I haven't been here in quite some time, but I've still been dreaming deep Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I do not believe in any form of religion. But I don't know if 'God' exists. The scripture version of 'God' is nothing like the kind of 'God' I perceive. So without further ado, the newest of my absurdities. Hope you enjoy. So, before the Big Bang our universe was nothing, I can work with that. When you think of where life begins - hmm. I see it as our universe was an empty egg within a 'Goddess'. 'God' fertilized the egg with his sperm, and Bang. We are all a part of something much bigger than we could imagine! We are just the fuel of a much bigger life, in the end. Individually, our lives don't have meaning, but collectively wow, is that a different story Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I imagine as long as it seems to us, our universe is still rather young. Eventually all life in the universe will form as one baby 'God' - but don't worry about that, cause the amount of time that would take can be assumed as infinite years away since we can't comprehend the amount of time it takes for a 'God' to be born! And although we humans are just a very small part of the cycle, if we could find unity here it would be much easier for us once it all comes together infinite years from now, and the unity we could start could be the most important part of the baby 'God' that will live long after we are forgotten. How's that one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS This is just one of many ideas that float through my head, but to be honest, I don't care as much about the past as I do the future. I don't know much, but I understand that none of us do. I try to dream of a better tomorrow, and no matter what the past, that dream will always live inside me, now that I've realized it. I see unity as inevitable whether it happens in my lifetime or not.
Unbelievabley close. I think I figured it all out finally. But explaining it is difficult, and I haven't tried to prove it yet, but this can be proven just by looking at the 'anatomy' of the universe! Know this: The only part of the physical reality that matters is the 'One Life' that is being formed in the giant womb that we call the universe. No other physical realities mean anything. Spiritual reality is the key. Alive or dead, we are all a part of the 'One Life' that is being formed. We have all the truth right in front of us, but we refuse to see it! Our creators are something quite different then our 'One God'. Our creators have been exploring this universe for quite sometime. When they discovered the truth, they still had lots of time to kill before the baby 'God' would be ready to be born, so they had some fun. Our creators created us in the image of our baby 'God'. Our anatomy is the same with that of the universe! We really were created in the image of 'God'. As above so below, suddenly makes complete sence. I don't know enough scripture, cause the way we always took things so literally, I was against religion, but it now makes sence why the spiritual messages in all religions are so similuar! Religion shouldn't be takin literally in the physical realities of us individuals, but the spiritual message to one collective life. I can't believe how obvious this all is becoming to me . Before you call me delussional, I ask you entertain yourself and look up some fasinating pictures like the 'the brain of the universe', 'the hour glass eye' and even 'the body of the universe'. Not everyone that provides the images has made the propper conections yet, but seeing the images should make things a little more clear, even if you feel extremely confused right now. I am kinda currious as to whether this baby 'God' we are all a part of is a boy or a girl - but my love would be the same in both circumstances anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Although we should be able to tell, if we look in the right spot Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Unity is inevitable. Our individual physical worlds can not last forever. It is a part of 'One Life cycle'. But the pure bliss once you realize this, my mind is on fire, and it feels great!!!! Some scietific help explaining would be appreciated, cause I founsd what I needed to find for me, but I am not good at explaining it yet. This came to me rather unexpectedly after about 3 years of having difficulty functioning, while I dreamed. My original dream of unity is no where near the kind of unity I now know is inevitable. I was looking to unite the world, but it's the whole damn universe we need to connect with. So obvious, yet so hard to find - not so hard when you can see the clear images of the 'One Life' that is getting close to birth. The winter solice of 2012 suddenly does have important meaning to me because it's a change in the cycle, and Aquarias is the next cycle. Water droping, when water breaks we know it as time for birth in our cycle! I think baby 'God' is almost ready to be born!!! I'm not worried about my physical world, but the date gives me a timetable to try and get the message across. I no longer functuion in the game 'normally' - I have seen the light, and my only purpose now is to help show others the way. But I ramble, and I get excited, and I don't always have the right words to say how I feel. Still overwhelmed right now, I'll be back soon Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I read it all. It isn't pseudoscience but I would say that you must have gotten hold of some pretty good :m::m: the other night. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!oke: Not that there is anything wrong with that. So you still say "pipes" comes from you being tall as a child?
like always, my misinterpretations are what makes some of this off, but if you really want to understand the universe, take a look at the womb. To understand singularity in the big bang, take a look at our seeds of life within us. - is it metaphor or real, I doesn't really matter, this is just the kind of thing I needed to here before I could understand 'One Thing' for me. Their are many paths, no truth is the same, etc... Evidence to me is in the universe and in the womb to support it, and you'll see it to if you want to see it. I'm not sure how to prove it or if it is actually just a metaphor, and I ain't worried about recognition so much as awareness. It took me a long absurd journey to find salvation. I found my salvation with absurdities and questions, I was against so many things I didn't understand but wanted so much for everyone. Took a while for me to really figure out some of the many meanings to 'One Thing'. Took me awhile to see, I was the blind one, when I thought I was awake.
Right on upto this point. As a rational person I think it is not possible to make an absolute declaration that there is no God. That is like proving a negative. However, I also believe the odds are Infinity/1 against any such origin. 1 - The assumption of a God creator contributes nothing to the origin since one must then ask: 2 - If God created everything, including space, energy and matter then where did God exist and what process created God. Of course the arguement that he always existed or created himself is frankly laughable as an explanation. No, adding a God contributes nothing to the process. And having God make the universe just for us humans is so absolutely narcistic it is unbelivable. It has been my personal position that should I be wrong and someday be confronted before such a God that I would gladly accept Hell rather than bow down to an ego maniac. 3 - I have my own view of origin which leaves some initial cause questions but not how. It is a viable ex-nihilo process. Let (N) = Nothingness = 0 and (S) = Something +/- 1 or any numerical value: Origin = N-------------->(+S) + (-S) = 0 That is we came into existance via a bifurcated nothing and on balance exist as borrowed energy which has a net value of 0. Hence nothing has been created and therefore there is no need for a creator. While this process is difficult to imagine it in fact is known to exist by our study of physics. Virtual particles come into and out of existance ex-nihilo all the time. Further there are two known processes whereby such ex-nihilo origin of virtual particles results in them becoming real particles and remaining in existance. 4 - UnRuh where an accelerating observer's energy is used to convert virtual particles into real particles. 5 - Hawking's Radiation from a Black Hole where one is captured and the other escapes to remain as a real particle. If you are unfamiliar with physics you can Google UnRuh and Hawking's Radiation for more details. An electron has a mass of 9.1E-31Kg. While the latest calculation of the mass of the universe is 1.6E60 Kg. A linear time vs mass would give the universe only 2.7 Billion years and we'd all be gone by now but fortunately it is believed that time is a square function of mass of the virtual particles hence the universe should have 7.478E16 - 4E9 = 7.3999E16 years before heat death due to entrophy. Nice common sense post Pipes.
#3 is your explanation of how the universe came to exist from nothing. My view is that you can’t get something from nothing and so I explain the existence of the universe by concluding that it has always existed. Care to explain why you prefer something from nothing as opposed to energy that cannot be created or destroyed, i.e. energy that has always existed? You point out that particles pop in and out of existence i.e. something from nothing again and I point to that as evidence that all space contains energy density. The energy density at any point in space is always fluctuating as that point is continually traversed from all directions by expanding quantum waves. My view is that the particles you say are popping up out of nothing are actually the result of the energy density in the space where they appear reaching a threshold where the energy density causes quantization of the energy in that space. Neither of our views eliminates the possibility of a God, but neither of them smack of God to the extent that Pipes is visualizing.
Then you reject modern science because virtual particles exists and they come into existance ex-nihilo from nothing. My #3 is jsut a recognition of further study which shows that the life time of virtual particles is proportional to its energy of formation . My calculations give a life span for the universe to exist tht in in the proper real of predictions for evaporation of all matter by heat death of the universe. This is not something just picked out of the blue. 1 - Because that is the principle of "Uncertainity" which is accepted science and allows virtual particles to exist. For an electron that life time is only 5.39E-44 seconds which is allowed without violating the principle you cite. Perhaps you were unaware that that rule has exceptions and it is called "Uncertainity". The extension of that to include the univers and it's 4B+ years is a matter of scalling the energy (mass conversion) of the universe to the predicted time such existance can occur and not violate the uncertainity principle. 2 - Because to assert "Eternal" existance infers a infinite time and nothing physical can be infinite. That is time can be broken down into increments and you can count them. They are physical increments. Anything countable cannot be infinite because by definition infinite is larger than any number. Infinity is rather a pure mathematical term, useful but not practical as a description of anything physical and countable. Infinity cannot be modified. That is subtracted from, added to, multiplied or divided bya anything and produce a change. Therefore to assert an infinite existance infers there will and can be no end. Modern science disagrees and predicts a heat death billions of years from now. You are speaking of the quantuum foam and I agree but virtual particles are considered to be from nothing. Precisely how these two things relate is beyond my pay scale.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Regretably I have to agree. However, if I were to apply infinity to anything it would be as I have stated the existance of a God creator is 1/infinity. Further to suggest a God origin does not offer any actual solution as I have stated you have to them explain how God, creator of all things, came into being before he created space, time, energy and mass.
Thank you. You accept the current consensus of science on the macro and micro levels, i.e. BBT and the particle model. As much as I disagree with your view about infinity, I am also dissatisfied with BBT because of several shortcomings that are removed if space and energy preceded the event. Not the least of which is that BBT doesn’t address the cause of expansion. By this I mean the it is well known that the standard cosmology which includes General Relativity with Inflation and the Cosmological Principle does not even address t=0. It does not include the big bang itself and offers no answer to the question of what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe. It implies a Big Bang, it implies that space and time came into existence along with all of the energy that exists today, and the existence of virtual particles does not work without energy in the first place. And to bore you further, Particle Physics and the Standard Particle Model does not know the source of mass and great hopes rest on the data that will be gathered by the LHC. To wave off the view that energy has always existed and cannot be created or destroyed by saying that I don’t accept modern science is getting the chicken before the horse, i.e. mixed analogies. Energy must exist before virtual particles appear in a given space so tell me where the energy came from. I hear you on the position that separation of nothing in plus and minus energy, spontaneous symmetry breaking, must occur out of a potential. The potential then is there before the virtual particles appear. Where did the potential come from for it must be more that “nothing” to cause the separation of nothing into plus and minus energy IMHO. And I am well aware of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. I am also aware of the fact that your position is vastly more popular than mine. As much as I hate to say it, you seem to agree with Prometheus, my nemesis Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. See the Zeno thread where I have tried to defend my view that it is possible for time and the universe to have always exited.
In this area yes I accept the modern view but as I'm sure you know from past communication I too have areas of disgreement with modern science. So it is not a case of I believe whatever they are saying. Care to expound? What do you find acceptable about infinity vs physical reality? I do not accept the BB view because of the mathematical extrapolation to a simgularity but rather I believe in BR or a Big Rip which would be a simular action but over some surface such as a Brane where by some initial volume is produced thereby also eliminating not just the singularity but the inflationary period as well. If they pull their heads out of the dark spot they could use the inflationary period as a guide to compute the initial Brane surface. Your belief that energy has always existed comes with some restrictions on definition of what energy is. Energy is the potential or ability to perform work. If you have a quiesant medium that is in uniform distribution there is no differential and hence no ability to do work therefore no energy. I think you need a different definition of energy to support your arguement. For your arguement to prevail you must envision a volume of quiesant medium 100% entropic but botteled up with a potential to escape into a pre-existing spatial void we now call our universe. To not view it in this manner would violate thermodynamics and entrophy rules. I agree and that is part of my theory UniKEF. In it the BR was just an initial event at t=0 and the process continues which drives not only the accelerting expansion but time and gravity as well. I actually see your point regarding virtual particles not being ex-nihilo and I think it may be a valid arguement however it would merely remove my arguement for it as a support for the ex-nihilo origin of the universe. Not bored at all. It is good to have a civil discussion for a change. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I personally don't believe there is a Higgs and the LHC will be more revealing about the erroneous direction modern physics has taken. It is based on the uncertainity principle and borrowed energy. I think this comes back to the definition issue of energy and to what extent definition of the uncertainity principle is permiting pertabations in entrophy such that there becomes energy. In other words if you look at a particular spatial ordinate point and it is quiesent and hence devoid of energy but suddenly there is a shift creating a potential then that is exnihilo formation of energy. So what you see as energy existing forever is not actually energy but some other form of potential which has the ability to become energy based on entropic shifts due to the uncertainity principle or quantum affects. Our differences here does seem to be in the definiton of energy. I actually agree but I don't think one can assign a physical existance to "Potential" potential. I think it makes more sense to view that as "Nothingness". But that is a personal opinion. I doubt that Prometheus and I agree on much having had prior arguements with him. But I await further discussion regarding infinity and physical reality vs mathematical fucntion.
There are three pillars to my belief in infinity. There are three specific infinities that I am addressing when I say that; space, time and energy. All three combine in my pea brain to equal a universe that has always existed in space that is endless and that contains some level of energy density throughout. But first I want to mention spacetime and the curvature of spacetime by the presence of mass. All mass is inertially connected, I think you would agree. That means that the motion of one object in space affects all other objects. General Relativity achieves that inertial connection via spacetime and the effect that mass has on the fabric of spacetime, i.e. it warps spacetime by its mere presence. Spacetime has to be the connection between mass in GR. Do you call that a physical connection? Spacetime is mathematical and is represented as a geometry where each physical event is a point in the spacetime coordinate system (my impression and poorly stated for sure). Anyway, if we accept General Relativity I think we have to accept that there is a correspondence between reality and math, and that the math faithfully depicts the physical reality. So it follows, again in my pea brain, that GR says that spacetime is what makes the inertial connection between all mass, i.e. spacetime is physical. But whether it means that literally spacetime is physical or just that GR is a very fine mathematical representation of physical reality is debatable. If it isn’t physical then the inertial connection between all mass becomes gravity. I believe that objects follow curved paths through space due to the time delay of gravity which must travel at or near the speed of light, but that space itself is not coupled with time where both originated together along with all of the energy that exists in the universe. That brings up the origin of the universe if there was an origin. Of course if the universe has always existed then there was no beginning. If the Big Bang did not create spacetime and energy, then what? Is it even worth discussing since we can’t test our hypotheses and can’t make first hand observations? Sure, I guess because the human mind knows no boundaries Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I see you have some thoughts on the subject as I read ahead. So when we think outside of Big Bang Theory and General Relativity, or outside any cosmology that includes a fabric of spacetime officially or unofficially, I then consider space separately from time, and space and time separately from energy. From that perspective I see no way to limit or contain space, and I see no way to get space out of nowhere. Do you? If not then from our non-GR perspective would you be able to discuss space being without end, i.e. boundless and infinite? Just to touch on time. Obviously if the universe has always existed, time would too. But time is a concept that is open to interpretation. My view is that time is not physically connected to anything and it simply passes. If time passes there is a continuum of time made up of all points in time across the continuum. If time stared with the BB, then the continuum started with the big band and if there was no beginning then the continuum had no beginning. But the fact is that there is always a finite length of time between any two points on the continuum whether time is infinite or not. I know of nothing that precludes time from being infinite. Do you? And quickly on energy, if we are still looking at the universe from our non-GR perspective, then the Big Bang did not create energy from nothing. If it came from nowhere, it did so before the big bang from this perspective. I know from reading ahead that you have some thoughts on that. Yes it does. I have a whole scenario but it is speculation that I call step by step, bottom up, reasonable and responsible speculation. Each step follows the previous step and the starting point is where the consensus on cosmology leaves off. To me the consensus on cosmology is Big Bang Theory with Inflation, combined with the Cosmological Principle. The point that I say the consensus leaves off is, “what caused the initial expansion of our observable universe”. My scenario picks up from there and goes step by step. It doesn’t take long to have to address new physics and a new form of energy that is like you say, contained in a big crunch the preceded the big bang; dense state energy. It has expansion potential but contains no particles as we know them, just energy compressed by the collapse of galactic material, etc. from the intersection and overlap of expanding arenas; each arena being equivalent to our known expanding universe. OK, now I know I am being boring. what does UniKEF stand for? OK, you will have to give that to me again a little at at time. I'll stick with the discussion and let you accomplish that. I can grasp the uncertainty principle and understand why it is necessary, but start with borrowed energy. We might be able to get into that a bit more so I can understand, but also so I can pitch why we don't have to equate the potential to nothingness if energy has always existed. Do you mean that you wait for him to fill you in on that or is that a reference to our discussion and my view on infinity?
As you probably know James R in his infinite wisdom thinks he can badger and extort me nto making a false admission in his behalf by restricting me from discussing reltivity or be suspended. However, I can respond to this part of your post not as to relativity but my own views. In my UniKEF view gravity curves space not vice versa. I see only 3D plus time not as adimension but an artifact of an energetic space. I see Nothingness as the absence of energy without energy flow there is no change without change there is no time and without time there is no3D there is nothingness. I don't mean a void I mean 3d is created via existance of energy. No space only exists where energy exists. Yes. If time is an artifact of energy flow producing change then absence of energy (i.e. - a quiesent state with no differential potentials) then time does not exist. Space is formed by flowing UniKEF. The flowing energy produces change and change is interpreted by us as flow of time. But we live in a Dynamic Present in Static Time. The information forming your dynamic present is actually a compilation of all other past and future events in the universe. By that I mean if you are 1 lyr east of me then you receive information about events that occur from the east of us 1 hour before I do and part of you dynamic present contains events that are in my future. Likewise for events occuring to the west of us your same dynamic present contains events that are 1 hour in my past. Like wise my dynamic present consists of past and futre events to ogher observers. Interestingly enough when you think about it any time you move you simultaneously enter the past and future. Again I don't believe in the Big Bang perse' but a simular event I call the Big Rip. However the difference in our views is that wht ever was there it was not energy before it erupted into forming the universe. For without the energy flow there is no space that now constitutres the universe, hence no potential for it to be energy. Not boring. But not sufficient to declare energy as being eternal. It would only be energy if it is flowing or has the ability to do work which requires differential. Universal Kenetic Energy Field. http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:QUy22QuKTXUJ:www.newton.ac.uk/programmes/SIS/seminars/100813301.ppt+borrowed+energy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us I cn only say what existed was not energy and while it certainly appears contridictary if something existed it was nothing.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No just commenting on the fact tht he and I have had rather strong differences of opinion elsewhere.
Oh, sorry. I saw the red moderator language but didn't read it carefully enough. I thought the restriction was discussing special relativity. I was actually being careful not to lead into SR for that reason. You should acknowledge that you can't have time dilation without length contraction because they follow from special relativity. It seems clear that length contraction does not cause the time dilation, and time dilation does not cause the length contraction. At least I agree with it and I only agree when I can see it for myself. I don't need to see the math to understand that time dilation and length contraction are directly related IMHO. It seems he is just asking for too much to ask you to acknowledge he posted that in your thread but you know moderators. I think if you agree to the statement, the other part is self-evident if it is true and doesn't need to be acknowledged. To avoid the power play banning, if you want to answer by PM to correct my thinking feel free. We do have some issues and ideas to discuss and thank you for the link on borrowing energy. More later.
No problem. Just a note. I have a very basic problem with your view and that is to assert something has existed forever precludes a point of enception. 1 - I do not see how something can exist without having come into existance. 2 - Forever, Eternal and Infinite are all synonyms and if existance has been infinite there could be no present because the present is a terminal point. There can be no terminal points to infinity. Since the future hasn't arrived yet the present would be the end of infinity and infinity cannot have an end.
MacM, in this post on another thread I give AN and Prom the respect that they deserve, i.e. none. Read it to get some perspective on my views. You do have a view of cosmology and are willing to discuss your ideas and so I am suggesting that we could have a discussion that would help me evolve my personal ideas. That is why I hope you resolve your issue with the moderator and get back to the position where you can talk.
I appreciate the interest. The material above regarding infinity is not about relativity and is open for discussion. As to an apology to James R it is not warranted, nor would it be genuine, and I have no intention of being bullied into giving credit where none is due. I have shown him flip-flopping, not just this past incident but previously and he wants to pretend otherwise so until he admits he flip-flopped on his position about GPS then there can be no give and take.
In a nutshell - Who is God? God is the spiritual interpretation of One. It is everything and nothing all at once. It is all of life in this One universe. God is how many see that One for the Soul. But I'm also the God of my own Body! And to the Body, one is being at peace with myself. But to my mind, One is the one thing most important to me in this physical life. I've never been good at life long goals because I use to allow doubt to stear me off track. I don't want to set myself up for failure neither, now that I have new perceptions - so I'll enjoy all my moments One step at a time until I know what I want. I'm still finding my balance with the many different interpretations of what One means to me. I was overwhelmed, and what I shared is a symbolic/spiritual understanding of what I saw in my awakening. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I don't expect anyone to take the same journey, but me sharing mine might make people feel at ease when they think they are losing it from time to time - lol Many different ways of finding the same thing - but we need to crash before we can rise, so I don't expect anyone to understand unless they already know!
