Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

Itisnowagain

GargIndia
You are mistaken that "all religions speak non duality".

The root of religion and everything is non duality.
All arises out of the non conceptual.
There is only the ONE.

edit on 9-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

How do you know? Why are you so sure?

GargIndia
Hope you get what you are looking for.

What is it that you think they are going to find? What is it that one seeks?

GargIndia

Itisnowagain

GargIndia
You are mistaken that "all religions speak non duality".

The root of religion and everything is non duality.
All arises out of the non conceptual.
There is only the ONE.

edit on 9-1-2014 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

How do you know? Why are you so sure?

Once the non conceptual is unveiled (the veil has lifted) it is obvious.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


Please give me a direct answer. What makes you think you know it?

reply to post by GargIndia

It is obvious here - it has nothing to do with thinking.
Please listen to the talk I posted if you want to hear more about Advaita (one without a second).

reply to post by GargIndia

Since you said that the "'Veda' has a clear account of origin of the Universe" I thought you could just say what that was. I have no problem doing more research but the link that you posted has no clear account. It is just a retelling of folklore. It may have an account of the origin of the universe but it isn't clear, at least not in a universal way.

Indian school of philosophy (also, called the Vedic philosophy) sheds lights on some deep and unseen facts. The soul can attain the state of salvation after freeing itself from all the bonds by achieving true knowledge of God, soul and matter.

www.aryasamaj.com...

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Who was that aimed at?

GargIndia
reply to post by peter vlar

 

You remember what was taught to you. That makes you a person with good memory, but not a genius.

No, I remember what Iearned. What I was taught was how to think and how to question so I come to my own conclusions. I never claimed to be a genius so I'm not sure how its germain to the topic.

'Veda' has a clear account of origin of the Universe, and 'Veda' is a very old book.

The 'big bang' theory has origin in 'Veda', an ancient Sanskrit book.

Is this what you've read in the Vedas or heard on the Internet? Could you tell me which text it is from? I'm not trying to blow your mind with mind with my genius here just share a little knowledge. Yes, the Vedas are very old. They predate all the Abrahamic religions and are at least 4000 years old. Collectively they are called the Vedas, not the Veda. Technically the Vedas as the Corpus of texts written in Vedic Sanskrit. It's not a single text or book like the Bible or Q'ran. I'm not sure of their pertinence though as most religious texts describe some sort of origin story. While there are certainly some similarities to modern cosmology there are just as many differences. In their version its not actually a creation story as much as an explanation for what they think is the cyclical nature of the universe. They thought that our universe was Brahma dreaming. Each day for Brahma is a little over 8 billion years in mortal terms and that the dream lasts 100 brahma years. The scale is just a little off wouldn't you say? They think there are an infinite number of universes each with its own dreaming god. Like I said there are some similarities to modern cosmological theory enough that Carl Sagan referenced it once but similarities aren't synchronicity.

There is no way science can find the origin of the Universe, as there is no direct observations. You can say that telescopes can find it. But unfortunately the space out there is not as transparent as people believe, and light waves do get distorted when travelling large distances.

Are we likely to understand what Or if anything existed prior to the singularity? I think its extraordinarily ignorant to say no. It was only 25 years ago most astronomers would have said there was no way to detect let alone image an extrasolar planet. We now can do both. 100 years ago people died from syphilis which can now be cured with penicillin. As our knowledge expands so do our concepts and implementation of those concepts. It's not distance that distorts light as it travels through a vacuum, its gravity from stellar objects it passes near. We know this and can account for it through that lovely little thing called math. arguing from incredulity that someone can never know something because you heard that a really old book says something that goes along your personal belief that science is a crock is not remotely the same as refutation through facts.

daskakik
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Who was that aimed at?

Absolutely no one.
No thing is talking to no thing.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Well no one got it.

Guess it was just the way it had to be.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

By asking if there is an external 'pressure' you are showing that you do not understand cosmological expansion. It is not about space expanding against an external force, it is expanding from a central point outwards. Additionally, the singularity has to be infinite due to the universe being infinite. A finite singularity cannot produce infinite mass and energy.

If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well. How can you exclude the exsternal force?????????

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it? What makes the Central point Central if nothing is surrounding it????????
The singularity must have a surrounding Space or force since the singularity is a Central point????????

Or am i missing something here???

What you say dont make any sense at all.

spy66
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

By asking if there is an external 'pressure' you are showing that you do not understand cosmological expansion. It is not about space expanding against an external force, it is expanding from a central point outwards. Additionally, the singularity has to be infinite due to the universe being infinite. A finite singularity cannot produce infinite mass and energy.

If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well. How can you exclude the exsternal force?????????

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it? What makes the Central point Central if nothing is surrounding it????????
The singularity must have a surrounding Space or force since the singularity is a Central point????????

Or am i missing something here???

What you say dont make any sense at all.

This present happening is the single point. The present happening can be a story made of words speaking about another time or place.
"Long ago in a far, far away land........................................."

reply to post by peter vlar

Not really, only those who slept their way through 8th grade science class. Those of us that paid attention know that after the initial expansion of the is singularity, the only thing produced was hydrogen. Then between 10 seconds and 20 minutes after expansion, the process of nucleosynthesis began which created helium isotope He4 and small amounts of deuterium, some helium He3 and very small amounts of lithium. These were the stable isotopes. There were also a couple of unstable isotopes that emerged at this point such as tritium or H3 a hydrogen isotope and beryllium 7, both of which decayed into He3 and Lithium7 respectively.

This is what i have heard Lawrence Krauss say if i am not mistaken?
I think this knowledge will change in the future. But it might be a good basis to start out from, and do corrections from.

Everything heavier came much later after the first stars exploded causing stellar nucleosynthesis. Galaxies and planets came along a bit after that. I also think that the is some confusion here as to what is finite and what is infinite. In regards to time, the point of reference is a human one. We think about time in finite terms because our lives are finite, we need to ascribe dates to everything to give it scale. While it may appear as though time is finite because we only count back to the Big Bang, that doesn't mean that time itself is finite.not knowing what happened prior to the expansion of the singularity leaves us without context to compare to something the human mind can grasp. A time and space are part and parcel of each others existence, space can not be infinite while time remains finite. It is a massive contradiction with no reconciliation.

When it comes to time and the beginning of finite time. You have to considder at least 4 different time scales.

1. A compression time line. It takes time to form the singularity. This is the real beginning of finite time.

2. A expansion time line of emitted energies do to the compression.

4. A neutral time line. This time line takes splace between compression and expansion. It is the shortest time line.

4. Expansion time line of the compressed energy mass. The singularity. This is after the compression is finished.

You can Call al these 4 time-line's mechanical or finite time lines.


But than there is a time line that is a absolute constant. The absolute constant time line differs from everything that have a finite time line.

The other difference between finite and infinite is that finite can never be absolute neutral. The infinite is always absolute neutral.
One always changes, the other never changes.

Finite have bounderies, the absolute constant dosent have bounderies.

Itisnowagain

spy66
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

By asking if there is an external 'pressure' you are showing that you do not understand cosmological expansion. It is not about space expanding against an external force, it is expanding from a central point outwards. Additionally, the singularity has to be infinite due to the universe being infinite. A finite singularity cannot produce infinite mass and energy.

If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well. How can you exclude the exsternal force?????????

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it? What makes the Central point Central if nothing is surrounding it????????
The singularity must have a surrounding Space or force since the singularity is a Central point????????

Or am i missing something here???

What you say dont make any sense at all.

This present happening is the single point. The present happening can be a story made of words speaking about another time or place.
"Long ago in a far, far away land........................................."

True. We and everything that makes up the single point have to fallow presen time line.
No mater what time line we speak about, we always speak from the present time line we exist With.

reply to post by spy66


You people have been debating the contents of "the set that contains all the sets not contained in the set that contains all sets" for pages now. Stop it!

spy66
If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well.

Why?

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it?

Infinite matter and energy.

What you say dont make any sense at all.

Just because you do not understand the concept of the singularity and infinity does not mean they do not make sense.

AugustusMasonicus

spy66
If the singularity is expanding from a Central force or point, it must be expanding against a exsternal force as well.

Why?

Because the single point you refer to isnt infinite. It is finite.

If the singularity is a Central point. What is surrounding it?

Infinite matter and energy.

The infinite dosent consist of finite matter or energy. It cant. The absolute infinite is absolute neutral. And Your Central point is not absolute neutral; it is a finite, it is changing. They are some of the basic differences between finite and infinite.

spy66

This is what i have heard Lawrence Krauss say if i am not mistaken?
I think this knowledge will change in the future. But it might be a good basis to start out from, and do corrections from.

Krauss may have echoed that in his book 'A Universe From Nothing' but i paraphrased Robert Fuller

en.wikipedia.org...

. I'm curious, why do you think it will change in the future? I'm not saying I disagree, at least in principle because that to me is one of the beautiful things about science, that it is willing to admit when it's wrong and adjust appropriately.

When it comes to time and the beginning of finite time. You have to considder at least 4 different time scales.

1. A compression time line. It takes time to form the singularity. This is the real beginning of finite time.

2. A expansion time line of emitted energies do to the compression.

4. A neutral time line. This time line takes splace between compression and expansion. It is the shortest time line.

4. Expansion time line of the compressed energy mass. The singularity. This is after the compression is finished.

You can Call al these 4 time-line's mechanical or finite time lines.


But than there is a time line that is a absolute constant. The absolute constant time line differs from everything that have a finite time line.

The other difference between finite and infinite is that finite can never be absolute neutral. The infinite is always absolute neutral.
One always changes, the other never changes.

Finite have bounderies, the absolute constant dosent have bounderies.

I stand by what I stated earlier. You are attempting to impose a human construct on something not bound by our constructs or observations. Time is a man made concept that allows us to grasp the scale of our finite lives and cosmologically it is a basis for scale as well by determining how long and far light has travelled. Just because we don't know what happened at the point of inception for the singularity or prior to the singularity does not mean that there was nothing before let alone no time before. It seems to me that you are imposing your own perspective on something that is much larger than the scope of human imagination.There are a lot of unanswered questions relating to the very beginning of what we refer to as our universe, that I certainly agree with. I always try to point out that science is not an omnipotent entity with all the Answers, it is the sum of what we currently know and the vest explanations we have based on the best knowledge we have compiled. All of that however is subject to new information and thus the concepts of science while on the surface seem rigid, are very malleable when presented with new Information that stands up to scrutiny.

DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

You people have been debating the contents of "the set that contains all the sets not contained in the set that contains all sets" for pages now. Stop it!

edit on 9-1-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

I have done this over and over again for a few years now her on ATS. With many people. This is far from the first time. Some times you just have to do one step at a time. It does get boring for some. But some might Catch on to something they didnt know.

I also learn how some People think and unerstand their science.