Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Science of God

page: 6
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
know much but some things we can observe). We can already see that the universe is accelerating away from a point in space, and therefore at one point all matter was contained in a massive ball. This is the only real way to account for the relative expansion of the universe. Now let make time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! A big ball of matter…


Universe was not contained in a "massive ball of matter".
Ball in what? See, there's nothing (as far as we know
outside of the universe. You have to get rid of that mental image of a ball.




without time having a beginning. If all matter was contained within a single ball forever then how long could it last? If there was no


It s not a ball and in singularity there is no time.



creating it) then how did that singularity last so long without going sooner? There are some pretty unstable elements that we know of.


There were no elements in the beginning. This whole beginning thing is a mystery.



together without violent chemical reactions occurring all the time? It was bound to blow as soon as it came into existence (which it would


There were no chemical elements at the big bang. They came much later.



We know by the first law of conservation of matter that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. That matter would have always existed in form. So in order for this to be able to work then the universe would have to expand then contract over and over again.


Matter and energy are the same thing, you remember e=mc^2.
All this energy in our universe came from SOMEWHERE. That's a big mystery indeed.



We know that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. If the expansion is speeding up then how could there have not been a beginning since the unstable ball of matter would not have lasted very long and there was no beginning of time? And furthermore if it is expanding and accelerating then how did that big ball come to be in the first place?


Again, it is not an unstable ball of matter because there is nothing in which the ball would exist.


It is very common to visualise big bang as some kind of wild explosion you are looking at from a distance. However, it is not like that.

Anyway. Nobody can answer your fundamental questions. Nobody knows. And I'm pretty damn certain ATS members don't know the truth about EVERYTHING.


So. It is convenient to invent god.




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by optimus primal
 


Actually if that last part happens the universe with approach absolute zero and the universe would die of a heat death, which is actually what I think is going to happen. That is if the universe is not elastic, but how can that be still?

Ok just listen to this, you don't have to agree but I'm sure it will make you think.

When a bullet leaves a gun in space it will go on forever (without friction that is) at a muzzle velocity of say 2200 feet per second. It would never slow down and never speed up, it would maintain that same velocity.

Now if the big bang shot our piece of matter off at say 2200 LY per hour we would remain at that velocity through our projectile motion.

Here's a crazy question that comes to mind. Where is the force pulling us back? And the even weirder question. Why the heck are we speeding up instead of maintaining our velocity? What the heck is pulling us into the vastness of nothing?



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Coeus
 


And it is just as convenient to dismiss god.

Inside this singularity would be protons, neutrons, etc etc.. These particles do not just spring up from nothing (without a god of course). In a singularity would there have still been space beyond the singularity? Space time would exist outside the singularity would it not? All the energy in the universe (including matter energy) would have to be included in the composition of the singularity... And how do know that this singularity was not a big ball of energy / stuff? I mean what really could it have been? If everything came from it, then everything would have to be contained in it. No matter it's form, it is still really a big (blank) of everything.

Also space would almost have to be infinite. How could space end? What would be beyond that? More space!

If the universe had a beginning then it would be the ultimate paradox.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Coeus
 


Also I will remind you that this is a thread about god as a scientific concept.

This has nothing to do with man's view of god. Nor does it have anything to do with whether god is a created Idea. This is not a believer / nonbeliever thread.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


you know, i'll be entirely truthfull here. i believe(this is not supported by fact, merely a belief of mine) that there is another force in the universe, one that we have no discovered yet scientifically. i also believe it's probably either very similar or exactly like the Force as imagined by george lucas. do i think it's "god"? no, just another force, like weak&strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. so perhaps that is why there are such strange things in the universe, but then again perhaps not. i don't know.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Gravity is the weekest of the electromagnetic forces and would be the first to dissolve as the energy increases. I didn't read pages 4,5 cuz I really feel we're getting off the OP - about the Science of god.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Coeus
 


And it is just as convenient to dismiss god.

Inside this singularity would be protons, neutrons, etc etc.. These particles do not just spring up from nothing (without a god of course).

[edit on 22-5-2009 by DaMod]


It's so ironic you say this! Because they DO just spring up out of nothing! Quantum mechanics is all about balancing charges, spin, etc in QM particles. In any given instant a particle may bleep out of existence and be balanced by another particle anywhere in the world (universe/multiverse?)

Inside the singularity there would NOT be protons, neutrons, etc because as the energy and pressure increase electromagnetic strong force, weak force, gravity, etc cease to act the same way.

Like if you squeeze 6 eggs together into a small glass, they cease to have the shell and look of individual eggs.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


We are still expanding because the explosion only happened a while ago, in terms of the Universe's age. It will take time for Gravity to reach a point where it negates acceleration and then causes it to collapse in on itself.

I dont see what you dont understand, im not saying Time stops existing when it receeds to a big ball, that is a stage before it collapses even further in on itself into a singularity....now whats hard to understand about that.,

Time exists when matter does. V=s/t. However, when it comes to all matter being converted to energy then time WILL cease to exist...c'mon you are refusing to accept the arguments handed to you.

Cheers



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
really good thread and discussion this is the type of thing i joined this site for
it makes a welcome change to the two main attitudes i have personally noticed since i joined which are just as bad as each other in my opinion.

i believe in god and science and am constantly trawling for answers and i suppose i will be till the day i die but i would never be ignorent to either side.

the sacred geometry whoever mentioned it is mind boggling ive seen it before and would recomend anyone to have a look






[edit on 22-5-2009 by valiant]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


i might be missing something here, but isnt this debate completely negated by the question "who created god?". also you cant discuss god in just a purley scientific way, as i dont believe there is any scientific proof for the existance of said "god". so if the universe was created by a "god", religous or otherwise, then who created "god"?
answers on a postcard please..............



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I dont agree with you, I believe you make alot of "we know now everything there is to know about X" assumptions. You make some great points and made me think. Star and Flag. Nice thread!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
first things first, i must congratulate you on a well researched and intelligently presented thread, but there is one question that ive asked myself and others many times is, what went bang? and what was there before it went bang? and where did the things that went bang come from? you can not make something from nothing after all everything has to come from somewhere be it religion or science. For me the big bang theory just has too many holes to hold water

edit for vodka spelling!!!!

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Neilc1972]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neilc1972
first things first, i must congratulate you on a well researched and intelligently presented thread, but there is one question that ive asked myself and others many times is, what went bang? and what was there before it went bang? and where did the things that went bang come from? you can not make something from nothing after all everything has to come from somewhere be it religion or science. For me the big bang theory just has too many holes to hold water

edit for vodka spelling!!!!

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Neilc1972]


this is something i often think about and it actually makes my brain hurt


seriously though good question



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The problem with trying to "rewind" time in order to get an answer is that everyone ends up at the same point when they do it: A giant empty space with no light where nothing appears to be going on. Time is only relevant if a change is occuring or is expected to occur. If everything, including the rotation and movement of quarks were to cease, it doesn't matter how many seconds you count out as they won't have any meaning.

There's a chance that there are objects/forces that move beyond the speed of light. While the objects can move beyond the speed of light, their electromagnetic properties (mass, appearance to the eye) cannot. Seeing as all relativity is based on the speed of light, these objects pose significant technical problems should they exist. Something can't be in two places at the same time but the object itself would be in one place while its properties ("proof" of its existance) are behind it. The real fun is when both are heading towards something than can be acted on by electromagnetic forces.

Keep in mind that this all happens relative to the actual speed of the object/force. If the object is moving several times faster than the speed of light, it will take awhile.

(em properties)->----------------Object/Force---> (Generic Mass)

(em)-->---------------->O/F(GM) "Phantom Impact"

(em)-->----(GM)

(Unified)(GM) "Actual" Impact

For our math to keep up with this event, we'd have to institute a "reverse time" or something of that nature to explain how the object/force and its properties reunite without the phantom impact resulting in the creation of a second set of em properties.

How any of this ties into a "god" is simple: The forces of the early universe could have been thousands to trilions of times faster than the speed of light. So light and all electromagnetic energy may just be a "slow motion replay" of a universe that has played out cosmic events several billion years in advance even up to its demise which may have already happened.

How can our perception of time, and time occuring at that rate coexist? Again, time is a measure of change. We cannot measure change happening at that rate. We can only measure change against the fastest changing thing we know (which is the speed at which light changes position in a vacuum).

If there were a consciousness that could measure things faster than the speed of light, it would always see into the future because it has seen the travel of energy that light is portraying or catching up to. Basically for there to be a god, there almost certainly has to be something that occurs well above the speed of light.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
i understand that a gnat could fart in a vacuum and thanks to newtons second law would carry on indefinatly untill acted on by a secondary force, which gives some credit to the giant explosion that is still expanding the universe as we speak, but it does not explain where the matter came from in the first place.
trust me religion has no place in my house my wife has a degree in genetics and at the age of 37 ive just started mine in astrophysics so please dont try and tell me that god just poped into exsistence one day and created everything psudoscience and creation myths are not going to wash with me, this isnt the middle ages people!!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Cool thread. I love thinking about this kind of stuff. Just digging into this thread.

A quick thought...


Originally posted by Eitimzevinten
The problem with trying to "rewind" time in order to get an answer is that everyone ends up at the same point when they do it: A giant empty space with no light where nothing appears to be going on.


There is a problem with this statement. Three-dimensional space came into existence only after the big bang. At the point of singularity, there is no "space" between anything. The idea that the universe itself came forth from a singularity that exists within some "other" three-dimensional space is not correct. It is even safe to say that three-dimensional space did not exist until some time AFTER the big bang (relatively speaking), and that prior to that, it existed within many more dimensions.

Of course, we are conjecturing based on General Relativity. But that's pretty much all we've got right now and it has proven itself time and time again.


Cheers!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 

an interesting point. i dont start my degree for a couple of months so any info at this point is a bonus so i have to thank you for that
but again it doesnt explain the very simple question, what was there before anything??? i know that its probably a question that can not be answered but any insight any one might have would at least be a start!!



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I used space a bit casually as the word implies a measurable volume. What I meant was when people try to think back they get to a true vacuum and then try the "something out of nothing" trick. The reason it never works is because they assume it can be figured out in their terms like out of nothing comes a light emitting matter that follows everything we've observed of matter and force so far.

I agree with you about the three-dimensional space. Until matter came along in a 3D form, trying to model it in 3D terms is useless.



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 


what do you mean by matter appearing in a 3d form? surely everything exsists in 3d??



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


Sum all of that up with three words: Unified Field Theory


Within the Unified Field Theory, everything is part of one collective, macro- and microcosmic principles. Therefore, a god or the God could be explained as not an omniscient or omnipotent being, but a title for everything that is contained within that infinity of every particle joined together as pretty much one big machine with lots of little (and big!) parts.

I really enjoyed your presentation and post(s)!





new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join