Randolpin

Many revised theories had been proposed in the pre-bigbang moment, Vilenkin's model have flaws and other competing models. For example the multiverse theory of Alan Guth. The problem of this theory is where is the source of the energy fueling the multiverse came from? And if it is only from nothingness, how come nothingness produce something?

Probe your own body thru a microscope and you will see cells with complexities. Little machineries which defies evolution. As well in the universe. Infinitude of stars you will see at night, where you could probably wonder what is the source of their unfaltering energy.

If you believe there's nothing to lost instead there is something added to your life. As I study science, I don't see science contradicted the existence of God, instead it shouts out that there is a God.

Why should I believe?

This answer is a escaping answer. What is the reason, why you should not believe?

Suppose you believe in god. Do you have any evidence to show His presence? By evidence I mean scientific evidence.

The evidence so far is the beginning of the universe where the pre-bigbang moment is a complete nothingness

!

Moderator Note

Thus far this is a question of physics, not religion. Is there some religious aspect you are going to introduce?

No, you probably misunderstood the word faithfulness here... It means unchange or constant...

As a Christian, I want to ask those who don't believe in God, why they don't believe, what encourages or pushes them to not believe? What is the exact reason why they don;t believe?

Are their reasons completely enough to firmly hold their positions?

Before holding their position, did they think first?

Did they balance things first?

Are they able to check their own selves or hear their own inner selves before deciding to hold their postions?

I am curious about this....

Feedbacks are very much appreciated. Thank You...

Planets orbit around a specific star, e.g. the sun in our solar system. What I observed is although billions of years had passed, still the planets orbit around the sun unchanged in it's position or even only a very tiny amount of change..

Why is this?

Why planets are faithful to follow the course of their orbits?

Can we infer that it's just the result of accident even it characterizes organization?

Every second, every minute, hours, days, etc. we learn..

But our knowledge are finite and is this would probably hinder our goal to understand the reality if we only rely solely on our logical abilities?

Answers are welcome... tnx...

We gaze at the stars in the sky and wonder why it look that way, why it has that specific properties.

It's just the result of anthropic principle?

Many questions pop out from my mind,with regards to this questionning...

I think,one aspect of being human where logic can't be applied is on the part of our emotional foundation...

 

 

I think you mean moral values, but yes us primates, among other animals, have an innate sense of fairness.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193506/Humans-innate-sense-fairness-means-wed-short-changed-say-scientists.html

Absolutely...

We live in the world which is full of different aspects of life. Such aspects are social, individual, philosophical, religion, scientifical, etc. so many aspects. We use different ideologies that serves as our life-meaning, that we fail to hear our inner voices....

Wars, famine etc. that we all know are negative waves of times. But others say it is not negative, it is just the flow of nature...

What I want to affirm now is that there are ethical values which are innate to us, e.g. conscience...

 

I understand what you mean. My answer is unchanged.

 

 

You probably mean stochastic processes. They are not random. The outcome of the roll of a die are randomly distributed. The outcomes of chemistry are not.

So it means that it is well-established, but what triggers me most is how can a mindless particle create such a well-established rule??

Counting number filed (1,2,3,....) results into consequences such as for example prime numbers. Prime numbers are located in the counting number filed (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,...). The bolded numbers are primes. So we can assume that the counting number field has a great relationship to PN that needs to study to know the deep nature of prime numbers.

So for you, what could be there relationship?

Nature also had many millions of years for these stochastic processes to take place, with lots of raw material. As opposed to a few humans who have been trying to recreate this for a blink of an eye.

What I mean is that-Provided that humans are intelligent beings so even themselves can't create simple living organisms how much more mindless or "by chance" processes of the interaction of particles.

What's a naturalistic random process?

 

Perhaps it is an example of this

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/102080-language-use-by-specialists-is-it-normally-complicated/

Purely naturalistic without the intervention of intelligence.The result is chaotic or random processes because there is no intelligence that guides the processes.

 

 

The interactions and processes are not random. At one level they are driven by the rules of chemistry. At another level, organisms will control the reactions that take place. That allows organisms to grow and reproduce, and therefore evolve.

Are the rules of chemistry not the result of random processes?

If we consider that we were only the result of naturalistic random processes of the interaction of inanimate particles, how come inanimate particles create intelligent minds like humans, even humans themselves have difficulty in creating robots or creating living organisms, how much more inanimate particles interacting with each other in a random manner?

Or in further view, how can disorganization produce organization?

Feedbacks are very much appreciated.. Thank you

!

Moderator Note

 

You need some sort of falsifiable prediction. Current theory says that a massive object would require an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. How do you get to a speed beyond that?

 

Not to mention that there is some physics that is known for objects moving faster than c which suggests that they have to be unstable. So you would need to present the new physics that would allow for this.

 

Without addressing issues such as these, your post doesn't meet our threshold for speculations discussion.

 

I want to clarify first that my speculation is base only on the situation of what would happen to an object travelling beyond c, not speculating a massive object.

Speed is how fast an object move in this physical reality. An object can move because there is space around it. We know base on the teaching of G.R. that no object can travel faster than the speed of light or even the speed of light itself because it is the top speed which our reality limits. We also know base on G.R. that an object that moves actually slows the time base on the perspective of observer and it changes it's shape as well as it increase it's mass.

Now the intriguing part of it is that base on my speculation, if an object happens to travel faster than the speed of light it actually disappear on the view of an observer.Another profound speculation is that the object disappear because it actually violate the top speed of reality which is the speed of light. Speed of light has a profound relation on space. The object happened to be travelling faster than the speed of light disappear from the observers perspective because (my most profound speculation) it actually happens to be travelling beyond space-time !!!

Those were only my speculations that I want to share on you.. Thank you..

Einstein Gr. is an improved version of how we look at gravity.

 

 

A good model is one that works. But that's all you can tell is that it works. Not that it reflects truth.

 

Let's try a simple example: a model gives you a prediction of 7, and the measured answer is 7. The model arrives at that because it add 5 and 2. But you can get to 7 by adding 3 and 4, or 6 and 1. So there's no way to be sure that 5+2 is truth, since all you can do is compare your answer with the measured value.

I mean they are the same in some cases but the difference is that the new model is more accurate in describing the reality which we are part of. For example, we will compare again Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity. Newton himself in his universal law of gravitation really don't know how gravity works meaning his model is less accurate in describing the reality of gravity, but time had passed and then Einstein existed and formulated his G.R. which accurately explain how gravity works. It shows a new profound understanding not only on gravity itself but also a new look on the property of space and time. Meaning, through Einstein's G.R. our knowledge of reality become more and more complex.

We are only innocents in the eyes of a neutral looker

I think this ends our discussion about this topic?

I am not satisfied because science is limited. Is time existed in the domain of quantum mechanics? if not then time doesn't really exist. This reasoning is due to the property of qunatum mechanics which is very different from classical mechanics. According to mainstream science, qm has no cause which contradict the nature of time because "cause" property is a consequence of the arrow of time which is towards the future.

 

 

That wouldn't mean it's truth. It would mean we had a good model.

is it?

It is a question science can't answer.I plan to make a way on studying why nature is the way it is.

 

 

You have to solve the equation to see the 1/2 appear. The point is, in QM, the answer is not zero.

Where this quantum fluctuations came from and why it has the property to fluctuate?

 

 

If you break the rules, ignorance is not an excuse.

ignorance is only an offense in the society where you violated it.