It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why God Exist!!!?

page: 31
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.

a reply to: spy66

As expected you failed to provide anything to back up your claims.

The age of the Universe was estimated by analyzing the oldest objects in the Universe via Planck, Hubble and the like.

Yes the Universe is constantly expanding.

No there's no such thing as 'expansion time' as it's the space between objects which is expanding - the speed of which is calculated by red shift.

Compressed singularity? I'm not sure you understand what the singularity is or how science cannot explore it.

Big Bang theory state time only existed at the beginning of the Universe, not beforehand. So yes standard models show it's entirely possible for time not to exist. No matter = no time.


Okay. So you are sying that it is entirely possible that time never existed before the Big Bang.

Great. So how would you explain time than? If there were no time at all before the Big Bang. How does/did time suddenly begin?



If there were no time before the Big Bang. The Big Bang would never have taken Place.


How would you scientifically explain the Beginning of finite time? I know you cant explain it because you dont understand any of this.




posted on May, 10 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I've a degree in Applied Maths, specialising in Physics and have worked with NASA, ESA, Harvard, Stanford, Max Planck institute on SPICA and SDO to name but a few and was part of the International Physics Symposium in 2010. I've worked and studied for years in the field so don't appreciate someone who uses made up scientific sounding phrases telling me I don't understand any of this.

By all means feel free to prove me wrong and post the equations and derivations models, experiments and predictions required for your claim to have any substance.

In physics, time requires space, before the big bang there was no space due to it being a singularity. Space time began with the big bang. This is one of the most thoroughly researched, established and evidenced areas in all of astrophysics. Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' is a brilliantly written and explained book on the subject, which is a great introduction to the subject - while you're opinions may be wrong, you clearly have an interest in the subject and enjoy perusing the ideas and exploring theories so I fully recommend you give it a read as it's an amazing and very interesting book.

You're making the incorrect assumption the singularity obeys our universes laws, at the point of a singularity all known laws of physics break down. We have no way of knowing or exploring what went on in it due to the nature of a singularity. Several labs across the world have created a mini universe - that isn't area of expertise but there's papers on it here: www.lancs.ac.uk...


originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: bastion




^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.


care to explain?



I think the common name for it i the 'raven paradox' using an assumption to verify another assumption and use the combination to verify and explanation only works if the assumption is true. As space-time isn't infinite under all well established models, the initial assumption is false, hence the conclusion will always be false.

Just because the Universe came into existence doesn't automatically mean a god created it. Apologies if this offends you but saying an icecream man named bob who lives in France created it would be an equally valid assumption (well technically a far more valid one as we know for a fact Humans exist) Sorry if I sound like Dawkins (hate the guy as I have no problem with people believing in a creator) it's just when they try and claim scientific proof without using any of the scientific method that gets my back up.
edit on 10-5-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

I dont really care where you have been working. That dosent prove you know anything about this at all.
Because you are starting to prove it. And i will gladly Challenge you on this subject just to prove it.





By all means feel free to prove me wrong


I will prove you wrong. And you will probably give up before i am done. Because they all do in the end, that have challenged me on this subject.




In physics, time requires space, before the big bang there was no space due to it being a singularity.


Wrong. The singularity would need a space to be a singularity since the singularity is a finite, To be formed in and to be present as a Singularity. The singularity is only related to finite Space and time. You should know this.

- The singularity had a beginning, therefore it wont take up all space possible. Therefor there must exist a space larger than the singularity, much larger.[/u]

- If there were no space before the forming of the singularity. There would be no space for the singularity to exist in. That is Logic, and you can not disprove this With your mathe skills or With Your working background.



-What would be present to form the singularity? If there were no timeline prior to the singularity? You would have a Math problem right there. And you have not been thought how to figure that problem out. because you probably dont know how to build Your own Equations.
-How can something start if there is no timeline? You are a Math expert you should know this. You cant even build a functional Equation if there is no time: space/time.

- The only way there would not have been any space prior to the singularity. Would be if the singularity was inifnite and took up all space possible. But we all know that it aint so. The singularity is a finite, No one needs to be a rocket scientists or have worked for NASA to figure this out.





Space time began with the big bang. This is one of the most thoroughly researched, established and evidenced areas in all of astrophysics.


Yeah. Finite time began With the singularity. But finite had a beginning. So everyone should know that there must have been time prior to the Big Bang. Something must have formed the singularity, therefor time and space must have existed before the singularity. That is bloody Logic. What would have formed the singularity. WHAT? if there were no space/time?

I bet you are thinking about giving up already. Because this is way over your head.












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



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I'm not suprised others gave up as you clearly know nothing about the subject so it's pointless trying to debate with you.

Applied Mathematics is the study of generating equations to solve problems, largely in euclidean space-time and SPICA explores the first microseconds of the Big Bang so I'm qualified in the area.

Seeing as you wont take my word for it - here's Steven Hawking's with the full lecture explaining how your deterministic approach is completely wrong.

www.hawking.org.uk...



The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.


If you still continue to claim you singlehandedly know more than the best scientific minds in the world I'm not going to bother replying. That doesn't mean you've won the argument, it just means you're denying yourself an education.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Jesse's dont you understand any of this?

All known Math and what Hawking is known for is from what we know from studing Our universe. Our finite universe . But Our universe is not all that exists.
That is the point when it comes to this topic. Because finite time or real time as the lecture state, is not the only time that exists. It is the only known time that can be measured and studied by science.
What kind of time that existed before the Big Bang is a mysteri to science. But one thing is Clear, it can not be like Our real time. Because real time is only realted and bound to the expanding singularity/Our universe.

But Our universe is not the topic. But form what Space/void formed Our singularity. It must come from a Source. And that Source must have its own real time. And that time and that space must still exist. Becasue Our universe is expanding within that Space/void.






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

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



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

The first paragraph is all correct, but the second paragraph is based on the principles of our Universe - which all studies have shown our current laws don't apply (source, real time etc as a singularity is infinitely dense and occupies no space) so basing a conclusion on those is only going to give a wrong answer. Even Loop Quantum Gravity models are bound by intrinsic cosmic forgetfulness.

Claiming it must have a source, time, space etc..is still using the logic and behavior of our Universe when we know those laws do not apply to the singularity.
edit on 12-5-2014 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

The expansion can not be overcome by finite gravity.

Galaxies ? What keeps the structure together?

Why doesn't the distance increase inside galaxies, why is it only the distance between galaxies themselves that is increasing? With the mass we can observe, why don't they fly apart to begin with? Where is the mass to account for such gravity? It seems to be existing in otherwise "empty space"...

It seems that GR itself implies there is more to space (if you believe it, many see it as very incomplete), how can "empty space/nothing" bend? "Empty space" is obviously something far more than the term implies. For one, it contains most of the mass of the universe.

IMO, your views on the properties of "empty space" seem very simplistic.


Why did the singularity expand when it was moste compressed?

You seem to refer to the "singularity" as if it was a well defined and studied phenomena. I'm not sure the bulk of relevant scientists still believe there was a literal singularity. It doesn't seem like an explanation as much as another word for ???.


If you want an inflating Universe to have a singularity, you need to go back an infinite amount of time! Physically, of course, we can’t do that.....................................................................the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.


scienceblogs.com...


Okay. Lets view this from another angle. Because you do admitt that a absolut empty Space exist. Its just that you dont understand what you are saying With you text.

No, you misunderstood. I find the notion of absolute empty space (as opposed to space devoid of normal physical matter) anywhere, to be extremely unlikely. Space itself is something, I doubt we have really begun to understand it yet.


You say that a Space does not Equal absolute empty if there are particles and EM radiation present. Okay that is true, the Space is not absolut empty.

No, I was pointing out that your extrapolations re an "absolute (whatever) vacuum" via something that is obviously no such thing, could be inaccurate. I'm also saying that I doubt the space between the physical particles is made up of "nothing".


If you read the abowe properly. Dosent a empty Space exist?

If you have a few hydrogen atoms per. cubic meter. wouldnt there be a lot of empty Space ?

That depends on who you ask. Quantum physics? Again, I would say the term "empty space" could be misleading.

I also still have the feeling that your "absolute (whatever property you like) space", simply isn't there. Logically or scientifically.

If it were to exist, I don't see how it would even be relevant, re the claim of god made in the original post?




edit on 12-5-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

What we actually have to keep in mind is that we observe the changes as a part of the expansion proses. Math is also built upon it. Everything we know is bound to the expansion of the Properties within the singularity.

So we have to think differently when it comes to how the singularity was formed. The singularity must have been formed by a compression. When this took Place ther were two different timelines. Compression timeline of energy mass and expansion timeline of emitted enery caused by the compressed energy mass.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




Why doesn't the distance increase inside galaxies, why is it only the distance between galaxies themselves that is increasing?


Well the moon is moving away from Earth at a very slow rate.

The expansion proses happeneds in a specific order, that is why it is not easy to see the expansion within a Galaxy.

The singualrity expands at a much faster rate at its edge. And than the speed is reduced the closer to the center of mass you measure from. From each point you measure from you will see the same. That is why they say that the singularity is expanding equally inn all directions from all center masses "planets, stars and galaxies". from observation they know that it is the matter that make up the space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding.


This is going to take a while to explain. I have to take up the thread tomarrow.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion




I think the common name for it i the 'raven paradox' using an assumption to verify another assumption and use the combination to verify and explanation only works if the assumption is true. As space-time isn't infinite under all well established models, the initial assumption is false, hence the conclusion will always be false.

Just because the Universe came into existence doesn't automatically mean a god created it. Apologies if this offends you but saying an icecream man named bob who lives in France created it would be an equally valid assumption (well technically a far more valid one as we know for a fact Humans exist) Sorry if I sound like Dawkins (hate the guy as I have no problem with people believing in a creator) it's just when they try and claim scientific proof without using any of the scientific method that gets my back up.


Sure you can call it "raven Paradox" or "Hampel's Paradox" or what ever you think it is, but the fact still remains that these are not just mere "assumptions" based on unproven assumptions. These are in fact based on logical conclusions back up by facts!

That is, that physical universe is the result of the "transformation of energy into matter (Cosmos)".

And that energy on its own volition can't transforms "itself" into matter without an outside force acting upon it.

As already proven to us, demonstrated to us, E = m c 2.

Yet, where does this "E" originate?

Does it originate from something inanimate or from "nothing"?

Logic dictates IMPOSSIBLE!

Hence the (new) axiom MUST then true:

"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".

That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.

The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.

As the Law of thermodynamics states - simply - cold flows from hot.

But who sustains the "hot" - eternally?

That is the question you need to unravel my friend.


edit on 13-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: can't



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
God exists,


sorry, thought it was just a stop sign, lol!

lots of peoples anthropomorphaize Him. hell, you get what i mean. spelling be damed.

that is unfortunate.

the f'ker doesn't have a beard or sit on a cloud. seriously?

what was the question again?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2


"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".

That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.

The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.


Can you explain how you know this? How do you know the universe is finite? That also means that at some point all of the energy and matter in this universe will no longer exist. When? How?

Far more likely IMO that the universe itself is infinite (eternal), but in it's present form appears to have begun around 13.8 billion years ago.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66


Well the moon is moving away from Earth at a very slow rate.

Please don't tell me you are claiming that the observed redshift/expansion of space is causing the moon to move away from earth?

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


spy66
The expansion proses happeneds in a specific order, that is why it is not easy to see the expansion within a Galaxy.

Not easy to see, or not seen?


spy66
The singualrity expands at a much faster rate at its edge. And than the speed is reduced the closer to the center of mass you measure from. From each point you measure from you will see the same. That is why they say that the singularity is expanding equally inn all directions from all center masses "planets, stars and galaxies".from observation they know that it is the matter that make up the space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding.

Really. Got a link to these observations?

It would be particularly interesting re the moon receding from earth. Afaik astronomers don't even find such calculations relevant at such small scales ie. even if it were happening it would be imperceptible and overpowered by gravity by litterally billions of times (it is actually the effects of gravity and motion that is causing the moon to recede).

So gravity is not overcoming the expansion anywhere in the universe?



There is enough matter in a galaxy, that locally the expansion of the universe is stopped.....If you just consider a tiny fraction of the universe which just includes a galaxy and total the matter in that region, it's more than enough to have already stopped the expansion in that region.

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


the curious thing is, that this dark energy, whatever it is, is a property of space. So the larger the distance between bodies, the stronger they push to drive them apart. Conversely, gravity - which we’re a bit more used to - is a property of matter, and it’s a pulling force, so that opposes the expansion, and the gravitational pull is stronger the more mass that’s there, and depends on how close you are to it. So, whether the pull of gravity, or the push of dark energy dominates over a given region of the universe, depends on how much mass is there, and how widely separated it is. If they're far apart, the push of the dark energy wins, but if they're close together, gravity is going to dominate. You have to remember, in astronomical terms, our solar system is absolutely tiny. The planets and the sun, and all the constituents of our solar system, are very close together, and there’s no question that gravity wins in that circumstance. Even on the scales of the galaxy, gravity is the dominating force

www.thenakedscientists.com...


Wouldn't the expansion of space show up inside the solar system in the predicted positions of the planets?

No, and for a variety of reasons. The most significant reason is that the gravitational field of the Sun and the Milky Way are stronger than the local gravitational field of the universe. This means that the dynamics of spacetime in our solar system and Milky Way are dominated by the curvature produced by these local masses.

www.astronomycafe.net...


The "true metric" of the universe is, of course, fantastically complicated; you can't expect idealized simple solutions (like the FRW and Schwarzschild metrics) to capture all the complexity. Our knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe is fragmentary and imprecise. In newtonian terms, one says that the Solar System is "gravitationally bound" (ditto the galaxy, the local group). So the Solar System is not expanding. The case for Brooklyn is even clearer: it is bound by atomic forces, and its atoms do not typically follow geodesics. So Brooklyn is not expanding.

math.ucr.edu...


As an example, if the cosmological expansion could be detected in our solar system, its 60 kilometers/sec/megaparsecs would translate into a space dilation rate of 6 centimeters per second per parsec, or for a scale inside our solar system, 0.0002 centimeters/sec per billion kilometers. In 100 years this stretching would amount to 6.2 kilometers at the solar system scale, and 186,000 kilometers at the interstellar scale.Neither of these are measurable, nor is there any physical reason from general relativity why they should even be present given the strength of the local sources of gravity which completely overpower the effect




edit on 13-5-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

www.astro.ucla.edu...


Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe?

]It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature. The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.

www.cfa.harvard.edu...



edit on 13-5-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: edmc^2


"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".

That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.

The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.


Can you explain how you know this? How do you know the universe is finite? That also means that at some point all of the energy and matter in this universe will no longer exist. When? How?

Far more likely IMO that the universe itself is infinite (eternal), but in it's present form appears to have begun around 13.8 billion years ago.


I know this based on logic, common sense and known scientific facts.

But perhaps, I should make this clearer to avoid any confusion.

When I said the Universe is FINITE, I mean the observable PHYSICAL, MATERIAL universe. That which is observable due to its physical characteristics. That which is composed of planets, stars, galaxies, clusters and super clusters is finite. That which has an origin, a beginning 13.8 bya. It began in the Singularity, the Big Bang. Thus, it's finite but ever expanding.

But where is it expanding to?

INFINITE SPACE!

It's expanding to that is which outside its bounds, an infinite space with no bounds.

Hence, if the physical material observable universe is infinite - how can it expand?

And where will it expand to?

INFINITE SPACE? If so, how logical is this?

It is not and it doesn't make sense. For how can infinity expand to infinity? It can't because it's already infinite.

Thus the only logical conclusion is that the Universe IS FINITE!

And it's expanding to an infinite space time continuum that has no beginning and no end, always existing, uncreated.

BTW - an expanding universe proves once again an Origin, a biginning.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum




The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed.


Actually, energy can't be eternal but the SOURCE of it - is ETERNAL.

That is, something (or someone) that already existed uncreated was the source of this energy. And that at some point in time (13.8 bya) Energy was transformed into matter which resulted into the known physical universe.

That's the only logical and valid conclusion because the alternative is to believe and accept that the universe came from NOTHING rather than from something or Someone Eternal.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2

Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.


If I made it up then prove me wrong and I'll reconsider.

Which one is logical:

Nothing can produce something?

Or:

Something can produce something?

To me the later is both scientifically accurate and scientifically logical.

Now please prove me wrong that I just made this up?



edit on 14-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2

Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.


Here's another:

E = m c 2 states that Energy can be transformed into matter vice-versa.

Q: Is E always existing or did it come from "something" / "someone" or from nothing?

I say from "something" / "someone". What say you? Nothing?


edit on 14-5-2014 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
To remind you quit your Job



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join