Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
This is my thought concept of the big bang theorem, as I understand the all the material.

Firstly thermodynamics; mass conservation remains correct only if energy is not lost... Picture the original singularity, extremely hot and dense no energy escaping... a state of non-causation. A state in a perfect molecular fusion of a singularity of helium and hydrogen... then a split occurs causing this singularity to start losing matter from the chain reaction.

As this chain reaction spreads in random directions, some of it decays into another element this element collides with another forming yet another... the energy from the split interacting also forms different elements and different particles... a massive chain reaction of cosmic chemistry; this chain reaction of decay and exchange has yet to cease is the reason for the expanding universe. The re-combinations formed continue this process, such as stars, black holes etc. that produce their own chain reactions of particles in various states of decay and transmutation into other elements etc.

If the background cosmic radiation is thought of as ripple; in the wave of the big bang continuing on in it's chain reaction and that left combining and forming behind it, as the smaller ripples creating chain reactions in every random direction as well then figuring out the location of the specific point from which the chain reaction started, is deemed impossible to determine... just too many chain reaction ripples clouding the determination so to speak.

If we think some empty void into which there was this singularity... that's where the problem arises. The singularity was a something... picture a glass of pure water; the water is what could be equated to the empty void... but lets drop a single grain of salt in it; the singularity. The fact that the single grain of salt sits in the water makes it where it was never a void at all. So now lets step back from that... the container or glass; this empty void water... even with out the grain of salt singularity is still contained by the glass, if you separate the glass and the water... that makes two: No void. So a container does not equal a void, nor does the salt grain in the water equal a void. In fact the concept of water itself even existing does not equal a void either.

So there are 3 refutes down to the very base that a void cannot exist; except as a conceptual thought form. Something did not come from nothing, because a nothing cannot exist.

Now there arises a concept in mathematics where this is concerned... Zero. Zero isn't really a nothing or void either, it is a place holder for potential growth, the circle drawn for zero represents a literal "swelling" from the Sanskrit word: Sunyata... early translation into other languages called it a void or nothingness... which it is not; the correct translation is: "A swelling" or place holder for potential for growth... basically what appears as an empty space can be filled with anything you want to place there or in it, just like a hole in the ground. But it still is not a nothing or void. If there is a hole it's not really a void to begin with. If I place a tree in the hole; the hole didn't disappear it's potential was put to use, if I remove the tree... the potential for something else to be placed in the hole still exists.

This swelling potential can not be created or destroyed only moved... no hole? You dig one, are you creating a hole of space? Or filling another with what comes out of the hole? Where the refuse in making the hole goes is the zero place holder or potential for swelling. When you stop filling the potential place holder when making the hole you have a hole. You can now use the holes potential for swelling by filling it with something else, and the location from which you took the something else, now becomes the potential. That wasn't meant to be a mind twister, but put as simply as I can convey it several different ways... so if it is my apologies.

So if you are still reading... Before the big bang there was the singularity, and the potential of swelling... if the potential wasn't there... it would have had nowhere to go. You can say the potential and the singularity are one, as one cannot exist without the other, and you can say there are two... by identifying the something and the potential this something has. In my mental though model theory the universe will not stop expanding, until the chain reaction of matter has no more energy to utilize this swelling potential.

Feel free to explore these terms concepts:
Nucleosynthesis,Conservation of mass, Sunyata




posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 





If we think some empty void into which there was this singularity... that's where the problem arises. The singularity was a something


The singularity is a something. That means; what ever void that surrounded the singularity is something else. Right?
Because the singularity is not infinite. So the singularity must have been surrounded by a void different than it self.

Before the singularity was formed. There must have existed a void With propertis that would make it possible to form a singularity. The property of that void must also be such that it would make it possible for the singularity and its properties to expand by inflation Equal in all direction and time.

The void surrounding the singularity would seam absolute empty, because this void is different than the Product it formed.



With Your regards to zero "0". A absolute empty Space/ void fits that state as well. A absolute empty Space is absolut neutral. This Space can only be filled up. This Space can never be less neutral than the absolute.

It is only With regards to Our known physical laws of matter and energy that such a Space is a absolute constant. That is why we can not comprehend its functions.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I'm saying for life as it is there is no need for a god to exist. No one is helpless in their situation, they can work to remove suffering from their lives by understanding where it is arising from and whoa get this; changing it.

Imagine two people laying on a blanket starving. One takes responsibility for the situation, walks to find a body of water catches fish and eats... starvation solved. The other continues laying on the blanket and prays to a god for food... still starving and alone on the verge of death.

The other having compassion for the person he shared the blanket with comes back with food and feeds the starving one that resorted to praying instead of change and action. The one that took initiative for change and accepted ending starvation as their own responsibility got fed. The one laying on the blanket praying see's the other returning with fish and thinks their prayers just got answered and the belief in the god they were praying to was just reinforced... instead of seeing responsibility and action are a choice to be made, and thanking the friend for bringing fish and feeling silly to have been laying there praying to fabricated beings.

All the praise and thanks goes to the fantasy and not the person that cured their starvation by taking responsibility for for their self, then the other out of compassion gained by understanding the cause of starvation, the action to resolve it and compassion to aid others in the same situation as they once were.

As soon as the starving man thanked or praised the fantasy god; instead of the one that actually took responsibility for solving the situation had compassion, to feed his delusional friend... he should have rapped him in the head to snap him out of such fantasy, with a firm rebuke... giving him a lesson on on what he learned about accepting responsibility for solving his own problems... for without his compassion the fantasy god would have left him dead on the blanket.

It is up to the individual to take responsibility for their own actions and remove the suffering themselves, when someone does this the existence of a god or not is of no importance whatsoever. When someone is overwhelmed by life; praying to anything is a mentally fabricated crutch. That is why I say it is for weak minded people. It is the same as flipping on the TV to distract oneself from boredom, it takes them out of the current mental state that they are overwhelmed by. Next time prayer to the toaster do it long enough and its enough of a distraction from what was overwhelming, it will disappear just the same.

Taking responsibility for all actions, words and deeds, and sincerely apologizing when those hurt another is what really removes guilt.

No use for the imaginary friend god at all... Not in life and not in the origin of the universe. Good understanding of human psychology and science will solve all problems, laying on a blanket praying will solve one problem: living... good thing the people that made up god, made up an afterlife too or you lay and pray on a blanket folks would be screwed.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Nope according to sunyata it was just a potential. The singularity just shifts that potential around as it expands in the chain reaction. A pencil sitting on top of a piece of paper is a potential, unless some energy uses that pencil and paper that potential to be filled won't be used.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


What you are trying to explain here is a very difficult subject in my view.

If we have two People and they are both hungry. One takes action, the other one would rather pray to God for help.

There are a few problems that come to mind here. To pray to God for help would mean that this person somehowe would know that praying to God would help. You would have to know a few Things about God to know that it would help to pray to God.

How religion and God is understood is quite random from person to person. They could both believe in God. Its just that the person who gathered Food had a different understanding of God.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by spy66
 


Nope according to sunyata it was just a potential. The singularity just shifts that potential around as it expands in the chain reaction. A pencil sitting on top of a piece of paper is a potential, unless some energy uses that pencil and paper that potential to be filled won't be used.


I dont really understand what you mean by the singularity shifting potential.

Did the singularity have a choice???

I dont really fallow what you tried to explain here.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Lol, logic is eternal. I mean and use the term in the most basic form, of cause and effect. Things have to occur because things cause those things to occur, this cant not be the case.
In the Universe, as it is now, that's true.
At the very beginning of the Universe, not so much. At the very beginning there was no time so there was no causality. That changed pretty quickly once things, including time, started.





hm, I meant eternal as in beyond this universe, in the past and others to come (I do not mean the logic we use, or the exact logic that governs the universe, but cause and effect must have always existed and always will; unless you 'believe?"(for some reason) that the universe had no cause. ) all 'real,physical,material,informational,energetic' activity will interact via cause and affect. This action of cause and affect is in essence time it self.

I am trying to envision and imagine what in truth and reality the energy of the universe might have been and where it might have been before the big bang. Are you just ignoring my attempt, and in its place writing statements taken from current theory? So you are not attempting to think about reality and logic and cause and effect, but thinking about the farthest point scientific theories reach in the drawing the reversed engineered blueprints of this universe.

Time existed before this universe, it may have existed in a different rate, with different materials, and forms of energy, but it has always existed. Space has also always existed. Not necessarily the same type of mysterious space in between galaxies, we dont know what that is, but when we take all the energy in the universe and densify it as much as possible, it is still somewhere, and that some where can be called 'a space' or a volume or area.

So from your point of view; all the energy in the universe that exists (which is relatively a lot, an atom bomb is relatively a lot of energy, the sun is relatively a lot of energy, so proportionaly the energy of the entire universe is aaaa lottt) was 'born' brand new, non renewed out of nothing, with no cause, in no time, in no space? If you 'believe' that, there is a 99% chance your belief is absurd and extremely inaccurate.

edit on 7-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





No.That is the problem With inflation . You wont know where the center of first cause took Place. The reason for that is Our observation point. Our observation point is always from the inside of this inflation. If everything outwards from Our observation point looks Equal in all directions, it wont matter if you are located in a different Galaxy. The Space you see above you would be inflating exactly the same from that postition. Locating the exact position of first cause is not really that important if you know how Our universe is expanding. Because the expansion will tell you what the past universe looked like. That is very importand information.


So when Hubble thought of this he didn't know where that singularity would be? Why did I get the idea that thought he did know?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
 





No.That is the problem With inflation . You wont know where the center of first cause took Place. The reason for that is Our observation point. Our observation point is always from the inside of this inflation. If everything outwards from Our observation point looks Equal in all directions, it wont matter if you are located in a different Galaxy. The Space you see above you would be inflating exactly the same from that postition. Locating the exact position of first cause is not really that important if you know how Our universe is expanding. Because the expansion will tell you what the past universe looked like. That is very importand information.


So when Hubble thought of this he didn't know where that singularity would be? Why did I get the idea that thought he did know?




Proponents of big bang and inflation theory will claim that since all energy (matter) and space (space - time) of this universe were non existent in their now recognized forms, and they were instead all together as one unit, taking up no space and no time, composed of nothing, that when this infinitely small non existent non volume of nothing non decided to turn into all energy and space of the universe, that the space and energy of the universe was now, everything, and everywhere, and that is the 'place' the singularity took place, and that is when the singularity took place, moment 0 was when the singularity took place, so doiiiih no time... so when the universe magically began to appear into existence, this event of singularity was occurring 'everywhere'.

word games, semantics, theories, math causes them to infer and deduce an illogical conclusion (which is really the introduction) but that is understandable when you think that imagination and creativity must play a role in filling in the blanks. They have not tried to fill in the blanks, they have taken their many maps and drawings and blueprints, and glued them together, what they then have is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of their work thus far. People then study this work, and sometimes mistake it for being reality.
edit on 7-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   


They have not tried to fill in the blanks, they have taken their many maps and drawings and blueprints, and glued them together, what they then have is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of their work thus far. People then study this work, and sometimes mistake it for being reality.
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Thanks for your reply. It makes a lot of sense.

You and Spy seem to be good at explaining such things. I hope you respond to the new thread about this.

Galaxies aren't moving away because of the big bang



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The universe is not and cannot be a capricious random addition from nothing, but instead is an intelligent subtraction from everything but organized by design in order so that experience, including the experience we enjoy, was/is made possible.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The universe is not and cannot be a capricious random addition from nothing, but instead is an intelligent subtraction from everything but organized by design in order so that experience, including the experience we enjoy, was/is made possible.


I agree. If the Planck constant can tell Our universes hitory up until 10-44 Seconds after the first cause. We have to assume that the time before 10-44seconds can not be a random time. The other proof is the inflation "the expansion"



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

And this


Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by squiz

Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
...
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
...
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
...
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural.
...
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
...
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it’s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
...
Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant.


www.simonsfoundation.org...

Notice the escape clause to extend the probabilty argument?

"then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"

Why else indeed, never mind that big fat elephant in the room.


So let me get this straight..

When they finally squeeze out the illusive Higgs Boson aka The God Particle, in the hope of upholding the Standard Model of Physics, while it does that, nevertheless it points to God of all things as a fine-tuner from an initial cause, so the scientists immediately posit the notion, or the theory, that there must be an infinite number of failed universes wherein ours just happens to be the one with life as we know it, or we wouldn't be here to observe it in the first place. An "escape clause" as you call it. It's pretty funny when you really think about it..

And if it were so, amid all that failure, time and time again in eternity, why would "it" be so persistent, as if willing to succeed at all cost, even at the cost of an infinite amount of failed starts, that's quite the urge to be creative if you ask me, especially when framed in an eternity which is a rather long time to say the least to eventually succeed where every other universe failed

That's hilarious, you see, because even by their account it STILL points to God or an intelligent first/last cause! And here we are joining the circle. Is that not co-creative and participatory? Is it therefore not meaningful and significant?

Are they saying that this universe is absurd and meaningless because it's so perfectly ordered and fine tuned.. (huh?) or, if meaningful, then at best only when framed relative to an infinite ocean of absurdities and impossibilities, all to avoid the obvious elephant in the room, a superintelligent designer.


Those scientists are a RIOT!



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

I am trying to describe what the infinite space must have been before particles and matter appeared. All you guyes are talking about is a space filled with particles and matter and getting nowhere.

You gyes are talking about a space filled with matter and particles. But dont care much for the space.


It seems the confusion (as I see it) comes about as you seem to be implying that space was originally an absolute vacuum? Yet everything that exists, also came into existence with space itself (though not in the form we see now).

Or are you proposing a completely hypothetical vacuum that exists outside of existence (that we know of)? This is where god usually falls down in these type of debates IMO. He can never be observed inside of existence, was there and continues to dwell in "non existence". In other words, he seems to be a hypothetical construct that is completely consistent with something that doesn't exist and never has. If that's god, I can agree.




Sir Isaac Newton had my line of though when he was alive. This is how he explains it:


“Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space … Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.”

In other words, Absolute Space is the study of space as an absolute, unmoving reference point for what inertial systems (i.e. planets and other objects) exist within it. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.



Now........ read what Sir Isaac Newton said again about absolute Space and absolute time.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Seriously - you are using Newton (1642-1727) to explain 21st century physics terminology.

edit on 8-6-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The universe is not and cannot be a capricious random addition from nothing, but instead is an intelligent subtraction from everything but organized by design in order so that experience, including the experience we enjoy, was/is made possible.


I agree. If the Planck constant can tell Our universes hitory up until 10-44 Seconds after the first cause. We have to assume that the time before 10-44seconds can not be a random time. The other proof is the inflation "the expansion"


"We have to assume" - please you don't assume anything in science or at least do your best to discover and discard any assumptions you may be holding.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The universe is not and cannot be a capricious random addition from nothing, but instead is an intelligent subtraction from everything but organized by design in order so that experience, including the experience we enjoy, was/is made possible.


I agree. If the Planck constant can tell Our universes hitory up until 10-44 Seconds after the first cause. We have to assume that the time before 10-44seconds can not be a random time. The other proof is the inflation "the expansion"


"We have to assume" - please you don't assume anything in science or at least do your best to discover and discard any assumptions you may be holding.


Well you dont really have to assume either. The only problem is that the Planck time stops there. The time before 10-44 Seconds must be consistent With the Planck Konstant.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The "nothing" isnt really nothing,its only a matter of speaking. Start studying molecules
then it will all make sense



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Archirvion
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The "nothing" isnt really nothing,its only a matter of speaking. Start studying molecules
then it will all make sense


You know, you raise a good point. We should probably write up disclaimers in each thread to define exactly what an OP is discussing. When I speak of 'nothing' I mean NOTHING. lol Too many times threads will be about a god, and the replies will be about a god with a totally different definition than what the OP intended. This makes for a confusing discussion.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

The time before 10-44 Seconds must be consistent With the Planck Konstant.


Why must it? Especially when it is considered that physics as we understand it, is generally thought to break down at this point? Why must something happen? How do you know this?


Planck Era

]The Planck Era is prior to 10-43 s after the Big Bang, when we believe that the four basic forces of nature, 1) gravity, 2) nuclear strong force, 3) nuclear weak force, and 4) electromagnetic force were combined into a single "super" force. The idea is somewhat like the different phases of water (ice, liquid, and vapor), which are all aspects of the same thing. You can imagine that at certain pressure and temperature there might be conditions in which these three phases of water become a single phase, no longer distinct. Physicists believe that we will eventually find a theory that succeeds in combining all four of these fundamental forces, but at present there is no such theory. (We have names for such a theory, however: supersymmetry, superstrings, or supergravity.) So we really do not know what the universe was like in the Planck Era. Some superstring theories call for spacetime to have 11 dimensions during this time.


web.njit.edu...

edit on 12-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Why must it? Especially when it is considered that physics as we understand it, is generally thought to break down at this point? Why must something happen? How do you know this?


Break Down! There is now way to see before Planck Time "10-44 Seconds after the first cause".

Genral relativity; is one of the theory that breaks Down byond this point. Matter as we know it werent formet before this time.

But what ever event that took place before 10-44 Seconds, must have lead up to the time of 10-44 Seconds after the event started. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out?





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join