A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Great example! (Einstein). E=mc^2 is so far the most explicit success of the idea of the Law of Conservation of Energy. If quantum physics had not replaced the variable for time with a probability to eliminate the infinities that result in proportional math because you have equivocated a time interval with an instant of time, then the Law of Conservation of Energy would never be violated in that domain either.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Danshawen Post #197: " . . . . .Which is why Eugene is always onboard with anything suggesting that creation of matter/energy can occur spontaneously out of nothing at any time."

    Danshawen: You mean . . . . like . . . . the Universe, itself . . . . via a quantum fluctuation in 'nothing'??
     
    danshawen likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Edit - Deleted: same post as above - KSM
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I mean, like, the book of Genesis. "Let there be light". Light is energy, yes? First line of the text and already we have broken the Law of the Conservation of Energy. This book was evidently written by someone with a lot less understanding of physics than G-d, if there is one, manifestly has.
     
  8. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Your last sentence in this (your) post is correct . . . . .Genesis WAS written by someone with less understanding of physics than God . . . . . duh!!!!

    "Let there be light" does NOT break the Law of Consrvation of Energy - IF the "source" for that Light was more energetic (in total) than the resultant Light.

    (BTW: my calculated estimate for energy density of that "source" is ~ 10^160 ergs/cc; and my estimate for the total energy of the observable Universe (based on 'mass') is only ~ 10^60 erg/cc. I can provide you those calculations if you want them, to argue/hash-around!)
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Not according to our friend Eugene, among a great many more flat Earthers.

    Then the first line of Genesis should have been: "Let there be bound energy.", or "Let there be two massive quantities of bound energy on a collision course", shouldn't it? Even G-d cannot create energy out of nothing, for this would render himself or something he used to create the universe a perpetual motion machine, wouldn't it? It begs the question: who or what process created G-d? The Greeks answer this question: "Titans". Another bad answer, akin to more Russian dolls.

    An infinite mind such as that of G-d has no need of symbols, or for that matter, mortals he needs or wants to communicate with. What could we possibly do that would be of value to a being capable of creating the Law of the Conservation of Energy?

    Symbols are the tools of finite minds. One application of those seem to be to print cognition challenged religious scripture as an article of moral and spiritual devotion for gullible religious devotees of orthodoxy of many faiths. Don't fall for that con game. You will lose, investing in a belief system that is demonstrably false. Science was my first faith. I don't need a load of rubbish from lesser areas of scholarship.

    I've lost track of how many times I've attempted to convince Eugene of that. He's still a Genesis literalist.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    It's difficult to convince someone to drop convention. This happens in science as well. Fortunately, science demands proof of a hypothesis and any errors are corrected, or the hypothesis is rejected..
     
  11. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Danshawen: So, you are saying that 'light' energy is not bound energy (if that even matters!) - and why NOT? Why does Genesis need TWO massive sources of bound energy that also need to collide? Your preference for certain terminologies or conditions might not be all that important to God. If God is ALL powerful, then he CAN create energy out of nothing. Perhaps our Universe IS the primary perpetual motion machine - why not! If there indeed is a God, we may sometime figure-out who or what created God . . . . maybe 'Nothing' (but I prefer a (bound or unbound) intense energy condition. Maybe Titans created God (h-m-m-mperhaps a 'Titan-ic' energy source) - maybe not. Do you think that our current knowledge base is more or less that it was in Greek times (e.g., is the earth flat?)? Russian (nesting) dolls are more recent than God's creation of the Universe, I believe . . (HAHA!). Agreed that God has no "need" for symbols - or (us) mortals - but His utilization of the birth-life-procreation-death process is certainly an interesting mechanism for improvement of the mortals over an extended period of time. Perhaps we 'mortals' were 'created' (and continue to improve, via the process of evolution) so that He has a 'venue of choice' with sensory systems different than His own so that He can perspectively sense his creation(s) thru His (created) 'mortal detectors/sensors'. Yes, use of symbols is a "tool" created by ourselves to print (and imprint) belief systems on us mortals. But, so is science and mathematics (lots and lots of symbols!) and scientists and mathematicians DO utilize similar symbol sets to convey knowledge and instill preferred beliefs. Religious symbolism s no more a "con game" thanis scientific symbolism (IMO). BTW: It looks a lot (to me) like scientific symbolism is oft covertly utilized by scientists to combat the percieved "evils" of religious symbolism. Even your own words: "Science was my first faith" serves to demonstrate that faith is indeed an important condition. ". . . .rubbish from lesser areas of scholarship" seems (again, to me) to convey a sense (on your part) of egotistism and haughtiness that reveals your inate fear that you may subscribe to an incomplete sense of being, worth, and proscribed life purpose. All the foregoing are IMO, of course - nothing personal!! A useful discussion - Thanks!
     
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    417
    Where are you taking it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  13. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,207
    Very good question

    From Douglas Adams there is a large shed

    just beyond

    The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

    Some of it will go in

    The Shed Behind the Restaurant

    From Toy Story Buzz Lightyear has his Space Cave and a large (almost infinite in size) tacked on extension

    Most of it will go there

    And IKEA has made a bid for the leftovers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    danshawen likes this.
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    A stray cat just appeared in my neighborhood. I think God may be walking around in my neighborhood. I don't know how he got here either. Maybe a God sent him down.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    You might not be able to "see" bound energy, even if it was there (from a black hole, for instance). If the light was suddenly there, it would have come from accelerating an electric charge, and such a force would require another electric charge. Electrons are bound energy, but they don't suddenly appear out of nothing either.

    Because you don't get something from nothing. It would break the Law of the Conservation of Energy. A pair of hypermassive black holes colliding at relativistic speed would fill the same void as the Big Bang, but explain the sudden appearance of all kinds of matter and energy in a way that would not violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy, or really mass / energy.

    That would make him a perpetul motion machine. Even this topic is banned from most scientific discussion forums. The Cesspool here is full of those.

    To what purpose? So far, he has created the dominant species on this planet that is dominant only because evolution has crafted them to care for each other. This is a miracle, yes. Does it require a G-d? No idea. Does it require a G-d of perpetual motion? Definitely, the answer would be 'no'.

    IMO also. Congratulations on being the first person at sciforums or anywhere else who, in hundreds of threads where I have posted exactly the same idea, took the effort needed not only to read, but to actually think about the idea. It's one of my more powerful ones, or at least, I think so.

    For the record, I have never said (or meant to say) that it wasn't. This is one of the reasons, I was never the one to suggest our friend Eugene's threads belonged in the Cesspool area of these forums.

    You are welcome. I probably need to check myself for such "haughtiness". Scholarship does not require anything more of scholars than to be able to trace what has been said on a subject and by whom, and also in what context. There are scholars in religion (where scholarship comes from) as well as in science. The only difference between the two is, when someone in science has an idea that turns out to be wrong, the idea is stricken from the chronicle of scientific knowledge, never to return. Somehow, this process never seems to work with religion, for whatever reason.

    The book of Genesis, for instance, is self contradictory, inconsistent pseudoscientific rubbish that was argued by Talmudic scholars for thousands of years before anyone self-identifying as members of the other faiths that adopted it, and which many now revere as they do any of the moral teachings of their respective faiths. It is a myth, not the revealed word of G-d, and certainly not science, and was never truly intended either as a literal history or even a proper moral lesson.

    The "tree of the knowledge of good an evil" is so much moral garbage that is as anti-science (and even anti-literacy and anti-scholarship) as it can possibly be. It really needed to have its pages torn out or that part of the scroll burned to ashes a very, very long time ago, because it is teaching the moral equivalent of burning books (from trees, no less) containing knowledge. Its symbols speak clearly that it was written by a human being, and an ignorant individual who must have barely known how to write, much less read; in other words, not a deity.

    Even the vengeful G-d of the Old Testament would not fault or punish someone for deleting the book of Genesis entirely forever. Think carefully. What valued moral lesson would really be lost if it were? I can't think of even ONE, other than one shouldn't make G-d angry. Can you? Does it specify how to go about accomplishing this, other than to remain stupid? Stupid lesson. Stupider followers who belive this lesson.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Danshawen: I - and I'm sure most of the Sciforums members - appreciate your opinions and meaningful discussions, as well as your technical expertise.

    Your posting style has piqued my curiosity . . . . . why do you use the text 'G-d' instead of simply using 'God'? . . . or 'god' . . . . I'm sure I am more curious (probably to a fault!) than God might be, and it does not really detract from or add to the context . . . . . just a curious artifact, I guess. Thanks!
     
    danshawen likes this.
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    How does nothing become something ?
     
  18. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    IMO, Some (not me!) will say a simple quantum fluctuation in 'nothing' can (eventually/statistically!) become something!
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    This thread shows that one can get nothing from something.
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    How so ?
     
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,200
    We started with something and now the thread has devolved into nothing.
     
  22. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    A shame really .
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Glad you asked. In my adopted religion (Judaism), there is not a word that is an explicit name for our deity. Adonai is translated "Our Lord", and there are a select few other words in our tradition that have the same meaning. It makes it impossible to blaspheme the deity's name in the sense that derivative religions allow. Even the Torah has only the status of a person, not an idol. This tradition was punished for worshiping those as well. Referring to G-d extends the equivalent meaning in a way other religious traditions can be assured, whatever your tradition or belief, it is tolerated with the respect your own may demand and is not intended to denigrate either the belief or its followers.
     

Share This Page