Dave49

I just returned due to these two posts. You reminded me that I forgot to turn off the reply email notification. Done. Thanks.

It's best that I leave. I won't be baited back, and I certainly do not want to try to deprive anyone of their knowledge.

You guys take care,

Dave

I actually agree with you guys. And I believe that the scientific approach should follow some rules. And if you try to explain something for which there seems to be none, then how can a theory go forward with out the provable answer. For example, take Evolution. This theory has a great amount of suppositions and guesses to it. But nothing can mean anything to me without the beginning. That entire body of work depends on bringing some matter together in some kind of controlled situation to cause single cell life to appear. This might be the end of the theory due to the fact that this, not only cannot be demonstrated, but also can not be duplicated by others. But no matter, we will just "say" that it happened on Earth. So without further ado, we go on to these single cell life forms combining, dividing, and becoming all animals, (and maybe plants), on the planet. This has an enormous body of work because some species sort of resemble other species.

But in my mind, for Evolution to be true, it would have to be a universal, ongoing process. So instead of digging up millions year old monkey bones and trying to make that the missing link, we should be able to go out in nature and see these in between stages walking around. But we can't because they don't exist. But does this deter the biological scientists? Doesn't even slow them down. So there must have been some "occurrence" which caused the evolutionary process to stop. And not only that, but it must have wiped out every missing link for all species. Sort of like the magical appearance of the single cell organisms. We just accept that it happened, and so the Creation theory believed by religious people is still just mysticism, and Evolution is science, so it must be correct.

Therefore the age old question of the chicken and the egg has two answers. If you are a Creationist, God created the chicken after it's own kind with it's seed inside it. But if you are an Evolutionist, then there must have been a time when a creature which was not quite a chicken, laid an egg with a chicken inside. And so another species was "born". So that leads us to believe that all life evolved from one thing to many different species. And no one seems to believe that both theories are equally dependent on "faith". Faith in the esteem of the person saying it.

So what do you know, and how do you know what you know? As for myself, all I know is what other people have told me either in person, or through their written word, that I decide to believe. I have nothing that was not provided by someone else. And so I know absolutely nothing absolutely for myself.

I think I will now stop coming to this forum. I'm pretty sure my ideas are not very welcome here. But thanks to all who tried to inform me further.

Blue skies,

Dave

Ok. Try to divide the threads in this entire forum, all topics, as either science, or pseudo science. I will bet, that the farther you get from your nose outward into the universe, the more blurred the lines will became. Just watch out for all the dark matter, and dark energy.

I sometimes try to think of one thing I know for a fact, and how I know what I know. Turns out, that other than stuff told to me by others that I chose to believe, there is very little I absolutely know for sure. What about you guys?

But then, I'm just a Quark. LOL!

Dave,

be aware that Divinum's cosmology is quite non-standard. This does not mean it is wrong, but that it is very likely wrong. Certainly ideas expressed with the lack of internal cohesion, consistency with practical observations and zero adavantage over existing theories, as is the case here, usually turn out to be wrong.

 

As to your observations about old ideas about Mars and Venus, keep in mind that we have vastly better observational data on the early universe than we had on those planets at the time those oudated ideas flourished. That said, canals were never broadly accepted as such by other than a fringe element. I also suspect the idea of vast tropical forests on Venus was more of a popularisation than a conventional view. Keep in mind that it only since the sixties, or even the seventies that the study of planets became a respectable occupation.

As to michel123456, you are correct. I was not serious. It was an awkward attempt to show how most every one will make stuff up for what they don't know. It's not a fault, just human nature. Serious scientists do it all the time. The equation breaks down and no longer works, so they invent some particle or "dark" substance which cause the equation to work again. I realize it is an "educated" guess, but a guess none the less. Does it bring us any closer to the truth? That's anyone's "guess".

As to Ophiolite, every age considers itself to be "modern" with vastly superior methods and tools with which to "study" the universe around us. I watch and listen all the time to scientists who have observed the solar system with greatly improved telescopes. Some in space. And yet they say how astounded they are when viewing images from probes passing much closer to the planets and moons. Their Earth based observations giving way to what is actually out there. And that is just within our solar neighborhood. Never-the-less, they apply the exact same failed techniques to bodies billions of light years away and call it science. Should we consider these to be popularizations? Is it a respectable occupation since we are now "modern"? A century from now, it would be most interesting to me if I could be there to hear what they do with our best "guesses" of the present time. And their best guesses of their century will also be evaluated by the more "modern" guesses of the century after that.

I notice this forum has a section about pseudo science. Tell me, which science is real, and which is pseudo? It's quite impossible for me to tell. And I envy those who can.

Hi dave49! I probably have given you some insight, as how the universe was initiated, which annuls the Big bang. Therefore, whoever is looking back in time, is looking in wrong direction, because there never was a Big bang. Because in the very beginning it was the energy (tiny units of it) who were first introduced upon the face of the deep. And then these tiny units of energy established a cooperation with one another, on one to one basis, and they thus transformed into the first complete particles of matter, which should be called gravitons since the conditions that they create we call it gravitation. And then these gravitons under their own power slowly transformed into into other particles of matter. First into electrons, and then electrons themselves transformed into diatrons (which is a units of two electrons) which became neutral-without a charge. And then these diatrons under the force of gravity are forced into the third particle of matter which is neutron, and the neutrons are forced into a reversable action, whereby they transform into protons. And the neutrons and protons form a cooperation with one another, and thus nuclei become formed, and then atoms, molecules, and ultimately matter-mass starts to form. And as the mass keeps multiplying it slowly accumulates up to its maximum which is; 3.53x10>40 kg. which becomes one huge star, which may be called 'proto star' since it existed only once in its life time. And at that point in time? this proto star falls apart, and the reason is, because gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces, orbital and centripetal force.

But orbital force at that particular time is approx. 86000 times stronger than centripetal force.

And it is the orbital force that forces the mass into a rotational spin from its beginning, whereas the centripetal forces is the one that holds the mass together. But it ultimately comes a point in time and space when the orbital force (its rotational kinetic energy that is) surpasses the strength of the centripetal force, and that is the point in time when the proto star begins to brake apart. And as the mass disintegrates into a multitude of smaller pieces, all of which distance themselves in accordance of their kinetic energies. But since the mass of the proto star was already in a radioactive state, hence the entire mass was in a molten state. And as this molten mass spewed outward and distanced itself by more than two radii, at that moment the molten mass becomes allowed to form its own gravitational field, which ultimately squeezes the mass together, and it thus become a perfect sphere. And this is how all heavenly bodies became such a perfect spheres. And this is how each galaxy was formed. Which means that everything begun from the smallest to the biggest, and vice verse.

Hence, there was order from the beginning and unto the very end, and it continues to be so ever since. And 'now' this order is maintained through the equilibrium of the three quantities of nature.

Wow! That's a lot going on. You are telling of a lot of stuff just happening. Can you take each happening, and describe exactly the process by which it happened? And also it would help me greatly, if you could describe for me the process by which inanimate matter becomes animate matter. Or simply put, what is the process by which simple matter becomes alive. Thanks

Had to go back to your previous statement about the "box" to make a reply. Scientifically, there is little in my life to call successful. Theologically, probably even less. So, for me to make a competant statement regarding either, is out of the question. Since I can't make such a judgement, it allows me to free wheel my thinking. While this process may not impress anyone, it makes me feel ok. If someone latches onto something I say and proves it, I'll be happy just knowing it worked. Anyway, there is ambiguity enough in any pholosophy that using a box to describe its shortcomings isn't needed. Someday an answer to your second question may be found.

AMEN!

It would not be original to ask: If the Universe is everything, and it is expanding, what is it expanding into?

What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

Well....sure. What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

How prophetic was "Row, Row, Row Your Boat". Who knew?

We seem to be trying to "think outside the box" in which we find ourselves. Try that in reverse and see the point. If I place a closed and sealed box in front of you, and ask you to think "inside the box" and tell me what you theorize is going on in there based on your observations, what will you do? What will you say? Then tell me what "out of the box" thinking is, and if there is any way for us to do that from inside the box. Creation or Physics? Most of each is clearly outside the box.

Truth doesn't seem to require our belief in it before it can be true. I remember from my childhood, say 50 years or so ago, scientists made a lot of predictions based on what was then observable. They theorized all kinds of stuff. Like tropical forests on Venus, to intricate canal systems on Mars. But as time passed, and they were able to get closer views sent back by probes, they were astounded that what they believed was possible, was not possible at all. Even the most recent probes continue to astound them today, because they show that the truth didn't depend on what they theorized from observations. And today, they still try to decide from what is observable, what is clear out at the edge of the Universe that we can see from here, and are probably making the same mistakes. If their theories, based on what was observable at the time, was so far off right in our own Solar neighborhood, what makes them think what they observe 14 billion light years away is any closer to the truth? Every time science "observes" a black hole, no theories apply and they are thrown into a quandary. Usually, if they run into something that doesn't fit their current theories, they make up another "particle" or something not observable to fix the equation. And so how much closer is anyone to the truth now, than they were before?

Pardon, if my sentence structure is a little awkward. I am not a scientist. Just someone trying to understand the mindset.

Let us assume we are a large distance from a black hole and that we send a probe off to investigate. Furthermore let us assume that the probe sends back a light pulse at regular intervals (from the probes perspective).

 

What do we see?

 

The light gets red shifted more and more as the probe gets closer and closer to the black hole. The rate at which the pulses are sent also slows down as the probe gets closer to the black hole. This continues for ever, we see more and more red shift, longer and longer time between the pulses. It will take an infinite amount as time as measured by us before we can not detect the probe any more. (Forgetting about the sensitivity of the equipment etc).

 

From the perspective of the probe, it crossed the event horizon in finite time. Moreover it did not notice doing so! The probe just drifted over the horizon smoothly.

I take that as a very long way of saying "Yes".

HAH... There are always categories that we don't want to be apart of. In this case, its more scientific than spiritual. Part of the reason why I mentioned enlightenment earlier is because that you can take a variety of cosmological concepts that you "subscribe to" and mush them together to create a perspective of science that seems somewhat spiritual. This whole concept feels like the presence of consciousness creating tactile reality, rather than tactile reality creating the presence of consciousness. But I arrive there through science, not meditation, religion, or spirituality. Because these implications were inferred through scientific cosmologies.

 

What I mean to say is that most scientists would say that the belief in ghosts or apparitions is a completely repugnant concept. unless someone comes along with some weird finding about the natural world that opens the door for that possibility. But at that point its not ghosts or apparitions, its something that we can create in a laboratory. Imagine for a moment that "reality" is a TV recording on a vhs cassette , and your watching this tv show, and the tape is twisted in certain places, what happens is that the image gets distorted for a moment and then goes back to normal. But until someone discovers the illusive vhs cassette, crackpots will continue to preach about ghosts, which is still repugnant because its like confusing H2S04 with H20 the difference is the understanding chemistry provides us, with that we know not to drink from a hot spring.

Frankly, it takes me as much "faith" to swallow what science theorizes, as what spiritualists theorize. The closer you get to something, the further away it becomes. I would probably worship at the alter of which side can tell me, to my satisfaction, where the first "something" came from. But neither science, nor things spiritual can do that. So for all our fine talk, nothing is ever revealed. No one can begin to nail down what we can see, much less what we can't. Kind of like everyone lives in this cave, with a large fire in the middle. All they can see are their shadows on the wall. But one day someone looks away from the fire and the shadows, and makes his/her way out of the cave to find out what is outside. But with no one to share any of this with, all he/she can do is to go back into the cave and work to lead the others out.

Creation or Physics? Since no human being fully understands either one, who can say? I find some theories from both to be so outlandish that I can't take them seriously. Both require a great degree of FAITH. But like a lot of other shallow people, I wait to find out which one can explain where the very first "something" came from. Do that, to my satisfaction, and I'll worship at your alter.

So, essence precedes existence. If I'm reading the creator of this thread correctly. And even more, Divine Mind is the only thing that exists, and the visible universe does not exist, or it is simply error.

So, I guess there is no official speculation on this?

Alexei Vladimir Filippenko from Berkley has said recently that the Big Bang might have been the result of a universe size black hole in another universe, whose gravity well was so strong, that it spewed "stuff" into this universe through a White Hole. In which case the graphic here: http://www.einstein-...ights/big_bangs would be the correct one, I think.

From my point of view some things have occurred to me.

First, I'm old enough to remember this topic from my youth. And there were people who, from Earth-bound observations, made predictions of what the planets and moons were like. Canals on Mars. Tropical forests on Venus. And on, and on. But when the time came that we were able to send probes out to the planets and their moons, these same people were astounded to find things not as they predicted from their observations on earth. And for every probe, came the same amazement. And this was just in our own solar neighborhood. And now were are doing the same thing with, basically, Earth-bound observations of billions of light years away from here. So I find it astounding that anyone can make definitive statements of what can and can't be. i.e. "point C cannot observe point A". Cosmic Physics is still in the Neanderthal stage, and we are not likely to ever go out 14 billion light years to find out what is actually true or false. For myself, it creates enough reality problems just with me "being". From what I can determine, the religious Creation theory is no more fantastic than any "Scientific" theory of existence. Perhaps the only thing that is "real" is Divine Thought. (For the lack of a better name.)

But you have given me a lot to consider. Thank you spyman, and michel123456.

So you are saying that there was no singularity which exploded to create the Big Bang? I thought that was the accepted theory? I don't understand.

Consider that the big bang probably expanded rapidly in all directions. A rapidly expanding bubble. If we think of it as spheres of "stuff" going out in all directions, then the "stuff" emanating from the explosion would be the exact same age all around the outside of the bubble. So is it not possible that we are looking right past the big bang event to the other edge of the bubble, which is the exact same age as us?

I have heard that scientists looks out to about 4 billion light years from our position, and claim to see what the universe looked like near the beginning of the universe. But what if there are beings out there looking back at us and assuming that the Milky Way galaxy is 4 billion light years from their position, so we are what it looked like close to the big bang?

I have heard that time dialates the closer you get to a black hole. And right at the event horizon time stops from the perspective of an outside observer. So, does this mean that, from our perspective nothing has ever fallen to a supposedly feeding black hole?

I don't think so. Because nature has permitted us, through medical science, to make it possible for homosexuals to reproduce.