?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?

  • 115 Replies
  • 36586 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
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 ď The Big Bang ď and why?

Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís 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 ď for lack of a better word.Ē 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.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #1 on: 11/11/2009 11:27:22 »
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.

Quote
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 ďThe Big Bangď 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.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2009 11:42:24 by peppercorn »

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #2 on: 12/11/2009 03:43:04 »
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.
« Last Edit: 12/11/2009 04:03:43 by WunderingTruth »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #3 on: 12/11/2009 11:04:26 »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
...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.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #4 on: 13/11/2009 07:12:54 »
Quote
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.

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #5 on: 13/11/2009 09:33:58 »
The big bang is not a stretch of Gods imagination. If anything, it's a stretch of our own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 964
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #6 on: 13/11/2009 12:13:56 »
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.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #7 on: 13/11/2009 12:31:54 »
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #8 on: 14/11/2009 12:09:09 »
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.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2009 18:01:47 by WunderingTruth »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #9 on: 14/11/2009 18:50:42 »
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #10 on: 16/11/2009 13:33:31 »
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.

Quote
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? 

Quote
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 )?
     
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 16/11/2009 14:00:42 by WunderingTruth »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #11 on: 16/11/2009 14:50:24 »
Science has many good foundations to build upon (within its limitations).
These limitations are what? Please explain.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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!]

Quote
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?

Quote
...as [light] speeds to light speed...
Light can ONLY travel at light speed.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #12 on: 16/11/2009 17:34:20 »
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.

Quote
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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #13 on: 16/11/2009 20:10:17 »
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?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rťsistance!"
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #14 on: 17/11/2009 03:19:18 »
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.
« Last Edit: 17/11/2009 04:23:50 by Geezer »
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force śther.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #15 on: 17/11/2009 10:37:44 »
It's basically a crude reduction to who imagined God in the very beginning.

Who created YHVH basically.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #16 on: 18/11/2009 06:45:12 »
Peppercorn [::)]

Quote
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..............

Quote
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.

Quote
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 ).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 07:10:24 by WunderingTruth »

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #17 on: 18/11/2009 08:04:06 »
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.


*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #18 on: 18/11/2009 08:28:18 »
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #19 on: 18/11/2009 08:48:48 »
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.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #20 on: 18/11/2009 09:34:31 »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 09:46:07 by BenV »

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #21 on: 18/11/2009 12:10:13 »
Quote
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. )

 
Quote
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.
Quote
This illustrates my point.
No, sorry, but this illustrates my point. The statement I quoted from peppercorn above is not proven theory.

Quote
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?

Quote
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 [::)]
« Last Edit: 18/11/2009 12:38:08 by WunderingTruth »

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #22 on: 18/11/2009 12:15:37 »
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?

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #23 on: 18/11/2009 12:17:36 »
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #24 on: 18/11/2009 12:18:06 »
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #25 on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37 »
Quote from: peppercorn
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: WunderingTruth
Quote from: peppercorn
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.


Quote
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!


Quote from: WT
Quote from: me
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #26 on: 18/11/2009 14:51:51 »
Quote from: peppercorn
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: WunderingTruth
Quote from: peppercorn
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.


Quote
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!


Quote from: WT
Quote from: me
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #27 on: 18/11/2009 15:53:08 »
Quote from: Mr S
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.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #28 on: 18/11/2009 17:19:18 »
So, are you assuming my theory has no basis in fact?

Again show me the math that proves me wrong.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #29 on: 19/11/2009 06:41:50 »
I simply don't have the time.

I'm struggling with daily activities as it is. Sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #30 on: 19/11/2009 12:52:42 »
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....

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #31 on: 19/11/2009 13:08:14 »
In fact, this is a ruckus bteween you two ... I will not interviene anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #32 on: 19/11/2009 22:35:06 »
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.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #33 on: 20/11/2009 01:39:05 »
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #34 on: 20/11/2009 11:12:41 »
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.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #35 on: 23/11/2009 10:21:22 »
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.


Quote
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 )?

Quote from: Mr S
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.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #36 on: 24/11/2009 14:30:59 »
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?

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
Quote
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).

Quote
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).

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.

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.
« Last Edit: 24/11/2009 14:34:28 by peppercorn »

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #37 on: 01/12/2009 01:54:02 »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #38 on: 02/12/2009 13:27:46 »
Quotes
Posted on: 18/11/2009 13:13:37
Posted by: peppercorn
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
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.


Quote
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 )?

Quote from: Mr S
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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪ē)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #39 on: 02/12/2009 15:45:06 »
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
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).


Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
Quote from: me
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 (?).

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.

Quote
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!

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #40 on: 02/12/2009 17:38:35 »
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 ó "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
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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
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?

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #41 on: 02/12/2009 20:57:11 »
Now, once again, I'm not a cosmologist, so won't discuss your hypothesis, merely your approach to discussing it.

Quote
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?

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la rťsistance!"
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #42 on: 02/12/2009 21:40:41 »
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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force śther.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #43 on: 03/12/2009 11:43:49 »
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.

Quote
I'm suggesting Biased opinion.
Biased toward empiricism and rationality? Yer, I'll hold my hand up to that!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline WunderingTruth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 31
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #44 on: 04/12/2009 00:42:34 »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #45 on: 04/12/2009 08:31:32 »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #46 on: 04/12/2009 11:54:31 »
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #47 on: 04/12/2009 17:45:15 »
I think you've got your definition of close-minded muddled up. I recommend this youtube vid for clarification http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
That's the best thing I've seen on youtube for ages!  Thanks for sharing!

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #48 on: 05/12/2009 05:37:44 »
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
?Big Bang or Just A Stretch of Godís Imagination?
« Reply #49 on: 05/12/2009 14:01:36 »
No worries, check out his other stuff too, it's all excelent.
I have. It is! Cheers!