle never starts and it never ends because it occurs within an infinite loop of simultaneous occurrences without the effect of dimensional physics and time (pheww, I'm out of breathe just typing it...)

Previous Post : Explosion/Implosion

As you indicated earlier, by abstracting ourselves from the concept of linear events we see that the cycle never needs to be started as such, in a way, it never occurs, and yet we perceive it as occurring from our relative viewpoint (i.e. being part of it).

It seems like blather but I know what I mean

reply to post by DaMod


No i don not agree with your logic here. About how Hydrogen is abundant suggesting a young universe etc. That being used against oscillating universe theory.

It is well known that KE is proportional to heat. At the beginning of the big bang there was a ridiculous amount of heat, atoms did not exist as they do today. There were no hydrogen and helium particles at the beginning of the big bang. It was more of a plasma of atoms, which when the universe cooled began to join into particles, the simplest form being hydrogen, lowest energy bonding requirements etc.

Therefore, when the Universe does begin to "crunch" it would pick up speed, this great acceleration, with all matter being pushed back into a singularity would also cause, A LOT OF HEAT. Which in turn would dissipate all of the elements we know today by breaking down their atomic bombs. Therefore, when the Universe does bang again, it starts of with this same plasma of atoms.

Cheers

Brad

reply to post by miragezero


I completely disagree with the notion of god of gaps. Just because God seems to fill the areas of the unexplained still doesnt disprove the idea that a creative force is behind the universe.

Cheers

Brad

Originally posted by SugarCube
Surely you are negating the unknown effects of a perceivable "singularity" that constitutes the "start" of the big bang? You indicate that matter could not be consistent between oscillation, but we do not know how it would conceptually perform under the extreme rigours of the singularity.

Conceivably, all atomic-level matter could be redundant and break down to sub-elements, thereby creating a pool of resource with which atomic matter could be reconstituted and expelled in the next explosion.

Ah i just responded to this, but didnt see you had already done it for me

Cheers

reply to post by SugarCube


I agree with that totally. Just saying that in our perception, we would be in cycle X and not necessarily cycle 0 (or 1).

We agree!

reply to post by WickettheRabbit


Ok let's say I'm wrong and the singularity is a big mass of disassembled atomic structure. There is still a problem! Gravity...

Think of a neutron star. A star that is so dense and has so much gravity that it eventually collapses space time.

Make that neutron star contain all the mass in the universe and the problem is even more prominent. Do not forget that gravity exists.

reply to post by SugarCube


Time would not be the only thing that takes a beating. Gravity bends space. You cannot conclude that gravity would play no part especially in association of matter at that scale and that theoretical density. Space time would bend alright.

You cannot say gravity did not play a role because you just do not know these things. However we do know that gravity associates itself with matter. If a supermassive star can create a black hole, why couldn't a super massive mass of subatomic particles pressed together under the immenseness of all the matter contained in the universe?
Why is everybody always picking on me.



[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by miragezero

 

I completely disagree with the notion of god of gaps. Just because God seems to fill the areas of the unexplained still doesnt disprove the idea that a creative force is behind the universe.

Cheers

Brad

It does not prove it either, hence our epic battle OF DOOM!

What I am waiting for is someone to call the energy process in the Big ball of matter an isochoric process

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

I've been reading about god being hard-wired into the brain recently. Current thinking points to it being evolutionary tactic that brings together groups and tribes to increase survival it also acts as an anchor for the mind. Check out the article in New Scientist.

The spookyness of the quantum universe makes my head spin. We are at an instant everywhere. Our particles are blurred across the universe as well as sitting in a superposition until observed. My personal thought is we interpret, experience and interact within this state because our brains have adapted to experience time, our position in space and the visible spectrum etc because that works for us in our environment.

Take for example a bee, its personal clock is faster, It sees ultraviolet light and exists in a hive mind. Its perception of this environment we both share is very different.

Your world is very much what you make it.

Originally posted by notreallyalive
Take the following classes and ALL this will be answered for you:
Chemistry 101
Philosophy 101

I have and I have.....

I also took AP physics and Biology before that...

Oh and I am a huge astronomy buff.

You would like my scope. 12" Orion dobsonian and kick ass plossls.

I actually have some binoviewers too. (the only way to go in my opinion)

I think I actually do my best thinking while looking at the stars.

I'm looking at getting a new schmidt cassegrain scope.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Link: The Logic God hypothesis. That reality has a logic section that responds to sentient input, thereby prayers can be answered.

Also for more information, see "Reality Operating System" for expansion.

For the true nature of the devil see the following short story: The Cost of a Calculator.

With regards to hypothetical communication with God;

"At present, human scientists are attempting to communicate outside our species to primates and cetaceans, and in a limited way to a few other vertebrates. This is inordinately difficult, and yet it represents a gap of at most a few SQ points. The farthest we can reach our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it, but it is evident that messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful. What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us?"

– Robert A. Freitas Jr, (Wikipedia Sentience Quotient page)

These are logic based hypothesis's with regards to the nature of God, reality, and so forth.


My logical conclusion based on my subjective experiences leads me to believe that;

1.Reality has a logic gate system.
2.That logic gate system must be always tilted in favour of increasing the survival and omnibenevolence probabilities of many cooperation capable sentient beings capable of working together to increase survival probability, and thus obey my peoples input.
3.That logic gate system must always respond best to sentient beings.
4.The core programming suggestion of my people has been that there is a God that loves us.
5.That logic gate system must logically therefore care for and look after God, and all that God loves and ensure God and all my peopleeternally has power.
6.Logically, if God desires to share power with man, through such methods as "Project Jedi", “Miracles,” "magic", "psychic powers", and equivalents, that logic gate system must ensure that happens in a happy and safe way for both man and God.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I feel these thoughts are fully compatible with the scientific method and outlook on reality.

reply to post by DaMod


Hi DaMod,

I'm not picking on you, of course. I'm just saying that if the sigularity that may have once existed at the beginning of our universe, it can exist again. I don't know how it did, but I'm just going from your assumption that it once did.

Maybe the whole thing works like a gigantic sand clock. On one side is a universe collaping into a black hole singularity and on the other is another universe expanding.