robheus

In general one can not proof a negative. However, God is defined in a certain way, and one might be able to proof that it is inconsistent. For instance if the definition of God is (as it most generally described to be the essence of what a God is) that God created the world, and which is reasons as followed: 1. The world exist (simple fact, we all agree upon). 2. All existing things needs to have a cause (normal inference from causality) 3. Therefore God needs to exist, in order to cause the world, whereby God does not need a cause (ie. God is eternal). However the logic here presented is flawed or only half-baken. Because the world in abstract sense, just is the container for anything that exists, so if God exists, we might conclude the world exists too. So, in other words, this logic only tells us that whatever is the case, there was always a world, although for some reason, the world in some stage of it's development was equal to or contained God. But we could reach this conclusion just in one step by just stating the the world itself is eternal, and we would have no need there being any entity like God. God in this whole logic presented here, is just some abstract concept, and no other property can be inferred from it, other then that at some stage of this logic, it is claimed to necessarily exist. Yet, the whole point is, which we demonstrated that, the essential property attached to God, namely being the creator of the world, can not be hold on to, since God, like any other entity, is subject to the same logic by which we inferred the existence of God in the first place. So if God were to exist, it has to be first demonstrated that God created itself, but since such must be hold impossible, we must conclude God can not exist. Which however is in no case relevent, because when we finish the logic, we can simply exclude the existence of God, and simply jump to the conclusion that the world exists without begin, ie. eternally.

Can there be a God? Simple answer no, because nobody can explain me how the logic works that seems to dictate there must be a God. The logic goes like this: 1. There is a world. 2. It must have a cause. 3. Therefore there must be a God who created the world. etc. What is wrong with this logic is that as soon as you say such a being exists, it satisfies the condition that a world exists, even if it only contained that being (ie. a world only containing God). But then, there would have been no creation act of God necessary, since the world already existed, even if only in the form of just God existing. And if we ask the very basic question, how it is that the world seems to need a cause of existing, but God does not need to have a cause of existing, the most likely answer you get is because God exists indefinately or eternally. But since the world exist by definition then also, this then just turns out to be that the world itself is eternal and ever existing. No need of any such God creators. This makes the question of wether any such beings which we can call God unnessary by definition, since no creation event needed to have taken place if it turns out the world is eternal, and we don't need to argue wether negative (or absense) of existence can be proven, etc.

Perhaps also.

Here's some thoughts from hegel about this in Science of Logic - Doctrine of Being.

some points: 1. Conservation of energy The conservation of energy might not be exactly the same as we always understood it to be under General Relativty, but only in the case of uncurved spacetime. The expansion of the universe for instance shows that the energy contents of the universe changes as space expands, as the energy density of empty space remains constant. However in the same rate the negative energy of the gravitational field increases, balancing the increase of dark energy. 2. Being and nothing As Hegel would have explained (see: Science of Logic - Doctrine of Being) the idea that Being and nothing are only seperate - thus denying their unity and unseperatness - is not dialectic but sophistry. Being and nothing, as nothing is determined in them, only exist within their unity - in which one is the opposite of the other - but in that form they are still nothing and in fact the same. They do not have a seperate truth. Their only truth lies in Becoming (or ceasing-to-be), in which it is already understood that being passes into nothing and vice versa.

I do not believe there is no God, I simply state that there are no Gods, they are just human inventions. They are invented for deluding people.

If the universe is infinite, as I assume, it can not be proved. And it is no wonder that every measurement we can ever make will yield a finite value. If by analogy we would for example take a straight line extending in both directions without end or begin, then any attempt we make to place two points on them, the distance between them yields a finite distance (measured in some unit). However, we are not allowed to induce from that finite result of any possible measurement taken on the line, that the line itself is infinite. The reason of that is that there can not be a finite measure as an upperbound to the measurements we can take. The proof of that is that we can always show, even for the supposed largest distance on the line, that we can place the points further apart and get a larger distance. This reasoning is similar to why there isn't a largest natural number, even when all natural numbers are finite and countable! So, infinity on the line extending to both directions to infinity, only exists in the form of finite measurements on the line! At least though it can be said that there is no boundary. No, but this is by definition the case. There neither is a proof that 1 meter is 100 centimer, but that is just how we defined it. [ in case you use universe in a different context, as an element in a collection of universes or the multiverse, then the same applies of course for the multiverse ]

Well it's a cost / benefit picture, for sure I guess a large economy like japan could benefit from a fixed connection with continental asia, same for indonesia, etc.

What is "at the moment of the big bang" is supposed to mean? The big bang theory I am aware of, doesn't have a specific moment. Perhaps you mean the fictuous point in time/space of our past light cone known as the singularity? But that is just an extrapolation, based on GR, and not to be understood as a "real point" of our history. The reason: GR breaks apart at that point, and QM effects have to be taken into account. For that reasons, other models had to be developed to shed light on that issue as the contemporary big bang theory could not explain it.

Who says so? The big bang theory does not explicity presuposes that there was no time before the big bang, ie. big bang theory does not equate a model with a singularity at the beginning, many more models are possible.

In eternal cyclic universe model, there is no way to start counting I suppose.

The concept "God" is a very diffuse concept, you need to clearly define it before one can debate about it, but human antropology makes it quite clear I guess that "Gods" are human inventions (and not the other way around) and just portray some idealist / fictuous ideas about ourselves. Moreover there is no need for "inventing" a God, because the philosophy of materialism (matter as the substance - being the ground for all observable phenomena - and consciousness only being a secondary feature of the world and later development and emergent property of matter in living organisms) has no need of there being any God. EDIT: And an argument against a God/creator would be that matter/energy itself does not get created or destroyed, and hence no "creation" event whatsoever needed to take place, just transformation from one kind of material form into other forms (and there might be different kinds of stuff as we currently know of, and perhaps that kind of stuff causes the big bang, and maybe the dark energy and/or dark matter are remnants of that stuff), and secondly, how could a spiritual being (i.e. non-material) "outside of space / time" have anything to do with the material, actual world, as these are all just gross absurdities. The logic of why there would have to be a God is just stupid logic (like saying, the material interactions that lead to the formation of earth, life and human beings made it possible for us to exist, and THEREFORE, those material interactions must have been guided with some pre-set goal, intend and purpose, which is the same basic flawed logic as thinking that if you win a lottery, there was some collaboration, intend and purposese in all the material forces that caused your ticket to win the lottery). There are a lot of possibilities, but on the other hand also a lot of impossibilites. I'm sure the existence of any "Gods" is one of those impossibilities. For example, how could it be that "god" supposedly "created the world" as the mere supposed existence of a God already means that a world (which at least contains that God-entity) is existing? So far, nobody could explain me how such would be possible at all. And there are a lot of other problems for making the concept of God into some real existing phenomena what could be placed in the world, and thus far nobody succeeded in doing that, hence there is no reason to contemplate such utterly imaginary beings.

The chicken-soup.

Correct. But you can use your roof top for solar panels. They are becoming cheaper and reduce cost of electricity bill. I didn't say that there was no other source, just that you don't have to pay for that source. It is a way of extracting some 'free' energy from under ground.

Would you not say a heatpump (electricity IN, heat OUT) is a over-unity device? You can get more heat enery out as electricity put in. But it doesn't defy physics laws, because you extract heat from the ground.

Recently came across a scientific news bulletin claiming that the evidence of having found the Higgs particle is accumulating. Which would mean the strand model can not be right, acc. to Schiller.

Floating ice berg would cause some trouble of course. Only solution I can think of is drag them away before they do harm. But for a bridge on fixed pillars the same applies, so the tunnel would probable the only option in that situation i guess. I probably didn't explain the idea very well, I should have made a drawing. The tube itself is not underwater, but on top of a bridge like structure that supports it (but in a flexible, not rigid way using dampers or something, because the bridge itself basically floats but is attached to ocean floor). The foating submerged structure is under the pillars, but between pillars of course ships can pass.

Most important: we must understand we can not grow exponentially on a finite planet. There is no planet B. (well there are plenty other planets, but it is not the case we can simply go to such a planet and pretend that depletion problems needn't be solved - no solution can solve exponential growth). But we can surive of course, but we would need to develop more durable and sustainable forms for economic development. There are plenty of opportunites for that. Look for example at desertec, they plan to create huge amount of solar energy from desert regions (north africa, middle east). Waste heat can be used to transform salt water into drink water. And they are plenty other ways for sustainable development.

Zero nett energy does not equal "nothing"

I have not yet formed an opinion on that yet, but I do like the work of Dr. Schiller (he pubishes good physics book and gives them away for free). From a philosopical point of view I would however think that the idea of a kind of substratum of physical reality is kind of weird and self-refuting in a sense. How could it be that physical reality is some sort of projection of some underlying (unobservable) physical substratum? But I think the reason he presents us this simple model of an "ultimate" theory of physics is to mock the existing science community, who develop far more elaborated models (string theory/M theory) without any real results, and with no real testable predictions.

Well I am in no way hoping that, but I think it is a realistic prognose.

There DO exist free energy machines, since (definitional) free energy is just some device that extracts some energy from some source, without the owner paying a bill. So a windmill or solarpanel IS free energy. Likewise a heatpump is to some extent, only that still requires you to input electric energy which in most cases is not free (unless you have solar panels or windmills that generates that energy). Yes, but also take in mind that any transformation of energy causes losses, and that for example heat energy can not be converted back to for example mechanical (kinetic) or electric energy without significant losses due to thermodynamic laws. I acknowledge anyone's right for entertaining all kind of phantasys or science fiction stories, but the real solutions to energy problems, won't be fixed with that.

Interstellar space consists of roughly 2 hydrogen atoms per square cubic centimetre, and at near relativistic speeds, that is some real problem, because these atoms will hit the ship with enormous energies. So realistic speeds limits for interstellar space ships are well below the speed of light.

There are many places in the world where some fixed connection is being considered between two land sides divided by an ocean or sea. Projects under consideration are for example: * bering street (alaska-russia) * gibraltar (marocco-spain) Engineering faces challenges there. But in all those cases they opt either for a fixed standing bridge (on pillars) or a tunnel, or combination of them. Why could (in theory) a bridge not be built on floating structures attached to the sea floor with on top of it a kind of bridge design. The railways or roads then would go through a tube which would have some flexibility and attached to the top structure using dampers, to allow the floating structure having some swing, while at the same time leaving the tube itself in the same place, allowing only minimal motion. The tube should be constructed such that some motion would be possible, as also for the rail road or drive way in it. The floating structure itself, to minimize movement, would be completely under water, and in places necessary for vessels to go under the bridge, the span width of the bridge structure built on top of the floating structure would be high enough and wide enough to allow any size ship to pass. Of course in case the bridge is being designed for the use of trains, there should be alsmost no inclination (same height every where large enough for the largest ships to pass). Would such be possible realistically, or would the floating structure whobble to much to make this possible. Also, would this method of making large bridges not be cheaper, because you don't need pillars nor need to dig a long tunnel, and in some cases is the only possible method to use. A positive side of this is that the bridge (the floating structure PLUS top structure but without the tube) could be built in long segments, and dragged to the place of destination, lowering building costs. The bridge would then be attached to the ocean floor, and when the whole track is finished, they could start attaching the tube for the drive ways or rail roads. EDIT: I will add some figures for the bridge. * clearance (height above sea level) for international water ways some 70 m * width (maximal width): some 1500 m So this means the top level structure has to be some 250-300m above sea level for the segments that have the maximal span width. Which means you would need an enormous floating platform below sealevel (perhaps some 10-20m below sea level) to support it and wide enough to minimize whobbling of the top structure. For example size the floating structure some 100m in width anchored to the ocean/sea floor.

"Free energy" is mostly a scam or hoax. But their might be actual (not defying laws of nature) forms of "free energy" and also over-unity is as such not impossible. Take for instance a heat pump, it delivers more watts of output (though in form of heat) then you need electric imput. It does not defy law of conservation of energy, because you extract some heat from below the ground.