Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aethelwulf

  1. Most of this, if not everything spoke about ''before the big bang'' can indeed be considered as philosophical. The only time when it will be scientific, is when we have a direct evidence that something can exist below our current standard of measurements.
  2. Faith no doubt, is for empty souls who have no evidence. ''Off-topic. And Hell isn't theologically sound.'' Sorry... which christian order are you a part of? ''No, they are buzzwords because you are using them in empty, vapid ways. And I'm fairly certain I've been here a tad longer than you. I've never seen your face, either.'' Interesting... only people who can't write the science in a math format and understand it correctly use buzzwords... do you want to test me on something??? Strange.. being tested on something... does that sound like something that your are familiar with? ''My friend Russel has a teapot that you might be interested in. Let me know and I'll set up some arrangements.'' I am no longer in your league... however, when you started questioning my ability to provide proof, I almost asked you the same question. Either I have been baited, or by someone with little knowledge in physical laws? Which is it? ''Quite elitist, aren't we? I'm in my last year of physics/mathematics degree. So I know more than most, but nothing compared to the other members of this forum. So I don't often bother adding my meager knowledge where the giants already roam, unless I think I have a unique insight. I think I have some here, so I posted. What is your knowledge of physics. Can you calculate singularities in a black hole... can you evaluate simple relativistic dynamics... Talk about being condescending, you are not far off it yourself, but trust me, I can be worse. ">Did I adequately answer your condescending question?'' No... no more condescending you coming in here proclaiming you are a Christian. Or where you offended by the fact I don't appreciate your God? Are you really a christian... this should be more interesting than it has raised so far then...? No? I had to edit a few things there... sometimes my hands work far to fast for the computer.
  3. My chemistry is a bit vague, but I think you are making a good point with what I know. It's been several years since my diploma in the subject.
  4. I thought you liked the universe? No offense, but if you respected the universe and the science behind it, you should realize that a gospel beyond scientific limit is... unreasonable. What does your God consist of? Four years ago, I was a devout Christian as well... thinking all souls would be burned in hell. I soon came to realize, that the God spoke of in the Bible had no merit with science, as much as the tooth fairy does not take my teeth away... however... I also simultaneously came to realize, that God is not outside the realms of possibilities... in the sense that science itself has no bounds to a superintelligent artifact of the world around us. God is mearly an instrumental device. Hoyle I think had one of the best theories concerning this. So from an ex-Christian to a Christian, don't think I am being neglectful of your ways for they were once mine. I use so-called ''buzzwords'' because I am educated in science. To see I do not use ''Buzzwords'' frivolously, you should join us in the science subforum, because until now, I have never seen your face. Maybe because you are Christian, you have avoided the subforum? Speculation mind you... no doubt you dabbled in the science area.
  5. My lecturer at the time, told me this. I don't know his source. Oh right, you have it
  6. yes quite right though. Feynman was right I think personally to say it was neither, but then, he said these things because the objective world is so obscure, that how can anyone even say there is an electron? Wasn't it Feynman who said an electron didn't even exist, in its manifestly probabilistic form? I could be wrong here, very wrong... ??
  7. More than though. I am talking about some... underlying driving force which guides the universe. You might even think of it as the thing which might drive pilot waves (found in deBroglies description of the wavefunction). What is it that drove expansion? The universe contains more than simply the physical stuff, it has information in it which is perhaps... not always about the physical manifestion of the world around us. There is a force, which keeps things in order, a causal set which was originated from an origin where space and time began to make sense... As I said before, out of a highly ordered entropy, came a very high improbability of events. From this, one can only assume there must have been... .... a high probability in contrast. What was there to control that? Put it this way, nothing exists without a sense of smeared results unless something comes along and disturbs that. Interestingly enough, in the de Broglie Universe, the wave function collapsed at the point of origin, out of which all information had been predestined. Why? How did it collapse? Who was the observer?
  8. Why is it not enough? Time was probably efficient for gravity to take hold by that time and start forming galaxies... they would have been very volatile but still possible. 100% probability vs 100% probability equals a null result. We obviously have more to our theories than that. I certainly don't believe the BB is perfect... but there is not even such a thing as a 100% probability in science. We deal with probabilities which reach the criteria of experiments and based on that, our BB theory is the theory which fits the bill.
  9. I am glad they have found it, with such a high degree. I should admit I find myself ever-so-slightly disappointed... I did say it would not be found two years ago... but at least I am in good company. Even Hawking believed it would not be found.
  10. yes, I think I agree. Saying God is outside of the universe, is like saying he has no implications at all in the universe. If that was the case of course, why should we care about him or her? He may as well be a separate system... I guess... if there was an outside to the universe, the most implications he would have is defining an energy, but this kind of nature is unheard of, at least from the physical implications of quantum mechanics.... which is perhaps ironic considering the massive implications it would have.
  11. Did you read my link sir? It's ok to wrong, I've been wrong quite a few times in my lifetime. The wave function is certainly not a myth. Quantum mechanics has been built from such things, and as you know, quantum mechanics is all about experimental evidence.
  12. Well... yes. I did accept that talking about a God would indeed stir emotions. I think it should not be a free ticket mind you, to slander my posts... (and yes) everyone else is right, I could try and stop being a **** about it sometimes. I feel a lot of the time I am being baited, especially in my second last thread. I don't think this will impede my ability to talk about physics, it might alter anyone's perception of me mind you being able to talk about physics. We will see. In the end, I have no intentions to be negative intentionally... I respect many posters here. Some are simply here for questions, and since being here, I feel I have got to know many people, as much as they have got to know me. I think in the future, I will be more careful, not about the topics I choose, but to make absolutely sure that my topics are not misread. I appreciate this newer post, because in spite of my OP, it shows there is no real favoritism, a point I might have been worried about in this forum, but has now been partially quelled. i give my humble apologies to anyone I may have .... insulted.
  13. If you want to talk about steps, there was the first. This was energy. After that era, there was the second step, which was matter. The later step is often called the dark energy era, but I have never fully understood this. Maybe someone with better knowledge on me on these ''latter steps/era's'' could explain it to me. What I can tell you however, is that there are no steps required for Big Bang... the mechanical problem of cause and effect may induce the idea that maybe more is needed in our theory, but certainly not in the sense you are meaning. good example, ''the coin'' example.
  14. Yes, I should have pointed out, an entire system will never reach absolute zero... not even a macroscopic one. No entire system, being made of smaller constituents can completely freeze that the constituents have zero kinetic energy. If it did, a system would never thaw out.
  15. Yes, I do often write a lot of physics, but you know... the word wavicle had never really caught onto me. Of course, the entity was indeed a wave and a particle simultaneously, but for some reason a name adopted towards this nature never really caught on for me... maybe somewhere embedded in my psyche my brain still likes the idea of thinking it as two distinct forms... who knows eh? Nice quote
  16. It could possibly take not too long... space is very cold, and heat tends to leave a system quite quickly... The Earth's core is very hot. Because of this, this is a very hard question to answer without employing the relevant equations describing a thermodynamical runaway of heat. I don't know of any equations which have properly tackled this, but I do not doubt there have been attempts. For a system to be efficiently hot, which runs into an environment which is cold, is what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about. Space is very cold... which is about -270 celsius. (If my memory serves) (Got my Kelvin and celsius mixed up there... been a while since I read up on the temperature of space) What can be quite fascinating, is that some of the coldest environments in the universe, can be found in your local lab
  17. Yeah, totally. Anything that has a meaning, is contained within space and time. Anything without this meaning, has no meaning or context in physics.
  18. Well, if nothing existed, then it can't be spoke about. This isn't about a nothingness, like having no eggs in your basket. Nothingness is the absolute definition of no characteristic whatsoever, so one cannot speak about such a reality, because it isn't one.
  19. Here... I found you a link. One of the most direct experiments we have confirming the quantum behaviour http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8570836.stm I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that not only is the wave function real, but it is also physical.
  20. Have you ever heard of the quantum resonator Juangra??? If not could you please look it up, and once you have, can you still tell me the wave function is a myth?
  21. Because nothing can be absolutely certain. But I am certain enough myself that... God is not the traditional biblical text God. And, I don't believe parallel universes exist for a number of reasons. Animals which have consciousness have been tested for ''self-awareness'' or as it is often called ''self-reflectiveness''. There are about three animals I know of in the animal kingdom which are able to ''recognize'' themselves. This is not to say that a Cat or Dog cannot ''feel''. just don't think they are capable of the level of consciousness required for extremely high thinking. And yes, many of these definitions of God are my own, but not too far off Einstein's, since I am basing this on the natural world, the same stance Einstein believed in.
  22. It emmm.... it has good scientific reference to our theories. Even before the No Boundary Proposal, it was taken as a natural prediction of relativity. I think... Einstein had at some point made a few references to the universe having no edge. I mean, if we want to deal with other theories, that's fine. But in the context of our most tested theory, the no-boundary proposal seems to fit the Big Bang most precisely. I'll need to be careful, but I often change the words intelligence and information about --- God could be an intelligence or information - I just don't believe it is a sentient being. It's just a very high ordered state, which in a sense has very strong correlations with the thermodynamical view that entropy was very very highly ordered at the point of ''creation''. Again, I don't want the word ''creation'' here to be thought of as an sentient decision. The highly ordered state of entropy could be something which has a ''buzz'' of intelligence about it: I just don't take intelligence and sentient beings as being synonymous. There are many animals in the kingdom which do not have a state of conscious awareness but can be looked upon as quite intelligent, driven by their gene's.
  23. I've called this a mechanical problem of the universe. One can argue our normal sense of cause and effect breaks down. I've often thought that of a solution. But many physicists will say, a universe from nothing... which is a bit of paradox, after all, if it truly was the kind of ''nothingness'' one can try to think about, then what good does it to infer on such an existence? I believe Steven Hawking has made a similar argument.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.