Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: WunderingTruth on 11/11/2009 08:37:13
-
I have posted my theory of creation in a few forums on the net and have not received any response. Could you please tell me what portion(s) of my theory is not plausible according to observations that form the basis of the theory of “ The Big Bang “ and why?
Big Bang or Just A Stretch of God’s Imagination?
Looking to God as the creator, God is light, in him is no darkness at all. God is spirit, not created energy so we would not be able to detect his reality within our own reality, even though both realities coexist. The light of creation is a created light. God, who is infinite and eternal, exist within his own imagination “ for lack of a better word.” God is pure thought, you can not measure the distance of him, he just is.
God created something new. God created a four dimensional reality. The forth dimension of time is an illusion created within reality, by the movement of light within reality. When God spoke reality into existence, his words are not as our words ( sound vibrating through air, ) his words spoke through time creating the pattern his created energies would follow throughout creation.
Instead of a big bang, beginning with all of the energy of the universe, condensed into a tinny singularity. My theory begins with a pure energy ( light ) that filled the entire universe.
Light began to separate from light. at the very beginning of this separation, when the two forms of energy ( light ) would touch, they became one energy again, this process created a tremendous amount of heat energy.
As the temperature cooled to the point of, what you call quark confinement, two types of energy was created, free energy and confined energy. The cooling did not necessarily cause the confinement of energy, but rather the stretching of the free energy caused the cooling and confinement of energy. The confined energy would be the energy that creates mater. The free energy would be the energy that pulls it all together, or gravity.
( So called quarks, became the confined energy? anti quarks the free energy?, or confined and free photons? )
As the confined energy began to condense, the free energy began to stretch. The confined energy condensed at individual locations throughout the newly forming universe causing the free energy to stretch across the entire universe.
This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.
What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
It is imposable for the confined energy, or mater, to travel at the speed of light, instead it spins within itself at the speed of light. This spinning of the confined energy causes the rotation of planets and black holes. The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.
Free energy travels at the speed of light, therefore it is infinite in mass, therefore it fills the universe. This free energy is what creates gravity. Light gravitates toward light.
Free energy, being infinite in mass, creates the fabric of the universe through which light ( photons ) travel. This energy must be infinite in mass, so that every point in the universe intersects every point in the universe at every point in the universe, to create our hologram reality. How else would you be able to observe the entire universe from any point in the universe?
This would explain why different forms of light, which are waves, behaves as a particle when you observe it. The very act of observing it stops its motion, thus it is no longer infinite in mass.
This would also explain the red shift when observing the galaxies, the greater the distance, the greater the observed energy is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, thus the greater the red shift.
The condensing of the confined energy throughout the universe, condensed into great concentrations throughout the universe. The tremendous pressure of the condensing of the confined energy ( quarks? Photons? ) caused this energy to compress into protons and neutrons to form the nucleus of atoms,
These concentrations became so great it caused great explosions leaving behind the huge black wholes in the center of the galaxies. The energy released in the explosions spiraled outward because of the rotation of the black holes. This energy condensing throughout the newly forming galaxies began the formation of stars. The condensing of energies and explosions of stars produced the matter for the formation of planets.
-
WunderingTruth, thank you for sharing your imaginative ideas.
Unfortunately, at this stage your post is closer to a philosophical concept as opposed to a scientific theory. As this is first and foremost a scientific forum you will have to first restructure your statements to make them pertinent to the language of science. Ultimately this will mean using mathematics to describe you theories, but you can advance scientific concepts some way without this.
Could you please tell me what portion(s) of my theory is not plausible according to observations that form the basis of the theory of “The Big Bang“ and why?
Be aware that it is impossible to measure the validity of your statements without you having defined what they actually mean scientifically.
For example you use constructs such as 'pure light'. This has no clearly defined meaning in science and therefore you are going to have to 'reframe' you arguments in ways that can be transformed unambiguously into testable theories (ultimately in a mathematical form).
The other problem faced is you also start from the presumption of God's proven existence, that He is commanding proceedings and has set the rules for 'creation' to unfold along.
Although a significant proportion of scientists have a religious belief, it is necessary for them, if they are to be taken seriously, to leave God out of their work. The scientific method is the most powerful means we have of analysing 'nature', but it can't begin to say anything about untestable concepts of faith.
Please continue to explore what science has already given us, as well as your own imagination. Just do so in a way that can offer testable results. It is not enough to ask where your 'theory' contradicts observation without explaining, in a universally understood manner, what your ideas actually are.
-
I mentioned pure energy ( with light in parentheses ), the same pure energy that is produced when matter and antimatter annihilate each other. According to The Big Bang Theory, this energy was present at the very first instance of the big bang. All energy is made up of different forms of light. Pure light, by definition is pure energy that has no wavelength or frequency and is not moving because it has no darkness to move through, before time, matter, or math exist.
Instead of a big bang, beginning with all of the energy of the universe, condensed into a tinny singularity. My theory begins with a pure energy ( light ) that filled the entire universe.
I mention God as the source of the bringing into existence this pure energy ( light )
The Big Bang Theory mentions a minute singularity in which all of the energy in the universe once was contained.
Both are concepts that can not be mathematically theorized or scientifically perceived.
I know it's hard for some, maybe most, but not all of the scientific minds to get past the ( G ) word, but I am looking for someone who can.
-
All energy is made up of different forms of light.
I appreciate where you're going with your concept, but to take it further I recommend you read up on some popular science articles. For starters, not all energy is light (even 'light' is a narrow band [visible to our eyes] of the electromagnetic spectrum). The energy that causes nuclear reactions for example is a separate 'force'. In fact there are four of these fundamental forces observed in nature:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980127c.html
- gives a simple introduction to these & wikipedia (& others) gives a more complex description.
Pure light, by definition is pure energy that has no wavelength or frequency and is not moving because it has no darkness to move through, before time, matter, or math exist.
Sadly, this is inconsistent with science's definition of light. All light must have a wavelength. To argue otherwise is going to close the development of your idea off to a lot of the advantages that science and maths can bring.
...before time, matter, or math exist.
...
The Big Bang Theory mentions a minute singularity in which all of the energy in the universe once was contained. Both are concepts that can not be mathematically theorized or scientifically perceived.
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang. Efforts to avoid the infinite numbers that occur in mathematical models of black holes & the big bang are one of the major stumbling blocks in physics today, but each advance has to built on the solid foundations of proven science.
-
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang. Efforts to avoid the infinite numbers that occur in mathematical models of black holes & the big bang are one of the major stumbling blocks in physics today, but each advance has to built on the solid foundations of proven science.
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved ( so many unanswered questions )IE. How does light behave as wave/particle, what is the first cause of the " Big Bang ", What causes gravity, The Big Bang itself is still just a theory, not proven fact.
not all energy is light (even 'light' is a narrow band [visible to our eyes] of the electromagnetic spectrum). The energy that causes nuclear reactions for example is a separate 'force'. In fact there are four of these fundamental forces observed in nature:
1. Gravity - This force acts between all mass in the universe and it has infinite range.
2. Electromagnetic - This acts between electrically charged particles. Electricity, magnetism, and light are all produced by this force and it also has infinite range.
3. The Strong Force - This force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms and is a short range force.
4. Weak Force - This causes Beta decay (the conversion of a neutron to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino) and various particles (the "strange" ones) are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions (that's what's strange about "strangeness"). Like the strong force, the weak force is also short range.
The weak and electromagnetic interactions have been unified under electroweak theory (Glashow, Weinberg, and Salaam were awarded the Nobel Prize for this in 1979). Grand unification theories attempt to treat both strong and electroweak interactions under the same mathematical structure; attempts to include gravitation in this picture have not yet been successful.
Do you admit all ( energy ) is different forms of the same thing? In ( my concept ) visible light is part of the infinite range of the same energy ( light ). I also challenge the view of ( particles ) of energy as stated in number 4 above. If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
Also in ( my concept ) The so called " decay of energy particles " is actually energy being absorbed into the infinite mass of energy that makes up the " fabric " of the universe.
It is true that science's ability to describe the physical conditions at an infinitely dense point becomes meaningless. However it is meaningless to talk about 'before' the big bang as time is bound up with space, so time (at least in terms of our universe) only began to tick at the big bang.
To one who believes God must not even be considered to be taken seriously, it may be meaningless to talk about before the universe came into existence. Time began to tick in terms of our universe at the beginning of the creation of our universe.
If your perception of reality is formed within your mind by the information your mind receives, is it not possible that our limited four dimensional reality dwells in God's mind? If you cant find the dreamer within the dream, does that mean the dreamer does not exist?
-
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.
-
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.
Since god is a stretch of our own imagination, then that is automatically implied.
-
But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?
-
Going to turn this into a religious thread? [::)]
God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.
-
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).
I would have to challenge the statement that ignorance is the same thing as having lots of unanswered questions. For a start, ignorance is implies that very little useful work can continue until a more complete understanding is not forthcoming. Be this measure our current set of physical models of nature are anything but ignorant. The fact that we can solve all sorts of technological problems and make amazingly accurate predictions of the outcomes of incredibly complex systems does not strike me as poor foundation on which to build our understanding.
If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
My apologies. I tried not to be biased, but being short of time I did scan read your original post when answering. I now see I was too quick to assume you had not explored the current scientific research and have a fair grasp of the theories that tie our universe together.
That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon. Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory. My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.
You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
There is NO evidence that the dimensions of space are somehow 'knitted-together' "free" energy [again, sorry if I have misunderstood your ideas, but I think that's what you're saying]. Although, interestingly particle theories based on the mathematics of symmetry-breaking (superstrings, being one) do predict that particles could be the points of multi-dimensional space wrapped up tightly on themselves - sort of the inverse of your idea.
Any energy that is infinite by nature (as you suggest your 'free energy' is, would be unsustainable without forming a singularity.
But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?
Our own vision of 'God' is what we individually understand the word to mean, no more, no less. I don't see the point in arguing over semantics. At the end of the day, if a creator is real, no human analogy is going to be correct.
-
Science has many good foundations to build upon ( within its limitations ). Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. All of the unanswered questions is due to a lack of enough knowledge to answer the questions.
That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon. Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory. My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.
Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate?
You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms.
I am attempting to put forth a concept that could answer these questions. Science also is putting forth their own concepts in an attempt to answer these questions, IE. Dark matter, dark energy, warping of the fabric of space causing the effects of gravity.....
I believe my concept makes more sense, ( especially with the wave/particle characteristic of light ).
Other questions science is looking for answers to, during the process of the creation of ( matter and antimatter ), and their subsequent annihilation of each other, how did enough matter survive to create all of the matter in the universe?, and where is this missing energy ( dark energy, dark matter )?
From my original post
Free energy, being infinite in mass, creates the fabric of the universe through which light ( photons ) travel. This energy must be infinite in mass, so that every point in the universe intersects every point in the universe at every point in the universe, to create our hologram reality. How else would you be able to observe the entire universe from any point in the universe?
Say you have a super eye capable of seeing millions of light years into space. The lens of this super eye is 1/4 inch in diameter. In order to " see " the lens must receive information from light energy. as you rotate this eye it can see the entire vastness of space, and everything in it. No matter at what point in the universe you position this eye it is able to receive this information ( light ).
This is only possible if light, which is a wave, is infinite in mass to spread throughout the universe. Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish this.
When light is emitted it appears as a particle, as it speeds to light speed it masses out infinitely as a wave, when it is observed its motion is stopped and it appears once again as a particle. This would also be true with electrons.
From my original post
This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the faint background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.
The free energy orbits the confined energy at the speed of light, producing what is observed as the electron ( cloud ) around the nucleus of atoms.
What you detect as electrons, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
-
Science has many good foundations to build upon (within its limitations).
These limitations are what? Please explain.
Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation#Origin_of_rotation
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics.
Science also is putting forth their own concepts in an attempt to answer these questions...I believe my concept makes more sense.
Do you want to play by the rules of 'science' or not? If your concepts make more sense than current theories can you use scientific language (ultimately including maths) to support them?
how did enough matter survive to create all of the matter in the universe?, and where is this missing energy ( dark energy, dark matter )?
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too, as more matter was created during the earliest period after the big bang. I may be right in thinking neutrinos as theorised to represent much of so called dark energy. [It's a long time since I looked at this stuff though!]
Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish [transfer of information from all points in the universe].
Why can't they?
...as [light] speeds to light speed...
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.
-
How can science be built on a solid foundation when there is so much ignorance involved (so many unanswered questions).
I would have to challenge the statement that ignorance is the same thing as having lots of unanswered questions. For a start, ignorance is implies that very little useful work can continue until a more complete understanding is not forthcoming. Be this measure our current set of physical models of nature are anything but ignorant. The fact that we can solve all sorts of technological problems and make amazingly accurate predictions of the outcomes of incredibly complex systems does not strike me as poor foundation on which to build our understanding.
If you could let go of your bias long enough to consider what I wrote, I explained why light behaves as particle/wave.
My apologies. I tried not to be biased, but being short of time I did scan read your original post when answering. I now see I was too quick to assume you had not explored the current scientific research and have a fair grasp of the theories that tie our universe together.
That said I am struggling to understand why you would, having shown your level of understanding start inventing new ways of explaining fairly everyday phenomenon. Making confused suggestions about a new reason why planets and other celestial bodies spin is not going further support for your theory. My advice is stick to the areas of physics that are still in some doubt.
You are also going to have trouble substantiating many of your statements with the current observable evidence, as:
Light gravitates towards mass, not other light.
There is NO evidence that the dimensions of space are somehow 'knitted-together' "free" energy [again, sorry if I have misunderstood your ideas, but I think that's what you're saying]. Although, interestingly particle theories based on the mathematics of symmetry-breaking (superstrings, being one) do predict that particles could be the points of multi-dimensional space wrapped up tightly on themselves - sort of the inverse of your idea.
Any energy that is infinite by nature (as you suggest your 'free energy' is, would be unsustainable without forming a singularity.
But who says God is as what we seem to hypothesize him being? How do we know our vision of God is the correct analogy?
Our own vision of 'God' is what we individually understand the word to mean, no more, no less. I don't see the point in arguing over semantics. At the end of the day, if a creator is real, no human analogy is going to be correct.
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
-
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
Eh? A little help? .... Anyone?
-
The one who is imagining the (imaginable?) is also the body which imagins the imaginer. But who imagines the the imaginer and the imaginee? - But who imagines Him/Her?
Eh? A little help? .... Anyone?
It's unimaginable to me that you can't imagine what Mr. Scientist was imagining. You just have to use your imagination.
There! I imagine that helps a lot.
-
It's basically a crude reduction to who imagined God in the very beginning.
Who created YHVH basically.
-
Peppercorn [::)]
These limitations are what? Please explain.
Limited within the realm of information that is proven fact. With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on to try and establish theories such as, the big bang, string, dark matter, dark energy..............
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Do you want to play by the rules of 'science' or not? If your concepts make more sense than current theories can you use scientific language (ultimately including maths) to support them?
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too, as more matter was created during the earliest period after the big bang. I may be right in thinking neutrinos as theorised to represent much of so called dark energy. [It's a long time since I looked at this stuff though!]
Again, theory verses theory.
Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish [transfer of information from all points in the universe].
My original statement,
" No matter at what point in the universe you position this eye it is able to receive this information
( light ) ".
" Photons as small packets of energy spreading throughout the universe could not accomplish this ".
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
-
Mr Scientist
God is in his own dimension where there is no time, space, or matter. He has no beginning. He has no end. Just as we as individuals dwell in our own imagination, which God created, God also dwells in his own imagination. nobody had to create God's imagination.
Satan gained access to our imagination when Adam acknowledged him in disobeying God.
When Jesus had a near death experience on the cross, God entered the heart of Jesus by the spirit of Elijah who had never died.
When Jesus died on Masada at 80yrs old, as the last Hasmonean King of Israel, God entered the hearts of the righteous. Through the eyes of the righteous he has been observing the evil and the good.
When the righteous see God, they will become like him for they will see him as he is.
Going to turn this into a religious thread? [::)]
God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.
God's " Truth " is hidden within the lies.
God is hiding in the darkness within the children of light.
God's " Truth " is about to be revealed.
There is soon to be a war between The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.
This is when Satan will be cast out of the imaginations of the righteous and into the earth. The war between Satan and his angels, and Michael and his angels takes place in the imaginations of men after " The Truth " is revealed.
-
Mr Scientist
God is in his own dimension where there is no time, space, or matter. He has no beginning. He has no end. Just as we as individuals dwell in our own imagination, which God created, God also dwells in his own imagination. nobody had to create God's imagination.
Satan gained access to our imagination when Adam acknowledged him in disobeying God.
When Jesus had a near death experience on the cross, God entered the heart of Jesus by the spirit of Elijah who had never died.
When Jesus died on Masada at 80yrs old, as the last Hasmonean King of Israel, God entered the hearts of the righteous. Through the eyes of the righteous he has been observing the evil and the good.
When the righteous see God, they will become like him for they will see him as he is.
Going to turn this into a religious thread? [::)]
God gets a bad rep. because of Christians. If you want to find God don't Go to church. Look into the hearts of the people the world has sh1t on. You'll more than likely find God in prison in the hearts of people the world has pissed off, patiently waiting to reveal himself in his wrath against the self righteous.
God's " Truth " is hidden within the lies.
God is hiding in the darkness within the children of light.
God's " Truth " is about to be revealed.
There is soon to be a war between The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness.
This is when Satan will be cast out of the imaginations of the righteous and into the earth. The war between Satan and his angels, and Michael and his angels takes place in the imaginations of men after " The Truth " is revealed.
God has many visions, many guises or rather we have different point of view, as rather instresting yours is.
-
Mr Scientist
Did you ever notice? in Revelation 4:1,2 John says,
After this I looked, and, behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as a trumpet talking with me; which said, come up hear.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
It does not say John went anywhere. It says immediately he was in the spirit. Heaven is not in any particular location. Heaven is in the spirit. The spirit is in us. We go back to the dust from which we came, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
-
Could we get this back to science please? As a zoologist, I don't feel my understanding of cosmology is strong enough to discuss specific points with you, but I can address some of the general issues of ideas, hypotheses and theories and how they relate.
I think it's worth pointing out that the theories you challenge are hypotheses based on the maths and the understanding of what has gone before. Your hypothesis is fine, but if you are to ignore the maths it can't compete with the currently accepted hypotheses and theories. Should you ever hope to have this considered scientifically, you must work within the scientific paradigm.
Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean the same as in a lay parlance. Theories are hypothesis that have been tested thoroughly. Thus, your ideas are not yet able to compete against them.
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
This illustrates my point.
Furthermore, by including any reference to god, you immediately create a discontinuance in your theory - if it is true it would not require the assumption of the existance of a god, it would simply be true. Scientific ideas with god involved are essentially flawed, as belief in a god is dogmatic and science is pragmatic.
-
I think it's worth pointing out that the theories you challenge are hypotheses based on the maths and the understanding of what has gone before. Your hypothesis is fine, but if you are to ignore the maths it can't compete with the currently accepted hypotheses and theories. Should you ever hope to have this considered scientifically, you must work within the scientific paradigm.
The math of the " scientific paradigm " you are referring to has science looking for energy that they can not find IE. dark matter/ dark energy? I have not ignored the math with my hypothesis. Is free energy = confined energy = balance = order to simple to be considered math? Science is causing things to be more complicated than they have to be, just because of their refusal to even acknowledge the possibility of God, ( which by the way, all of the things they are observing is pointing to a creator they just don't want to acknowledge it. )
Black hole conserve the rotation of their parent star.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
This illustrates my point.
No, sorry, but this illustrates my point. The statement I quoted from peppercorn above is not proven theory.
Theory, in a scientific sense, does not mean the same as in a lay parlance. Theories are hypothesis that have been tested thoroughly. Thus, your ideas are not yet able to compete against them.
Excuse me? I formulated my hypothesis from the provable observations within science, ( show me the math that proves my hypothesis wrong ), adding God into the equation creates the answers to the questions science has thus far been unable to answer.
Show me the math in all of the matter within the universe contained in a minute singularity smaller than an atom, and the universe expanding faster than the speed of light while it created itself within approximately sixteen billion years. You could believe this, but the existence of God is out of the question?
Furthermore, by including any reference to god, you immediately create a discontinuance in your theory - if it is true it would not require the assumption of the existance of a god, it would simply be true. Scientific ideas with god involved are essentially flawed, as belief in a god is dogmatic and science is pragmatic
No, including any reference to God, immediately closes your mind to my theory. How about, it simply is true, with God as the first cause. Scientific ideas without God included are essentially flawed. I am not talking about religion here, I am talking about God.
Looking at things with your eyes closed will only allow you to see what you want to see. I choose to keep my eyes open.
I believe you need to go and tend to your monkies now [::)]
-
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
-
Mr Scientist
Did you ever notice? in Revelation 4:1,2 John says,
After this I looked, and, behold a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as a trumpet talking with me; which said, come up hear.
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
It does not say John went anywhere. It says immediately he was in the spirit. Heaven is not in any particular location. Heaven is in the spirit. The spirit is in us. We go back to the dust from which we came, and the spirit goes back to God who gave it.
Yep. Word-by-word actually... anyway...
what of it?
-
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
True.
-
These limitations are what? Please explain.
With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon. True, a experimental outcome tomorrow might lead to a complete rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in science, but empirical science is in some ways mislabelled as the search for ultimate truth, really it should be considered an ever-more precise 'model' of our collective perception of existence.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Theories are what science 'has'. Proof (so far as it has a meaning) - Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
More correctly it doesn't exist before its moving. It makes its journey (at 'c') then is no longer a photon. At either end of the 'journey' the quanta of energy it 'is' has been/will be in some other form.
-
These limitations are what? Please explain.
With the lack of information to answer their unanswered questions, science does not have a solid foundation to build on...
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon. True, a experimental outcome tomorrow might lead to a complete rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in science, but empirical science is in some ways mislabelled as the search for ultimate truth, really it should be considered an ever-more precise 'model' of our collective perception of existence.
Again, Can you show me where science has adequately proven why planets and black holes rotate? I am well aware they have theories too.
Theories are what science 'has'. Proof (so far as it has a meaning) - Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
Electrons are matter not light. Claiming otherwise is counter to physics
Electrons are a form energy that makes up matter, Again I am speaking of light as defined in my theory, which includes electron clouds around atoms. This is only counter to a different theory in physics based on ( lack of information ).
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
When a photon is ( emitted ) it has a starting point at which it is not moving until it is ( emitted ). When it is observed, or absorbed, or captured it is stopped.
More correctly it doesn't exist before its moving. It makes its journey (at 'c') then is no longer a photon. At either end of the 'journey' the quanta of energy it 'is' has been/will be in some other form.
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
-
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability. The other doesn't, hence the problem.
-
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?
Again show me the math that proves me wrong.
-
I simply don't have the time.
I'm struggling with daily activities as it is. Sorry.
-
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?
Again show me the math that proves me wrong.
In the world of science, an individual with a new theory must prove their argument by scientific method - that is: put it in a form that makes predictions (ideally with some maths to define exactly what is happening) and then look for evidence in the real world that supports it. No one in history has ever furthered their scientific career by saying "I've got this really general ill-defined idea which I believe is true. Now, it's up to others to prove me wrong!"
If you can make some general predictions as to what your theory should mean for reality then we can explore whether it matches up with what scientists observe. The first step (as I've said several times) is to put your ideas in recognisable scientific language; e.g. you can't call all energy/matter Light as it destroys the meaning of the word & therefore your theory. Try using more correct terminology, then we'll see....
-
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
-
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
Ha! Hardly a ruckus! You may have noticed that my 1st reply to WT was incredibly positive & encouraging. I certainly don't want him to give up exploring his ideas, just make them more accessible to analysis.
-
Maybe not a ruckus, if you knew the absolute definition. More like though admittedly it's an arguement that resides without any rectification.
I was right in what i said.
-
it's an argument that resides without any rectification.
You say that, but rectification is exactly what I hope for. It's hard enough these days for educators to inspire their students to take up the sciences (or engineering - like moi!). I certainly don't want to put anyone off their exploration of science. It's just scientific enquiry needs rules and boundaries or it's meaningless.
-
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as ( little packets of energy ), it's up to them. My terminology
explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
Oh come on now. In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that light ( photons ) must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
Posted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37
Posted by: BenV
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
You assume God has no basis in fact. I assume God does. There is more evidence within the observation of creation to support my assumption of an intelligent designer than not.
Whatever you want to call the first cause within my theory doesn't change the basis of the theory. Again, what is the first cause of the big bang? Where is the math that supports all of he energy in the universe was at one time compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom? Where is the math that supports the universe expanding to the size that it is from this one singularity in approximately sixteen billion years ( faster than the speed of light )?
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability. The other doesn't, hence the problem.
Your right mine does have the validity of math and real world predictability, and theirs doesn't. Thank you.
-
Nice to see you've come back with more questions WT. It's a shame many of them appear to be facsimiles of earlier one, but here goes...
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
First science can explain the wave/particle characteristic of light and the whole EM spectrum. Plus this explanation extends to contain all force carriers and matter particles. Relativistic gravity is also a complete theorem.
Second, of course there is information science is not privy too. That's the purpose of science - to expand our knowledge and understanding.
I think I asked earlier what information you were privy to that the scientists around the world didn't have. So?
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Well obviously you don't see objects orbiting other objects on a human scale because the masses are far to small. Sensitive equipment can measure gravitational attraction on this scale though and the forces are consistent with the planetary scale. You say your theory also agrees with observation - where does it? I've yet to see it in any format that would allow prediction, let alone comparison with observation.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as little packets, it's up to them.
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
My terminology explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.
OK, here's an idea. If you are going to 'explain' your theory (by explain I mean throw out all the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is' under current physics) why not call these objects something else to avoid confusion.
For example you could call a energy carrying particle that is capable of having mass (let alone infinite mass) a "blouton"! Don't be calling it a photon as it has nothing in common with what the world's scientist understand by that term, plus it ignores all the laws that have been painstakingly drawn up to govern one. Now you have your new energy carrier, please supply the explanation of how it is able to exist and what mathematics describe it.
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.
Go on then - compare it! Your 'confined energy' is your term for how your imagine energy is held stationary in the very structure of spacial dimensions. Is that right? If so, you must see it as a way of explaining why the rate of universal expansion appears to be accelerating over time (I'm trying to follow your 'logic' here).
Okay... Therefore as a theory that you hold as valid you must be confident it will be comparable with the observed acceleration. Yes?
As you have not supplied any equations or measurable 'rules' for the theory as yet I will leave it to you to gather the data (available online) and to compile a written argument that shows that the observed facts are consistent and predicable if starting solely with your theory (and this time it REALLY is going to need SOME maths! - esp. since you've dumped all the current mathematical explanations).
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated! It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that photons must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
But that's actually different from what we observe. Light does exhibit particle-like behaviour - whether it's in the lab or through the lens of a deep-focus telescope. The arrival of light (in the form of photons) can be a fleeting event if very few photons are sent out from a source or it's a blinking long way away! Also you mention range, as if photons somehow have a built-in range limit; they don't. They travel straight ad-infinitum until something gets in the way, then they are either deflected or absorbed.
You allude to a photon's 'information' (From your standpoint this information is what we 'see' as light, I think!) needing to extend to all points from the photon's genesis, but the night sky would be infinitely bright in that case. Again no useful predictions come out of what you say.
Sorry to appear to 'come down hard' in a few places, but these 'rules of inquiry' in science are there for very good reasons.
Good luck furthering your understanding and ideas, peppercorn.
-
First science can explain the wave/particle characteristic of light and the whole EM spectrum. Plus this explanation extends to contain all force carriers and matter particles. Relativistic gravity is also a complete theorem.
Second, of course there is information science is not privy too. That's the purpose of science - to expand our knowledge and understanding.
I think I asked earlier what information you were privy to that the scientists around the world didn't have. So?
Where has science explained how,( or why )light appears as wave/particle?
Where has science proven what constitutes gravity, gravitons?
Science is not privy to God, I am.
Well obviously you don't see objects orbiting other objects on a human scale because the masses are far to small. Sensitive equipment can measure gravitational attraction on this scale though and the forces are consistent with the planetary scale. You say your theory also agrees with observation - where does it? I've yet to see it in any format that would allow prediction, let alone comparison with observation
We're talking about what causes planets and black holes to " rotate " not orbit, did you forget? You stated the scientific model for this also holds up in our human scale world.
Quote
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as little packets, it's up to them.
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
Are you even reading my theory?
OK, here's an idea. If you are going to 'explain' your theory (by explain I mean throw out all the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is' under current physics) why not call these objects something else to avoid confusion.
the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is'? Show me any of these " current laws " that prove what a photon is as a wave, or what electrons are, other than just energy surrounding the nucleus of atoms?
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated! It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
Clouded education based on the agenda of trying to prove a creation without a creator.
Therefore as a theory that you hold as valid you must be confident it will be comparable with the observed acceleration. Yes?
I have already explained this. As you observe far away galaxies a read shift is observed, the farther away the galaxy the greater the read shift. The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
Quote
In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that photons must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
But that's actually different from what we observe. Light does exhibit particle-like behaviour - whether it's in the lab or through the lens of a deep-focus telescope. The arrival of light (in the form of photons) can be a fleeting event if very few photons are sent out from a source or it's a blinking long way away! Also you mention range, as if photons somehow have a built-in range limit; they don't. They travel straight ad-infinitum until something gets in the way, then they are either deflected or absorbed.You allude to a photon's 'information' (From your standpoint this information is what we 'see' as light, I think!) needing to extend to all points from the photon's genesis, but the night sky would be infinitely bright in that case. Again no useful predictions come out of what you say.
I mention the range in which the light has traveled ( light years ). You do understand that in order for any lens, eye or telescope, to " see " it must receive photons? These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Your reasoning has no vision to even try to comprehend what I am saying. That's why we keep going in the same circle with this conversation.
-
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
You speak as if there is a source of (valid and testable) information that science is somehow not privy to. There isn't.
Also, the 'foundations' of science are no less solid because of as yet unexplained phenomenon.
If science can not explain The wave/particle characteristic of light, what causes the phenomenon called gravity, and the missing energy they are trying to base their dark energy/dark matter theories on, then there is information science is not privy to.
Well, particularly with the 'model' explaining rotation of the planets, theory and observation are in agreement, so the model is good. Perhaps as importantly, the mechanics that govern planetary rotation are the same mechanics that govern our human-scale world and predict its outcome faultlessly.
The model of my theory also agrees with the observation, I don't see any physical bodies rotating in perpetual motion in our human scale world.
Lack of information has nothing to do with it. Either use the right terms and work 'inside' the world of science or don't, it's up to you.
Photons and electrons have already proven themselves to be waves. If science wants to continue to refer to them as ( little packets of energy ), it's up to them. My terminology
explains my theory, with photons and electrons as waves of energy, that are infinite in mass at the speed of light.
free energy = confined energy = balance = order Simple yes, but I believe that's
what makes it beautiful.
Beauty (as you perceive it) is not enough. Being comparable with observation is ALL!
It is comparable with observation.
I think the maths of symmetry breaking has something to say about this too...
Again, theory verses theory.
Well one highly polished scientifically-based theory versus your so-far ill-defined ideas - in that sense, yes!
Highly polished scientifically based? More like educated guess. My ideas are well defined if you took the time to study them through.
How could small packets of energy spread throughout the universe to be received at every point in the universe?
No mainstream scientist says they are 'arriving' at every point in the universe.
Oh come on now. In order to be able to see the objects that produce light within the visible universe from all points within the range of that light, the information from that light ( photons ) must be received at all points where the objects are visible.
Posted on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37
Posted by: BenV
Including god may close my mind to your theory, as it requires making an assumption that has no basis in fact. If I were to replace the word God with the word Goblins in all of the above, would you still hold your theory to be true?
You assume God has no basis in fact. I assume God does. There is more evidence within the observation of creation to support my assumption of an intelligent designer than not.
Whatever you want to call the first cause within my theory doesn't change the basis of the theory. Again, what is the first cause of the big bang? Where is the math that supports all of he energy in the universe was at one time compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom? Where is the math that supports the universe expanding to the size that it is from this one singularity in approximately sixteen billion years ( faster than the speed of light )?
Both of you have arguements on both sides to abou 50% accuracy - you guys should stop arguing and figure out where you misplacements of idea's clash. There is a difference between the latter, and not agreeing at all.
One has the validity of maths and real world predictability. The other doesn't, hence the problem.
Your right mine does have the validity of math and real world predictability, and theirs doesn't. Thank you.
I'm sorry... what is it you mean?
-
WunderingTruth, I feel we are going round in circles here!
Where has science explained how,(or why)light appears as wave/particle?
Where has science proven what constitutes gravity, gravitons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%2Dparticle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
Science is not privy to God, I am.
That's all very well, but it has no baring on our discussions (on a science forum).
We're talking about what causes planets and black holes to "rotate" not orbit, did you forget? You stated the scientific model for this also holds up in our human scale world.
Sorry, it's just I've never come across anyone who doubts the Newtonian view on planetary rotation! -Must have 'zoned out' there for a moment.
Yes, I confirm that this scientific model is valid for human scale as much as it is for astronomical scales. And?
QM says there both and depending on the situation they act one way or another. That's both consistent and appliable.
Are you even reading my theory?
Yes, reading, but not accepting as yet. You're going to have to flesh it out before it's a workable theory. Then (ONLY THEN) we can see whether it has ANY validity.
the current laws of what an electron or photon 'is'? Show me any of these "current laws" that prove what a photon is as a wave, or what electrons are, other than just energy surrounding the nucleus of atoms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment
I think the key word you've stumbled across here is Educated! It's much more than a simple guess as it has mathematical rigour (see the common theme here).
Clouded education based on the agenda of trying to prove a creation without a creator.
Maybe you're suggesting that it's the devil who's clouded my judgement (?).
The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy
Note: nothing to do directly with distance. Instead it tells us about the speed of recession.
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Your reasoning has no vision to even try to comprehend what I am saying. That's why we keep going in the same circle with this conversation.
Hey! I did my best understand your description! If you want to remove all ambiguity try describing your ideas in the form of equations!
-
In 1905, Albert Einstein took an extra step. He suggested that quantisation wasn't just a mathematical trick: the energy in a beam of light occurs in individual packets, which are now called photons.[9] The energy of a single photon is given by Planck's constant multiplied by its frequency.
Einstein's proposal was able to explain several puzzling properties of the photoelectric effect — "the way certain metals give off electrons when light falls on them"[1]:24. For centuries, scientists had debated between two possible theories of light: was a wave or did it instead consist of a stream of tiny particles? By the 19th century, the debate was generally considered to have been settled in favour of the wave theory, as it was able to explain observed effects such as refraction, diffraction and polarization. Because of the preponderance of evidence in favor of the wave theory, Einstein's ideas were met initially by great skepticism. Eventually, however, the particle analogy became favored, as it helped understand how light delivers energy in multiples of certain set values, called quanta of energy. Nevertheless, the wave analogy remained indispensable for helping to understand other light phenomena, such as diffraction.
Neither wave nor particle is an entirely satisfactory model to use in understanding light. Indeed, astrophysicist A.S. Eddington proposed in 1927 that "We can scarcely describe such an entity as a wave or as a particle; perhaps as a compromise we had better call it a 'wavicle' ".[13] This term was later popularized by mathematician Banesh Hoffmann.[14]:172
The general approach to deriving a quantum gravity theory that is valid at even the highest energy scales is to assume that such a theory will be simple and elegant and, accordingly, to study symmetries and other clues offered by current theories that might suggest ways to combine them into a comprehensive, unified theory. One problem with this approach is that it is unknown whether quantum gravity will actually conform to a simple and elegant theory, as it must resolve the dual conundrums of special relativity with regard to the uniformity of acceleration and gravity, and general relativity with regard to spacetime curvature.
Such a theory is required in order to understand problems involving the combination of very high energy and very small dimensions of space, such as the behavior of black holes, and the origin of the universe.
Doesn't the double slit experiment prove energy is a wave? 'wavicle'?
Yup looks like they have it all figured out!
Quote
Science is not privy to God, I am.
That's all very well, but it has no baring on our discussions (on a science forum).
So says the religion of science, trying to prove a creation without a creator.
Yes, I confirm that this scientific model is valid for human scale as much as it is for astronomical scales. And?
So show me the human scale bodies rotating in perpetual motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment
Proves my point, energy is a wave while in motion
Maybe you're suggesting that it's the devil who's clouded my judgement (?).
No,( though he does want to keep the blinders on ), I'm suggesting Biased opinion.
Quote
The observed light is stretched from the observed galaxy to the observer, the farther away, the farther stretched, thus the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Astronomy
Note: nothing to do directly with distance. Instead it tells us about the speed of recession.
They see it as the speed of recession, I see it as the stretching of light energy.
Note;( The amount of redshift increases in direct proportion to the increase of distance )?
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Do you agree with this?
-
Now, once again, I'm not a cosmologist, so won't discuss your hypothesis, merely your approach to discussing it.
So says the religion of science, trying to prove a creation without a creator.
There's a couple of points to be made here.
Firstly, who are you to presume you know the mind of god? Which god? Would the other followers of your chosen religion agree that it,s okay for you to speak on his/her/their/it's behalf?
Secondly, the "science is a religion" argument has been done to death, and is totally misguided. I don't want to go through it here, but they are completely different paradigms. Religion is dogmatic, science pragmatic.
I'll ask again. If you replace the word god with goblins, magic, or better, "something we don't yet understand", would it still be equally valid to you?
-
WonderingTruth,
I think religious beliefs are based on faith. As far as I know, all religions are based on accepting something without requiring scientific proof.
So, why would you require scientific proof? If science contradicts your religious views, ignore science and rely on your faith. Science does not have all the answers, but it tries to improve. Religions claim to have all the answers, so they don't need to improve.
And that is why science is not, and never will be, a religion.
-
So show me the human scale bodies rotating in perpetual motion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
A perfect superconductor in a perfect vacuum can spin almost indefinitely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double%2Dslit_experiment
Proves my point, energy is a wave while in motion
It isn't acting like a wave (whilst in motion) when it is sent through a single slit. That's the comparison the experiment makes - photon's have both wave-like and particle-like qualities.
I'm suggesting Biased opinion.
Biased toward empiricism and rationality? Yer, I'll hold my hand up to that!
I see it as the stretching of light energy.
Well, then I don't think you're far off agreeing with the scientific consensus - The further the distance light has travelled the more it's wavelength has been stretched (red-shifted) by the expanding media it's travelling through - ie. the dimensions of space.
These photons are the visible connection between the lens and the object being observed? Do you agree with this?
Well it doesn't have to be a lens at the terminus, but photons could (sort of) be thought of in this way. Probably closer to philosophy than science though.
-
Firstly, who are you to presume you know the mind of god? Which god? Would the other followers of your chosen religion agree that it,s okay for you to speak on his/her/their/it's behalf?
If you can't open your mind to my explanation of how reality is an illusion of light energy, I know you wont be able to wrap your mind around who I am to presume to know the mind of God.
Which God? The, I am he which was, which is, and which is to come. God is the light of realty which was and is and is to come.
Trust me I choose no religion, and represent no religion. Man by wisdom knows not God. Get wisdom, but you need to get understanding also, understanding comes from God. God in times past spoke by the mouth of his prophets, in these last days he is speaking by the mouth of his son and daughter, ( God's two witnesses ). The wisdom of man is foolishness to God, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.
I'll ask again. If you replace the word god with goblins, magic, or better, "something we don't yet understand", would it still be equally valid to you?
"something we don't yet understand"? are you assuming someone yet understands God?
Why do you relate any conversation that concerns God with religion? Religious people follow darkness that appears as light, The prophesies and the revealing are sealed until the revealing or unveiling of the light of truth.
Religiously trying to prove a creation without a creator is motivated by a set of beliefs ( science is all sufficient, mind open, evidence that points to God as creator, mind closed ) Religiously adhering to a set of beliefs that closes your mind to contrary evidence is a form of religion.
-
Religiously adhering to a set of beliefs that closes your mind to contrary evidence is a form of religion.
And that is why science is not a religion, pragmatism. However, you are convinced that your particular deity exists, and have clearly closed your mind to other ideas.
If you can't open your mind to my explanation of how reality is an illusion of light energy, I know you wont be able to wrap your mind around who I am to presume to know the mind of God.
Try me.
-
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification
-
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification
That's the best thing I've seen on youtube for ages! Thanks for sharing!
-
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.
-
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.
I have. It is! Cheers!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
A perfect superconductor in a perfect vacuum can spin almost indefinitely.
Thank you for that,it was interesting, but this shows the unresisted flow of electrical current through a superconductor. I don't believe this pertains to the rotation of planets and black holes.
It isn't acting like a wave (whilst in motion) when it is sent through a single slit. That's the comparison the experiment makes - photon's have both wave-like and particle-like qualities.
It appears as a particle when observed, measured, absorbed, stopped in any way. What you observe is the point of concentration of the energy that was in motion. Science can not figure out how energy that appears as a particle can behave as a wave when two slits are open, even when only one "particle" of energy is fired at a time, but as a particle when observed. My theory answers that question.
Biased toward empiricism and rationality? Yer, I'll hold my hand up to that!
Rational biased by the, my mind is made up, science is all conclusive and there is no God syndrome.
The further the distance light has travelled the more it's wavelength has been stretched (red-shifted) by the expanding media it's travelling through - ie. the dimensions of space.
Light is traveling through light that has been stretched to transparent waveless darkness. The light source emits light energy that stretches through space through waves of infinite mass.
Every dimensional point within the space/time continuum receives a picture of its' reality, expanding from the point of dimension outward to the beginning of time.
Light emitted from any point of reality expands outward to all points of reality as waves that intersect every other wave at every point of reality at some point in time. The ever changing picture of every dimensional point within the space/time continuum creates the illusion of reality.
-
And that is why science is not a religion, pragmatism. However, you are convinced that your particular deity exists, and have clearly closed your mind to other ideas.
I never claimed science is a religion. I said closing your mind to contrary evidence, to hold to the ( belief ) that there is no creator is the "religion of science" that closes your mind to any evidence or theory that points to a creator.
However, you are convinced that your particular deity exists
Not my particular deity, the creator of reality.
Try me?
Try, The Son of God, the first born of many brothers, The Messiah, The Prince of the prophesy of Daniel, The Christ, The second man Adam which is The Lord from Heaven, God manifest in the flesh, The word became flesh, The Teacher of Righteousness, One of the two witnesses of Revelation chapter eleven, shall I continue?
-
Oh, you're the messiah? Fair enough then, you must know the mind of your chosen deity better than most.
Just out of interest, what is it in your hypothesis that precludes the creator or creators being any of the following:
Shiva, Vishnu & Brahma; Odin; the black winged bird Nyx; Jupiter; Mbombo; Damballah; Bathala, Aman Sinaya & Amihan; An, Enlil, Enki & Ninhursanga; Coatlique; Tepeu and Gucamatz; Xenu; The Great Green Arkleseizure...
Any evidence for one is evidence for all, surely?
-
It's not that our mind is closed to evidence of a creator, just that there is no evidence.
-
It's not that our mind is closed to evidence of a creator, just that there is no evidence.
The creation itself is the evidence. Science is on a path of discovery. Science has discovered that the superstitious beliefs of religions concerning creation are inventions of mans imagination, in an attempt to Know God.
Religions, cultures, legends, myths, spiritual beliefs in general, are all the brain children of man's imagination, inventions of the mind throughout the generations.
I have been attempting to show to the scientifically minded, how creation was and is self creating from the light of creation, but, if you can not find the dreamer within the dream, does this mean the dreamer does not exist?
Of all people, those who have the ability to study the wonder of reality, and to plumb the depths of the existence of life, the people of science should be the ones declaring the wonder and glory of God. Instead they choose ( within their blindness ) to argue against his existence because they cant see or touch him.
Oh, you're the messiah? Fair enough then, you must know the mind of your chosen deity better than most.
Chosen deity? My heart set me on a journey to know God, my path took me on a journey ta know Satan. I had to know Satan as he appears as an angel of light, and even as God himself, before God could open my eyes to the revelation of him, and of myself.
-
Science has discovered that the superstitious beliefs of religions concerning creation are inventions of mans imagination, in an attempt to Know God
WT, that is not true. Science (or more precisely, scientists) have discovered nothing of the sort.
Scientists only make discoveries based on repeatable observations. In the absence of such observations, the only determination scientists can make regarding other peoples beliefs is that they are yet to be proved. Saying that they are not yet proved is NOT the same as saying they are superstition or imagined.
-
In a sense, he was right in what he said. If you take the human away, there is no internal information which works in a relative sense to what is there.
In other words, we know no reaity but the one we percieve, and even that reality is not the true reality. IT'S a re-projection of information from th outside and into the retina... That is, if you don't believe that all information already resides within us ina dormant state until awareness unlocks the information that is dorment.
-
In a sense, he was right in what he said. If you take the human away, there is no internal information which works in a relative sense to what is there.
In other words, we know no reaity but the one we percieve, and even that reality is not the true reality. IT'S a re-projection of information from th outside and into the retina... That is, if you don't believe that all information already resides within us ina dormant state until awareness unlocks the information that is dorment.
Mr S, assuming you are referring to WT's post, your observation seems rather similar to:
"When a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody there to see it fall, does it make any sound?"
(BTW, I see you have not quite mastered the Spell Check feature yet. You should try it. You might find it quite educating. We would not want people to think we are suffereing from "poor education".)
-
Thank you for your concern, but i think it was wrapped in a totally disengeneous meaning.
Either way, the principle is not true, depending that we take a solipsistic adventure into the known, rather the unknown.
-
WT, that is not true. Science (or more precisely, scientists) have discovered nothing of the sort.
Scientists only make discoveries based on repeatable observations. In the absence of such observations, the only determination scientists can make regarding other peoples beliefs is that they are yet to be proved. Saying that they are not yet proved is NOT the same as saying they are superstition or imagined.
I am talking about superstitious beliefs that many religions held concerning creation that have been proven wrong.
Some Christian sacred cows, The literal six twenty fore hour days of creation, Adam and eve being the first humans, the earth is the center of the universe and the universe revolves around it. ( Although from God's perspective the earth is the center of God's attention and the universe does revolve around it ).
In other words, we know no reaity but the one we percieve, and even that reality is not the true reality. IT'S a re-projection of information from th outside and into the retina... That is, if you don't believe that all information already resides within us ina dormant state until awareness unlocks the information that is dorment.
Our perception of reality is formed by our reasoning of all of the information received within our six senses. Our central nervous system is an extension of our mind into reality by which we perceive sight ( optic nerve ), touch, smell, taste, hearing, and our sixth sense, the mind itself that receives and processes information.
Our mind is an activity of light, ( firing of neurons ), receiving information from light. The optic nerve receives the visible light, the central nervous system receives and transmits information to the mind by the light of spirit transferred through electrical impulses.
The stretching of light into the reality of space/time is a stretch of God's imagination. Time is an illusion of reality, as is reality itself. God gave us his mind so we could journey through it through the journey of time.
-
God gave us his mind so we could journey through it through the journey of time.
Please remember, this is a science forum.
-
...our sixth sense, the mind itself that receives and processes information. Our mind is an activity of light, (firing of neurons), receiving information from light. The optic nerve receives the visible light, the central nervous system receives and transmits information to the mind by the light of spirit transferred through electrical impulses. The stretching of light into the reality of space/time is a stretch of God's imagination. Time is an illusion of reality, as is reality itself. God gave us his mind so we could journey through it through the journey of time.
Our minds are not a sense (though they can be a good place to find non-sense!). Our minds process information from our senses. The only other 'store' of information our minds have is the rules and guiding principles that are hard-wired into it by our genetics. If a creator put them there all well & good; that doesn't change the observed facts - that's the kind of 'evidence' we're dealing with in the forum.
If you want to talk at length about God or His role in our world/universe, I suggest you find a Theological or philosophical forum to discuss these beliefs.
If you want to 'talk' science, then everyone here will be happy to listen, but you need to use the correct terminology or you'll continue to win very few people over. Statements like "light of spirit transferred through electrical impulses" is as useful as talking modern English to an ancient Egyptian - you've got to start with a common language of ideas.
Ultimately, you ought to decide what you want to get out of this forum.
-
Thank you for your concern, but i think it was wrapped in a totally disengeneous meaning.
Mr S - I'm not quite sure why you thought I was being disingenuous (please note spelling). If it was in reference to the fact that you apparently (still) can't be bothered using the Spell Checker, I was being quite clear, but it seems my sarcasm was wasted.
Scientists ought to be concerned that they communicate as clearly as possible.
-
It's not that our mind is closed to evidence of a creator, just that there is no evidence.
The creation itself is the evidence.
How is that evidence of a god? Indeed the origins of the universe are a mystery, but if you assert that it must have a creator, then by that logic the creator must have a creator too, and a creator to create that creator, and your theory leads you to an infinite amount of magical creators. If you're going to reply to that with something like "God has no birth or death but always has been and always will be" then why not just cut out the middle man and adopt the simpler hypothesis and swap the word God for universe?
-
Our minds are not a sense (though they can be a good place to find non-sense!). Our minds process information from our senses. The only other 'store' of information our minds have is the rules and guiding principles that are hard-wired into it by our genetics. If a creator put them there all well & good; that doesn't change the observed facts - that's the kind of 'evidence' we're dealing with in the forum.
What you are describing is a computer, our mind is more than just a computer. And if it were just a living computer it could not have created itself.
If you want to talk at length about God or His role in our world/universe, I suggest you find a Theological or philosophical forum to discuss these beliefs.
You know I am there. You can only see what you want to see, if you don't want to see you will not understand.
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/a-conversation-cocerning-light-t93
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/religion-f4/revelation-revealed-debate-started-from-crosswalk-forum-t966.htm
If you want to 'talk' science, then everyone here will be happy to listen, but you need to use the correct terminology or you'll continue to win very few people over. Statements like "light of spirit transferred through electrical impulses" is as useful as talking modern English to an ancient Egyptian - you've got to start with a common language of ideas.
I have been talking about science, and my theory of creation. y'all want to keep debating about the existence of God. What terminology can I use to describe cloud formations to a blind person?
Ultimately, you ought to decide what you want to get out of this forum.
I'm just sharing, I don't want to " get " anything thank you, I don't need anything. And as far as winning anybody over? I really don't give a sh1t about that either.
-
How is that evidence of a god? Indeed the origins of the universe are a mystery, but if you assert that it must have a creator, then by that logic the creator must have a creator too, and a creator to create that creator, and your theory leads you to an infinite amount of magical creators. If you're going to reply to that with something like "God has no birth or death but always has been and always will be" then why not just cut out the middle man and adopt the simpler hypothesis and swap the word God for universe?
I am not just relying on logic. I know the purpose of all things. God is my father and he has revealed himself and his purpose to me. How he created all things is not as important as why. I'm waiting to find a heart that wants to see, because the mind can never understand what the heart can not see.
This reality is not eternal ( You should see my theory of how it is about to end ). God is eternal. You think all of this is about us?, it's not. It's about God changing his reality from God is, to we are. To bad for those who chose to abide in darkness when we leave it and the darkness is no more.
-
It's not that our mind is closed to evidence of a creator, just that there is no evidence.
The creation itself is the evidence.
How is that evidence of a god? Indeed the origins of the universe are a mystery, but if you assert that it must have a creator, then by that logic the creator must have a creator too, and a creator to create that creator, and your theory leads you to an infinite amount of magical creators. If you're going to reply to that with something like "God has no birth or death but always has been and always will be" then why not just cut out the middle man and adopt the simpler hypothesis and swap the word God for universe?
What happened to the logic a God can create himself/herself?
-
Please remember, this is a science forum.
Right, and you'll never see God in the ( logic ) of your science will you? You just keep reasoning him away, you can explain all of that to him when you see him. Just know this he is your father too. You choose to deny him and believe the father of lies.
-
Please remember, this is a science forum.
Right, and you'll never see God in the ( logic ) of your science will you? You just keep reasoning him away, you can explain all of that to him when you see him. Just know this he is your father too. You choose to deny him and believe the father of lies.
But don't try and rattle Gods quantum box to suit the postulates of physics. Physics as we understand it is most possibly not how God himself views it, so any postulations concerning God and quantum physics must be done so with GREAT care.
-
Please remember, this is a science forum.
Right, and you'll never see God in the ( logic ) of your science will you? You just keep reasoning him away, you can explain all of that to him when you see him. Just know this he is your father too. You choose to deny him and believe the father of lies.
I don't really chose to deny any god - they're all welcome to provide evidence for their existence if they do, indeed, exist.
Do you not see how a belief in a deity could skew your perceptions of reality? Do you not appreciate that this is what science is for, to attempt to find objective descriptions of reality? (technically inter-subjective, but that's as close to objective as humans can get).
Try to reconsider the physics you're promoting starting with no assumptions - you have started with the assumption of the existence of a deity, so the end results will all be subject to that assumption. Trying to rid yourself of assumptions is part of the art of science.
-
I am not just relying on logic. I know the purpose of all things. God is my father and he has revealed himself and his purpose to me.
The human brain is not perfect and is prone to hallucination and misinterpretation. Like any machine it can malfunction. Can you accept this possibility? If you are not relying on logic and believing purely because "God has revealed himself to you" then what's the difference between you and someone hopped up on LSD claiming they've just seen a unicorn being ridden by the easter bunny?
Maybe god did reveal himself to you, maybe the person did see the easter bunny riding a unicorn, but you can't possibly consider this testimonial as evidence.
I wouldn't even consider it evidence if it happened to myself!
If suddenly a being flashed into existence right beside me now and went on to explain it was a god, and showed me all manner of supernatural powers, then if the rational thought processes of my brain still functioned I would have to come to the conclusion that I was hallucinating and seek to admit myself to a mental illness ward. It is a much more likely explanation than the existence of what I think i'm seeing and/or feeling.
Or, if like you I was to 'not rely on logic' then I would accept my new god who looks like a great mess of floating spaghetti and meatballs and then go around trying to persuade people despite having no evidence he/she's real because they revealed themselves to me and I know! Just know this, the spaghetti monster is your father and if you choose to deny him then you're believing in the father of lies!
You see how crazy that sounds?
To 'not rely on logic' seems to be just plain mistaken by definition.
You think all of this is about us?
All of this being the universe? No, I don't. I think we're the most tiny insignificant spec of dust. Do you think all of this is about us? A god created the whole vast universe just for a few primates who think they're special somehow?
As Douglas Adams said, assuming that the universe has been created for us is rather like a puddle waking up one day and saying: 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
-
I am not just relying on logic. I know the purpose of all things. God is my father and he has revealed himself and his purpose to me.
The human brain is not perfect and is prone to hallucination and misinterpretation. Like any machine it can malfunction. Can you accept this possibility? If you are not relying on logic and believing purely because "God has revealed himself to you" then what's the difference between you and someone hopped up on LSD claiming they've just seen a unicorn being ridden by the easter bunny?
Maybe god did reveal himself to you, maybe the person did see the easter bunny riding a unicorn, but you can't possibly consider this testimonial as evidence.
I wouldn't even consider it evidence if it happened to myself!
If suddenly a being flashed into existence right beside me now and went on to explain it was a god, and showed me all manner of supernatural powers, then if the rational thought processes of my brain still functioned I would have to come to the conclusion that I was hallucinating and seek to admit myself to a mental illness ward. It is a much more likely explanation than the existence of what I think i'm seeing and/or feeling.
Or, if like you I was to 'not rely on logic' then I would accept my new god who looks like a great mess of floating spaghetti and meatballs and then go around trying to persuade people despite having no evidence he/she's real because they revealed themselves to me and I know! Just know this, the spaghetti monster is your father and if you choose to deny him then you're believing in the father of lies!
You see how crazy that sounds?
To 'not rely on logic' seems to be just plain mistaken by definition.
You think all of this is about us?
All of this being the universe? No, I don't. I think we're the most tiny insignificant spec of dust. Do you think all of this is about us? A god created the whole vast universe just for a few primates who think they're special somehow?
As Douglas Adams said, assuming that the universe has been created for us is rather like a puddle waking up one day and saying: 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
Why not though?
If* i were God, there would be nothing more spectacular for my beings asmuch to show them their true significance in an equally daunting and vast spectrum.
*And not that i would ever take such a role
-
We are orbiting one of roughly a hundred billion stars which is in one of trillions of galaxies, the chances are that we are one of hundreds of thousands of planets with life. To me that makes us seem pretty insignificant.
-
Really? How lonely it seems... what if told you the chances of us to even sit here is about 10^10^123 to 1 - that's very significant from my mind?
-
His song, but not the best sung, corrolates greately with your words..
-
Then i'd disagree with your number. Since it's already happened, the probability is 1.
-
1 in something else... You cannot by a mathematical rule define reality by a single number - hence you need to weigh that number across the vast possibilities. These are known mathematical rules.
-
I'm a labourer not a mathematician but surely you knew what I meant.
-
Sure - you are using what i call ''half-logic'' - taking reality to be a value of 1 requires that everything in the universe was determined at big bang - but since we can sit here and say there are certain statistics involved totally invalidates the use of just a value of 1. We are relative to 1 of many possibilities.
-
Fair enough then, how do you figure it is 10^10^123 to 1
Anyway, the fact that there's a puddle in a hole doesn't mean the hole was made for the puddle.
-
The figure is from a Feynman Lecture.
-
Anyway, the fact that there's a puddle in a hole doesn't mean the hole was made for the puddle.
Could you rephrase this please?
-
Umm.. not really
It was referring to the point of my original quote of Douglas Adams
-
Douglas Adams is an author of sci-fi. I am sorry if i cannot take many of his contentions seriously.
-
Douglas Adams is an author of sci-fi. I am sorry if i cannot take many of his contentions seriously.
You should. He was a freakin' genius!!!
-
Douglas Adams is an author of sci-fi. I am sorry if i cannot take many of his contentions seriously.
You should. He was a freakin' genius!!!
I'm not sure Adams would have agreed that his works were sci-fi, although he might have. I think he was more of a brilliant satirist than anything; a latter day Johnathan Swift.
-
He was a brilliant eccentric at best.
-
He was a brilliant eccentric at best.
I'd settle for 'brilliant eccentric' on my tombstone!!
-
He was a brilliant eccentric at best.
I'd settle for 'brilliant eccentric' on my tombstone!!
Based on the number of fans he has throughout the world, he may have been a lot closer to the center than many of us.
-
I guess.
-
I don't really chose to deny any god - they're all welcome to provide evidence for their existence if they do, indeed, exist.
God is welcome to provide evidence? He has provided his creation, he has spoken by Moses and by his prophets, The words of his prophets have never failed, the prophesies are unfolding, and just as God spoke, the blind will not see.
God knows his own children and he will reveal himself in his righteousness to them and through them.
Do you not see how a belief in a deity could skew your perceptions of reality? Do you not appreciate that this is what science is for, to attempt to find objective descriptions of reality? (technically inter-subjective, but that's as close to objective as humans can get).
My perception of reality is by seeing through the eyes of God, and being the heart of God, and having the mind of God. God has revealed himself and his kingdom to me. I speak of the things I see, not of things I have learned. The things I see of God has erased the etch a sketch of my mind, and the darkness of this world, by revelation and light.
Try to reconsider the physics you're promoting starting with no assumptions - you have started with the assumption of the existence of a deity, so the end results will all be subject to that assumption. Trying to rid yourself of assumptions is part of the art of science.
I'm not promoting any physics, I have only shared what God has revealed to me, and what I clearly see. I can see what God has done, what God is doing, and what God is going to do. I see how and why God created darkness and evil, I dwell in the light of God, passing through the darkness of time, until I receive The Kingdom.
-
You see how crazy that sounds?
To 'not rely on logic' seems to be just plain mistaken by definition.
My original statement
I am not just relying on logic. I know the purpose of all things. God is my father and he has revealed himself and his purpose to me. How he created all things is not as important as why. I'm waiting to find a heart that wants to see, because the mind can never understand what the heart can not see.
Logic is not all I have to rely on. I followed logic all the way to revelation and understanding.
-
Well evidently not, if you think the fact that there is something instead of nothing is evidence of a god.
-
I don't really chose to deny any god - they're all welcome to provide evidence for their existence if they do, indeed, exist.
God is welcome to provide evidence? He has provided his creation, he has spoken by Moses and by his prophets, The words of his prophets have never failed, the prophesies are unfolding, and just as God spoke, the blind will not see.
God knows his own children and he will reveal himself in his righteousness to them and through them.
Do you not see how a belief in a deity could skew your perceptions of reality? Do you not appreciate that this is what science is for, to attempt to find objective descriptions of reality? (technically inter-subjective, but that's as close to objective as humans can get).
My perception of reality is by seeing through the eyes of God, and being the heart of God, and having the mind of God. God has revealed himself and his kingdom to me. I speak of the things I see, not of things I have learned. The things I see of God has erased the etch a sketch of my mind, and the darkness of this world, by revelation and light.
Try to reconsider the physics you're promoting starting with no assumptions - you have started with the assumption of the existence of a deity, so the end results will all be subject to that assumption. Trying to rid yourself of assumptions is part of the art of science.
I'm not promoting any physics, I have only shared what God has revealed to me, and what I clearly see. I can see what God has done, what God is doing, and what God is going to do. I see how and why God created darkness and evil, I dwell in the light of God, passing through the darkness of time, until I receive The Kingdom.
So you do see how all of your ideas are biased by your belief in your chosen deity - good. This means that you appreciate that your opinions are probably at odds with an objective description of reality. With that out of the way, I think we can move on.
-
So you do see how all of your ideas are biased by your belief in your chosen deity - good. This means that you appreciate that your opinions are probably at odds with an objective description of reality. With that out of the way, I think we can move on.
Yes you can keep your head stuck up your own ass and move on. [::)]
-
You have failed to address most of our points, maybe it is you who has the cranial rectosis.
-
I have to agree with Madidus. Either way, I think this thread has run it's course, don't you?
-
All of this being the universe? No, I don't. I think we're the most tiny insignificant spec of dust. Do you think all of this is about us? A god created the whole vast universe just for a few primates who think they're special somehow?
As Douglas Adams said, assuming that the universe has been created for us is rather like a puddle waking up one day and saying: 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'
OK, you think you are a speck of dust, Douglas Adams thinks he is a puddle, I know I am God's son. I will bow my ego before my creator now and receive his kingdom ( my inheritance as his firstborn ) and glorify God ( my father ). You can bow before him later and explain all of your points then.
You have failed to address most of our points, maybe it is you who has the cranial rectosis.
You don't seem to have any points to address. I doubt that you have even read my debate, if you did you must have read it with your eyes closed. There is not a point that has been brought up that I have not addressed.
-
Ok, what about this one
The human brain is not perfect and is prone to hallucination and misinterpretation. Like any machine it can malfunction. Can you accept this possibility? If you are not relying on logic and believing purely because "God has revealed himself to you" then what's the difference between you and someone hopped up on LSD claiming they've just seen a unicorn being ridden by the easter bunny?
-
I've not seen any hallucinations since I did some good LSD back in the seventies. I have received logic, along with revelations. I will admit smoking a good blunt does clear my mind and helps me to see clearer.[8D] People who only dwell in the darkness of their imagination will not understand truth. Debating someone with no life in their heart is futile, it's just an endless circle of words.
what's the difference between you and someone hopped up on LSD claiming they've just seen a unicorn being ridden by the easter bunny?
I've been discussing this question on other forums.If your interested check them out.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/86343/2/christianity-is-dead-now-what-.htm#86909
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/religion-f4/revelation-revealed-debate-started-from-crosswalk-forum-t966.htm
-
When Jesus said man doesn't live by bread alone... I was thinking maybe Satan had turned all the bread to stones and he was just offering Christ the opportunity to change them back, sort of a professional courtesy, one magician to another. I know that sounds unlikely, but bear with me. Science at best considers all mythologies to be allegories, if they have any meaning at all. The allegory-makers would have included some device in the allegories to dissuade people from taking them literally. Thus, Satan would be the cautionary figure who's inclusion is meant to warn you away from that mistake. Satan then, is the character who changes words into icons, bread into stones. And Jesus, of course rejects this, and so should you. Nothing personal, just that science is not subject to belief.
-
Nothing personal, just that science is not subject to belief.
If you want to believe all the energy in the universe came from a speck smaller than an atom for no reason, your ancestors were monkeys, and the complexity of creation and life had no design or reason, it is.
http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/a-conversation-cocerning-light-t932-90.htm
-
If you want to believe that energy, atoms and life are icons that exist because of magic then you are subject to belief. If you want reasons you will have to look to science.
-
Magic?
-
The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming, I do hope that you aren't planning on debating that in this thread too.
-
Artists create icons to "stand for" the objects, actions or emotions they wish to tell a story about. Icons are symbols, variable names, or as the novelists call them, "objective correlatives". If the story is meant to describe an actual event of some note then it is called an allegory. Only the things the icons stand for are relevant to the meaning of the allegory. The icons themselves are selected only for some quality they have which suggests the entity they represent. Ascribing some meaning to the actual icons or the relationships between them is meaningless, it is magic.
Science uses words in their exact meaning, which is however science has defined them, no more and no less. Of course, science uses symbols, usually in math to represent long strings of addition, but it is unlikely anyone would take them literally, unless they were Greek.
-
The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming,
Yes, evolution from primitive man, but there is no overwhelming evidence linking primitive man to apes, which is a whole different species.
This is a post that I had posted on another forum, thought I'd share it with you.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth.
This seems to imply that there were generations of creativity involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and he sums it all up as, in the day that he created the heavens and the earth.
I believe God, in reference to the days involved during his creation of the heavens and the earth, is bracketing the sequence of events involved during his creation, not the time elapsed during the sequence of events. A twenty four hour earth day, according to the Jewish calendar, goes from evening to evening. God used the phrase, "and the evening and the morning", to denote the days of creation. I believe he used this phrase in reference to, evening, ( the end of something ), morning, ( the beginning of something else ). The twenty four hour earth day is measured by the rotation of the earth, in relationship to the son, without the sun you could not distinguish between evening and morning. The sun and moon was not set in place until the fourth day.
God, who is infinite in dimensions, who dwells in an infinite eternal state of being as the I AM, created something new, something the angels had never seen before. God created a four dimensional reality in which there are physical laws, and boundaries, including the fourth dimension, the illusion of time. The illusion of time exist because of the movement of light energies throughout the darkness, and the changes, and movements of the elements within the physical laws.
God created in such a way, that creation actually created itself, within, ( for lack of a better word ), God's imagination. He spoke forth into the darkness of time, and the created energies of light did the rest.
God only interferes in the natural evolutionary events of creation, to direct events accordingly, to achieve a specific purpose. The formation and placement of the earth, sun, and moon, are the result of God's manipulation of creation.
As science has discovered there is an evolutionary process to creation. At certain points of the evolutionary process of creation, God would speak new elements into the creation of the earth, causing the grass, plants, trees, etc. to come forth from the earth, and the waters to bring forth life, the kinds of animals etc. The evolutionary process within the species of the kinds of animals, brought into existence the numerous varieties within species we've seen throughout history and today.
Notice there are two different creations of man, the first in Geneses 1:26-30. In this example man was in the image of God, but just a little higher in creativity and reasoning than the rest of the animal species. After the earth, animals and man evolved to a certain point in the evolutionary process, God created the man Adam, breathed his breath into Adam, so the man Adam became a living soul, and placed the man Adam into the garden that God had planted for him.
Notice, God planted the garden eastward in Eden. What was this place called Eden? It was an area where mankind was already living and flourishing. Cain also when he went out from the presence of the Lord, dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden, where he got him a wife.
-
Ooh, more icons. Shall we dereference them? Adam is easy - first man = fetus. Eden = womb. Cain - later man = child. Wife = mother. God - an invention of the fetus = consciousness. So the fetus comes to consciousness in the womb, leaves it, and is re-borne at the breast of his mother. A story old as the hills. Not a literal hill, it's just an icon. And many more of them to climb, I'll warrent.
-
WunderingTruth, please remain on-topic. If you want to discuss evolution do so in a new thread.
-
It's not me that keeps leading the subject off topic.
After nucleosynthesis, nothing much happened for roughly a million years as the universe continued to cool. The ordinary matter consisted of a hot plasma of nuclei and electrons. The free electrons made the plasma opaque; a photon of radiation could not have traveled far before being scattered. However, once the universe cooled to approximately 3000 K, the electrons no longer moved fast enough to escape the attraction of the nuclei, and atoms formed. Although there had been no previous combination, this event is still known as recombination. The last moment at which the universe was opaque forms the surface of last scattering; it represents the effective edge of the universe that is even theoretically visible with an optical telescope, since no optical telescope could ever penetrate the dense, opaque plasma that existed prior to recombination. Once the radiation was able to stream freely through the universe, matter and radiation lost the tight coupling that had bound them since the beginning. Henceforth matter and radiation evolved almost entirely independently. The photons that filled the universe at the surface of last scattering make up the CBR today, but now their energy is mostly in the microwave band. At some point before or near recombination, the matter density and the energy density were equally important. This is the epoch in which structure formation began to occur. The seeds of structure formation may have been planted much earlier, during the GUT epoch, but the tight coupling between radiation and matter prevented the density perturbations from doing much. Once matter and radiation went their separate ways, density pertubations could evolve on their own. The most overdense areas collapsed gravitationally, forming galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Less dense areas probably led to voids, the large underdense areas we see on the sky today. The process by which structure formed in the early universe is still very poorly understood; better data from instruments such as the planned successor to COBE will help to elucidate the mystery of the galaxies.
http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/Foundations/chapter13.html
The paragraph above seems to support my theory. With my theory it is not the expansion of the universe, but the condensing of the energy that makes up matter, that created the transparent void of darkness that contains the cosmic background radiation." The most overdense areas collapsed gravitationally, forming galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Less dense areas probably led to voids, the large underdense areas we see on the sky today ".
In my theory the electron energy surrounded the nuclei forming atoms, as matter condensed this same electron energy was stretched across the universe creating the cosmic background radiation.
As the temperature cooled to the point of, what you call quark confinement, two types of energy was created, free energy and confined energy. The cooling did not necessarily cause the confinement of energy, but rather the stretching of the free energy caused the cooling and confinement of energy. The confined energy would be the energy that creates mater. The free energy would be the energy that pulls it all together, or gravity.
( So called quarks, became the confined energy? anti quarks the free energy?, or confined and free photons? )
As the confined energy began to condense, the free energy began to stretch. The confined energy condensed at individual locations throughout the newly forming universe causing the free energy to stretch across the entire universe.
This stretching of the free energy caused the free energy to become a weak energy. This weak energy is detected as the cosmic background radiation that evenly fills the entire universe.
The electron cloud surrounding the nuclei and creating the atom, is actually the point of concentration of this free energy attracted to the confined energy. This point of concentration of the free energy appears to be weak because it is stretched throughout the universe. this energy is actually equal to the amount of confined energy it surrounds.
-
The questions regarding big bang and god are same but appeared to be different.The question of extremities starting of sth and ending of sth are real cause of why we say or pray god.This is happening because actually we donot know why we are here,what is matter,what is mass,what is light,......etc. We donot know but just pretending we know it.
-
Dereferencing the icons:
Confined energy = womb as experienced by fetus. Stretched free energy = the universe outside the womb, as experienced by the child.
So the womb surrounding the fetus was considered by the fetus to be an extension of itself, which is the pattern for consciousness, which the child extends into the future and the universe to create its sense of identity.
As in the last one, it's all about us. If you keep getting the same answer, it's because you are asking the same question. Science allows us to ask questions and find answers that are not just part of the pattern we are set in.
-
The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming,
Yes, evolution from primitive man, but there is no overwhelming evidence linking primitive man to apes, which is a whole different species.
WunderingTruth, please remain on-topic. If you want to discuss evolution do so in a new thread.
It's not me that keeps leading the subject off topic.
Er, in this case, I think it is.
Can you also try to get back to the science of your argument. This constant reliance on your personal experiences and relationship with your God is not going anywhere.
This discussion has moved far out of 'new scientific theoreies' & into theology (or philosophy at best). The new theories section of TNS forum is not the place for these.
This is happening because actually we donot know ... what is matter,what is mass,what is light,......etc. We donot know but just pretending we know it.
It seems to me we have a very good understanding of these things.
-
Yes, evolution from primitive man, but there is no overwhelming evidence linking primitive man to apes, which is a whole different species.
Actually, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence linking primitive man to primitive apes.
Can you provide some tangible evidence to support your statement (other than the Bible)?
-
Dereferencing the icons:
Confined energy = womb as experienced by fetus. Stretched free energy = the universe outside the womb, as experienced by the child.
So the womb surrounding the fetus was considered by the fetus to be an extension of itself, which is the pattern for consciousness, which the child extends into the future and the universe to create its sense of identity.
As in the last one, it's all about us. If you keep getting the same answer, it's because you are asking the same question. Science allows us to ask questions and find answers that are not just part of the pattern we are set in.
The fetus is formed within the womb of darkness, as a fetus in the womb, our reality receives information from the darkness, which shapes what we perceive to be real.
The darkness pulls light together, as well as separates. Light is bound up in darkness, while darkness is free to do its' own will.
Science has discovered the elements of light, answering their own questions, They ignore what is right. Through the eyes of there delusion, they only see what they want to believe.
-
The fetus is formed within the womb of darkness, as a fetus in the womb, our reality receives information from the darkness, which shapes what we perceive to be real.
The darkness pulls light together, as well as separates. Light is bound up in darkness, while darkness is free to do its' own will.
Science has discovered the elements of light, answering their own questions, They ignore what is right. Through the eyes of there delusion, they only see what they want to believe.
WunderingTruth - This is a science forum. Thus far it has been very liberal by allowing you to make your proclamations without a shred of evidence or validatdation.
But enough. This thread is now locked.