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.
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?
In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
Originally posted by Phage
Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.
phys.org...
The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.
Originally posted by MadMax7
the standard model actually is insane. All we see and are came ultimately from a little microbe (though none say where that came from) in a pond after the earth cooled after it came together as dust circling a sun (how did that get there again?) after a big bang of nothing were nothing existed.
And we all suck it in because we cannot handle external help outside our realm of understanding, time, dimension and space.
Wow! That is insane.
Originally posted by filledcup
Originally posted by instigatah
this answer will go for both you and Easypleaseme
perform ur own critical thinking analysis.
let's start from the top. and top in this sense means the plane we are on and perceive to be the top. reality!
now here in external reality, we see objects.. 'objects'.. take note of this word. we see objects as they interact with eachother. and understand that some objects react with others, some merge with others to form new constructs, action an reaction, 1+1=2 etc. things are simple and straight forward.
but as we look either deeper into things through scientific inspection of the objects on earth in this reality that we interface with, or further and out into space past our middle point.. things start to become illogical. we have peered into the quantum realm and realized, that things dont work quite the way the work in our logical realm. in the quantum realm, it seems to scientists, that if they hit a pool ball on a pool-table in a certain direction and with a certain force, sometimes it may go straight, but sometimes it may curve, sometimes it will multiply itself into 9 clones and travel in 9 directions simultaneously. in effect.. 1+1 does not equal 2 in the quantum realm.
we also recognize that it seems that reality is manifest from some element or transformation from the quantum into the physical. the bible has already said this. the invisible forms the visible.
now to answer something from nothing.
understand now, that the spiritual is the realm of quantum consciousness. essentially we acknowledge as is stated in the bible. the rules of time and space do not apply as they do on this plane of existence. things become illogical. and through the analysis of machines it would APPEAR TO BE 'Random'. however, where we will agree, is that there is a link between physical reality, and invisible or what i call 'Spiritual Reality'.
what is claimed by mystics, and i fully agree, is that God was not forged out of the LOGICAL process of creation as we would hope to analyse and summarize it. via logic, we require 1+1 to equal 2. but for the spirit.. the laws of exchange do not apply. the philosopher's stone my boy. the spirit of God does not require anything to materialize something. and in that same way God can materialize multiple somethings out of nothing. and set rules to them and how they interact for the design of a grand computer system as you would have it. Math is totally blown out of the water.. it is only a small manifestation of the entirety of existence. there are simply places where the numbers will not take you without your own direct and conscious involvement.
in this same way that the rules of logic as it pertains to creation do not apply for manifestations from God. they are probably even further 'deluded' for how he himself was forged. but ill tell u what. i dont need to know that. what i need to know is how to get to his level and the bible tells us all these things. as well as all other religions, encoded in different ways to pass on the message.
NOTE AGAIN: i am NOT saying that we should reject science. not at all. i am saying that we should not forget that God is the designer and live accordingly while we develop our science. but science will be led back to an intelligent creator eventually. and it will lead to an explosion in the understanding of the makeup of existence and of technological advancement. Religion will become down to a science, and science will respect and work in conjunction with the Science of Religion. all roads lead to rome.
we can crack the codes and in my case translate the mystical concepts into real world applications. but we are limited in what is available in tools to work with. if our tools are limited, we can only produce limited scientific product. thus scientific advancement based on contributions from mystical adepts is hampered based on the level of technology available to them.
what id say is, those guys were good! damn good! the stuff that has been passed down to us is really solid and full of wisdom. i see fully how many fantastic scientific claims coincide with the claims of mystic adepts. not the frauds.. the true adepts of spiritual understanding.
What about this?
Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by filledcup
no. i'm suggesting that there is no evidence for dark matter.
You seem to be confused between dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is the term given the unknown cause of the force causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, not dark matter. However it's not hard to mix them up...I've accidentally stated one when I meant the other before.
we are unsure of how galaxies form, and how the universe seems to expand at an accelerated rate. the principle of dark matter is offered as an explanation.
Then they grab a steel rod and thrust it into the fire. Nothing obvious happens. They think "Ahh well, God it is then."
HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!
Originally posted by filledcup
my point, science will only be able to avoid acknowledging God for so long.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chronon
That's fascinating. While they have insufficient data for the calcs at this point, I wonder if the prediction would be able include the conditions which may exist in the subsequent universe. Would the physics of that universe be the same as the predecessor?
In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.
If you find any interesting speculation revolving around this question, I would like to know.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by filledcup
Dark matter is a currently unknown aspect or affect of gravity. Just leaving this here, so in the future I can tell people I told you so.
There are others who think dark matter observations may be related to gravity, though the authors of the paper I linked above claim the bullet cluster observations rule out modified gravity theory as the cause of those observations.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
To be a little more clear, I believe 'dark matter' is a reaction between gravity and 'dark energy'. But I also believe 'dark energy' is a result or affect of 'gravity'.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
However what's shocking is that you think the attractive force of gravity may be related to not only the attractive force of dark matter, but also the repulsive force of dark energy, because it seems like a self-evident contradiction that an attractive force explains observations of a repulsive force.