To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Does God Exist?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Ewol
Many of the questions have been asked in this thread, I await answers.
boit
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 7 2011, 07:01 PM)
It's there because  Chlorpromazine is also a route to a "peace which passeth all understanding" and Network Etiquette and scientific debate both require a modicum of peace to actually hear what the other side is saying.

What I am actually saying is "you ignorant m****-f****s gotta calm down" in a passive-agressive encoded sort of way.

Thanks for the response. But remember to provide Artane along with the CPZ. You don't want to discover how long one's tongue can stick out, d'ya? biggrin.gif
swimmer
Hi Ewol

How does your proposition that there exists "a universal entity or intelligence" explain the existence of the universe?

QUOTE (Ewol+Apr 15 2011, 12:00 PM)
My position is that about 6 months ago I went to bed a sceptic and woke up a believer in a universal entity or intellegence that we know as God.
The subjects I think need covering are
1 The fact that the universe exists...



Using that logic, if there were incontrovertible empirical evidence supporting the existence of a god you would be driven to propose the existence of a creator of that god...

...and a god's god's god and a... etc.

Proposing the existence of "a universal entity or intelligence" explains nothing - in the scientific sense at least.

The only "rational" explanation for the existence of a god is that it makes you feel better and probably live longer - just leave it at that. A glorified placebo effect.

Don't look to science - put your head in the sand and apply subjectivity - that is the only good argument for the existence of a god or the God or gods.


Which ironically is why I can't believe in a god. Personally I just can't let go of the scientific method. I have to put up with living without simple answers because there aren't any simple questions.

huh.gif
Ewol
I believe that God exists within the energy of the universe much the same way your thoughts exist within the energy impulses that exist within your brain. You cant see your thoughts but you know they are there so you accept you own existance but you cannot see the thoughts of others so you have to rely on your eyes but how do you know who or what is writing this post, I could be a person or a supernatural being for all you know, you have to accept what your brain/thoughts are telling you as the most logical.
As for simple questions lets take cooking for example which we take for granted. Our ancestors lived the same as other animals happily eating raw food so why did we start cooking. Living hand to mouth why bother wasting time cooking your food when you can eat it straight away and we are still the only animal that cooks its food.
I remember from school being told that it probably started with someone dropping a piece of meat into a fire, retrieving it and deciding it tasted better. Of course anyone that has had burnt offerings from a BBQ might disaggree with this as the food would not have been cooked properly and covered with ash, very tasty.
Then there is the case for boiling veg as it does not roast that well. This involves inventing a cooking pot and boiling water remembering that fire and water mix really well and cooking properly so the food is edible takes some skill. As I said why bother if you are used to and happy with raw food.
Another simple question where does mass come from, I cannot believe that 10 to the power 50 tonnes of mass came out of a volume of less than an atom, this would have been far denser than a black hole from which mass cannot escape owing to gravity. If you say that gravity did not exist then why have I been told on many occasions that gravity exists because of mass.

Moderator the answers to your questions are mandidit or evolutiondidit none of your questions are really applicable to the hand of God.
rpenner
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 8 2011, 01:19 PM)
Moderator the answers to your questions are mandidit or evolutiondidit none of your questions are really applicable to the hand of God.

What? Not even the last two?


Your misunderstanding of General Relativity and Cosmology of the Big Bang doesn't alter the fact that many people understand those topics better than you. Science is useful, precise, and communicable -- your misunderstanding of science is neither useful or precise. The Big Bang model is self-consistent, but traces back to a space-like singularity not a point-like singularity like you imagine. So density doesn't necessarily require collapse when there was no "outside." The Newtonian analog would be in a universe filled with water, there is no direction that the water's gravity pulls you because the amount of water in any direction is the same.

Please bother to learn the science before you critique it.
Ewol
I aggree many people do understand GR, cosmology etc better than me but I try to understand science as I read it, if I misunderstand it is because it is badly explained not because I cannot understand. e.g. Mass = Gravity, universe and everything in it including mass was smaller than atom, Black hole = dense mass with gravitational field from which nothing can escape except Hawking radiation if it exists therefore as universal mass must have been denser than black hole how could BB escape gravitational field?
Please take reasoning apart and tell me where I have gone wrong as I have written as I have found explained.
Please explain spacelike sigularity as against pointlike.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 8 2011, 02:46 PM)
I aggree many people do understand GR, cosmology etc better than me but I try to understand science as I read it, if I misunderstand it is because it is badly explained not because I cannot understand.

That is just fallacious logic. If you misunderstand you are the last person qualified to make a judgment of whether or not it was "badly explained". Obviously many other people do understand it, based on the exact same resources you have access to. I would suggest that you have ideological barriers to your understanding.

QUOTE
e.g. Mass = Gravity, universe and everything in it including mass was smaller than atom, Black hole = dense mass with gravitational field from which nothing can escape except Hawking radiation if it exists therefore as universal mass must have been denser than black hole how could BB escape gravitational field?


Mass doesn't equal gravity, mass has gravity. It is a causative relationship, not an equivalence. But here's a very simple answer to your question.

1. At increasing density matter breaks down into energy.

2. Electromagnetism is much, much stronger than gravity.

3. As energy is condensed, like charges are brought into greater proximity.

4. Like charges repel each other.
AlexG
QUOTE
I misunderstand it is because it is badly explained not because I cannot understand.


If you misunderstand, it is because you lack the background needed to understand.
Ewol
Have found yet another book on universe, inflationary model is described as contrived, flawed and patched up.
synthsin sorry to carry on but looking at my understanding of your explaination black holes should not exist, the electromagnetic force should push the matter apart, like charges repel etc rather than gravity holding them together. Surely matter must be dense energy please explain how energy is converted into matter by lowering density.
Have found something else out recently, when does spin not spin answer when its part of quantum theory.
I misunderstand because things are contradictory and not explained, such as synthsins answer to my last question which seems to say black holes are impossible.
Back to the simple cooking question which I expected at least a sarky answer to. The fact is there are a number of very good reasons why cooking is good but none of them would have been obvious to our ancestors. I suggest that cooking was taught by God and the burnt offerings of the OT are a result of this or even testimony to, much like a tutor being please by a good pupil.
Another simple question where does positive and negative electromagnetic charge origionate from - electron and proton are not correct answer as they only carry charge.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 10 2011, 01:42 PM)
Have found yet another book on universe, inflationary model is described as contrived, flawed and patched up.

What book? Which specific Inflationary model?

QUOTE
synthsin sorry to carry on but looking at my understanding of your explaination black holes should not exist, the electromagnetic force should push the matter apart, like charges repel etc rather than gravity holding them together.


It's called Hawking radiation, a way that a black hole can lose energy that the entire universe could not (as there would be nowhere to lose it to). This is more apt to neutralize the black holes net charge, rather than off-balance it with like charges.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
synthsin sorry to carry on but looking at my understanding of your explaination black holes should not exist, the electromagnetic force should push the matter apart, like charges repel etc rather than gravity holding them together.


It's called Hawking radiation, a way that a black hole can lose energy that the entire universe could not (as there would be nowhere to lose it to). This is more apt to neutralize the black holes net charge, rather than off-balance it with like charges.

Surely matter must be dense energy please explain how energy is converted into matter by lowering density.


Never said it was. I said that increasing density would not allow matter to maintain its coherence. In simple terms, increasing density means increasing heat, and everything eventually "melts" in to radiation. Cooler temperatures are necessary for more solid forms of matter.

QUOTE
Back to the simple cooking question which I expected at least a sarky answer to.


Like many creationists, you are dodging around between unrelated subjects in an attempt to make your case. Not everyone is interested in the sillier arguments. Anyway, burnt offerings were not original to an monotheistic or Abrahamic God, so that would have to be support for polytheism.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Back to the simple cooking question which I expected at least a sarky answer to.


Like many creationists, you are dodging around between unrelated subjects in an attempt to make your case. Not everyone is interested in the sillier arguments. Anyway, burnt offerings were not original to an monotheistic or Abrahamic God, so that would have to be support for polytheism.

Another simple question where does positive and negative electromagnetic charge origionate from

Ex nihilo, as quantum fluctuations.

Now, I'm interested in whether you go look some of this up and learn something, since you keep complaining about no one answering you questions. I've answered all of them, and if you ignore any of this I will just go back to ignoring you as a creationist troll.
Ewol
Book - endless universe by steinhardt & turok.
As far as I can understand Hawking radiation is short wavelength and deals with virtual paired particles one inside EH and one outside, and not universally accepted. Surely radiation with a wavelength longer than the diameter of the BH should be able to tunnel out, a concept I could find easier to accept.
Surely melting point depends on pressure as well as temp, at BB density goes up by reducing volume thus increasing pressure pushing melting point up.
Do not consider myself a creationist, there are no other theories as to why we cook our food so mine is best until better one comes along, perhaps you would like to try. Questioning what we take for granted is not a silly passtime, the origin of the matter for the acretion disc that formed the solar system is example, have yet to find out where it came from or perhaps God provided it. It is no good coming up with theories whose foundation is based on an assumption.
Got mixed up with pos & neg amplitude on wavelength and charge, although have not found an understandable explaination of charge or why electron is so much smaller than proton but presumably has equivalent charge.
Correction to previous post about BB should be 20billion and 1 universes in space smaller than atom to allow for matter antimatter annihilation in beginning. Also regarding inflation at faster than light surely an observer on the edge would travel backwards in time compared with one at center, in other words at end of inflationary period observer at the edge would exist before the information about the universe coming into existance reached him (GR time dilation) or do laws of phisics only come into existance after the 1 second point.
Jesuit
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 8 2011, 10:45 PM)
That is just fallacious logic. If you misunderstand you are the last person qualified to make a judgment of whether or not it was "badly explained". Obviously many other people do understand it, based on the exact same resources you have access to. I would suggest that you have ideological barriers to your understanding.



Mass doesn't equal gravity, mass has gravity. It is a causative relationship, not an equivalence. But here's a very simple answer to your question.

1. At increasing density matter breaks down into energy.

2. Electromagnetism is much, much stronger than gravity.

3. As energy is condensed, like charges are brought into greater proximity.

4. Like charges repel each other.

I like it when it is broken down into simpler points like this. I'm here to learn physics pure and simple. I marvel that God has done all those physicists tell us. I am not intending to use these information to prop up my religious standing in a debate with a non believer, probably I'll meet one with lesser knowledge in these matters anyway. Isn't it interesting that what cements my beliefs is what makes another disbelief? One's chap meat is trully another ones poison.
synthsin75
First, notice how much an Ekpyrotic universe theory must postulate without any hope of finding evidence, and that it's central idea, branes or M-theory, is of the still fairly speculative string theory. Conversely, Inflation requires fewer postulates unsupported by observation.

Second, what part of an Ekpyrotic theory supports God?

Yes, Hawking radiation hasn't been completely proven, but the point was that there is an available space into which a black hole could lose energy that the universe at the BB would not have had.

http://www.chm.davidson.edu/vce/kineticmol...rtheory/PT.html
QUOTE
... the quantity volume (V) is directly proportional to the temperature (T).

IOW, pressure and temperature are proportional. As matter is successively phase shifted by higher temperatures, it becomes increasingly energetic, thus releasing energy from its matter.

Fine, perhaps primitive man ate an animal killed in a forest fire, or the practice spread from colder climates where man had to thaw his meat before he could eat it. There's just too many reasonable and much more likely origins for cooking.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
... the quantity volume (V) is directly proportional to the temperature (T).

IOW, pressure and temperature are proportional. As matter is successively phase shifted by higher temperatures, it becomes increasingly energetic, thus releasing energy from its matter.

Fine, perhaps primitive man ate an animal killed in a forest fire, or the practice spread from colder climates where man had to thaw his meat before he could eat it. There's just too many reasonable and much more likely origins for cooking.

It is no good coming up with theories whose foundation is based on an assumption.

Sure, because "God did it" is a solid fact. No assumption at all. [sarcasm]

QUOTE
Also regarding inflation at faster than light surely an observer on the edge would travel backwards in time compared with one at center


Complete nonsense. Every observer experiences normal time locally. Seriously, go study some actual physics.
Ewol
Still reading book but to be honest I am not impressed by any theory that needs to invent things to make it work, universe seems to consist of force, energy and matter which may arise from the interaction of the first two. My feeling is that if things get complicated then something basic may have been assumed where it should have been questioned.

If I understand right any energy of long enough wavelength should be able to escape a BH but I have no idea of the mechanism needed to produce such wavelength.

Are we talking about fusion where gravity causes pressure which causes higher temps causing atomic neuclei to fuse releasing energy, this of course only works up to iron.

My point about cooking is that god is most likely to be found in the simple that everyone takes for granted and no-one questions. I accept that God is not proven fact but there are things where he is a likely answer. Meat in colder climes is still warm when freshly killed. Cooking is worldwide so assumption must be that it occured very early on possibly before we left africa, could go into mans physical unsuitability for life in the wild as well, maybe later.
synthsin75
Why don't you finish reading that book before commenting on it. And then, novel idea, read another one, and perhaps another, until you have some significant understanding of what you're talking about.

Opting for God without significant reason is just plain lazy. You do not assume a tooth faerie until you have conclusively eliminated all other possibilities.

I notice you completely ignored the very likely odds that humans might try to eat an animal killed in a natural forest fire.
Ewol
Considered the forest fire option long time ago, did not dismiss it as possibility but good chance carcas may be to burnt to eat also may not lead to cooking pet cat eats cooked food from tin but still happy with raw food, question is would it be worth time and effort collecting wood, building fire, being able to cook so food is edible and waiting for food to cook when hungry compared to eating right away with no effort involved.

Problem with trying to understand is that one mans fact appears to be another mans fiction how do you tell fact from fiction when some things are put forward as fact e.g. graviton when they are still theoretical, seems to me a lot of theory about start of universe would be thrown out of a court of law as circumstancial and so inadmissable.

Please explain time dilation, as I have read it time slows down the closer you get to SoL until presumably it stops at SoL, this being the case it should go backwards past SoL, either time changes or it doesnt, clocks run slower the higher the velocity. Where did I go wrong with my assumptions in previous post? You just called it nonsense
synthsin75
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 13 2011, 03:06 AM)
Please explain time dilation, as I have read it time slows down the closer you get to SoL until presumably it stops at SoL, this being the case it should go backwards past SoL, either time changes or it doesnt, clocks run slower the higher the velocity. Where did I go wrong with my assumptions in previous post? You just called it nonsense

Explanation seems a bit wasted on you, I'm afraid.
Ewol
Useful reply. Either time dilation exists or it doesnt. I posted according to how I read and understood if understanding is wrong how can it be changed without correct explaination.
Every observer experiences normal time locally, which is what you said implies there is only normal time so how do you explain clocks slowing down as velocity increases or alternitavely 100 years spent at SoL is the same as 100 years spent on earth which is not the explaination I have seen.
Why is it intellegent people need to go into the realms of fantasy and science fiction to explain the world we see around us?
rpenner
Because when the two of us are in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials, talking about my time and your time is analogous to talking about apples and oranges.

What I call 1 second, you might think is different.
What I call two things happening at the same time, you might think is two things happening at different times.

None of this implies that my perception of time is flawed or differs from one second to another. What it is saying is that due to the physics of the universe, my time really is different than your time.

"Inability to comprehend relativity is the inability to put oneself intellectually into the shoes of another and working out the consequences. It seems to me that this belongs on the non-clinical side of a spectrum of sociopathic disorders." [from http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540723&postcount=22 ]
boit
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 14 2011, 11:40 AM)
Useful reply. Either time dilation exists or it doesn't. I posted according to how I read and understood if understanding is wrong how can it be changed without correct explanation.
Every observer experiences normal time locally, which is what you said implies there is only normal time so how do you explain clocks slowing down as velocity increases or alternatively 100 years spent at SoL is the same as 100 years spent on earth which is not the explanation I have seen.
Why is it intelligent people need to go into the realms of fantasy and science fiction to explain the world we see around us?

Hi Ewol.Please don't you fight the Big Bang Theory (BBT) too hard. If you allow God to be the Prime Mover everything will be explained. Remember the BBT is fronted by quite a number of reputable religious scientists. One of your objections to the 'chance' happening of inflation was strikingly similar to their's. One particular Scientheologist said "The big bang isn't just any old explosion". He argued that explosions has never bought order. I'll search the whole article and copy the link.

It is true if I make my clock go faster by some crafty means it will give the impression that I have lived longer. This is not what happens when you move at (near the)SoL. The clock actually slows. Your aging process also slows. A candle that burns for an hour burns in an hour in your frame but may be any extended length of time from Earth's (mother) frame. If serial image frames of your clock could be teleported back home at regular interval they'll see it going slower. If they do the same,that is projecting earth's clock image to you you will see theirs' (earth's) going faster. It is strange but true.Scientists find they can explain it without putting God in the picture therefore they ignore that detail.Remember aether 'theory'? They found they can explain light without it and actually found evidence of ts absence and guess what..right! They threw it out the window. Why carry dead baggage? Occam's razor is their way and what a fine way it is!
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 14 2011, 07:06 AM)
Inability to comprehend relativity is the inability to put oneself intellectually into the shoes of another and working out the consequences. It seems to me that this belongs on the non-clinical side of a spectrum of sociopathic disorders.

Sweet simile and more entertaining than your first proven conjecture…almost quotable. cool.gif
boit
QUOTE
I'll search the whole article and copy the link.
Here is the link I promised http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse03.htm
Maybe you may want to start at the beginning
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse01.htm
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/creationuniverse02.htm
Relativity (Special and General), BB, Evolution and other theories should not necessarily be shot down just because they were fronted by secular (or 'atheistic' fellows). It is agreed that (some)people have fear of the unknown. The only way to overcome fear is to know and you will never know unless you learn.

http://www.comereason.org/sci_bible/sci040.asp
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1...ry-vs-gods-word
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/big-bang.html
Ewol
Am not shooting any theory down just asking questions, I understand to a certain extent relative time frames, I also notice that no-one answered my question about the 100 years directly athough rpenner admits that time is different.
No comments on the 20billion and 1 universes in space smaller than atom before the BB? Perhaps there should be equation for common sense that should be built into any theory. There are of course the branes floating in the void to consider. Then again holographic thoery sounds interesting.
Anyway think it was Fred Hoyle that worked out the fine tuning of the universe and said it was either God or multiple universes exist, being scientist/ astronomer he obviously went for the latter. There is or course quantum tunneling which goes beyond fine tuning and seems to allow rules to be broken otherwise certain processes would not happen in element production in stars and universe would be a different place. Surely the only one able to break the rules is he who wrote them.
Ewol
Can it be that no-one has another answer to Quantum Tunneling?
synthsin75
QUOTE
There is or course quantum tunneling which goes beyond fine tuning and seems to allow rules to be broken otherwise certain processes would not happen in element production in stars and universe would be a different place.


No rules are broken, as quantum tunneling is specifically allowed by the uncertainty principle central to quantum mechanics.
Ewol
We only discovered uncertainty principle, being able to do the equivalent of walking through a locked door is still essentially breaking the rules.
Notice there are no comments on fine tuning or many of the other points.
Still waiting for answer on whether or not relative time stops at SoL.
synthsin75
Nope. You simply do not understand the rules, so you think they get broken. Classical rules do not apply to quantum systems. It is this seeming unwillingness to study up on any of this, rather than being spoon-fed, that leaves you questions unanswered. There just doesn't seem to be an effort on your part to learn for yourself. Like these repeated questions that a simple Google search would answer.

But here's one more spoonful anyway.

Time doesn't "stop". All local observers, i.e. even one at the sun, experience time to tick by normally. It is only a remote time, like viewing the sun from Earth, that observes that remote time to differ. Doesn't change anything at that point.
AlexG
QUOTE
All local observers, i.e. even one at the sun, experience time to tick by normally.


When he said SoL, he meant speed of light, not the sun.
synthsin75
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 19 2011, 10:09 AM)

When he said SoL, he meant speed of light, not the sun.

Oops. Thanks for the correction, Alex.

In that case...

Time still doesn't stop. It merely takes no local time for a photon to traverse any distance. That's instantaneous, not stopped.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 18 2011, 01:47 PM)
Can it be that no-one has another answer to Quantum Tunneling?

We have evolved to survive within a narrow slice of the Universe. Science has broadened our awareness of areas beyond that slice. Biologically our immediate senses are not necessarily equipped to understand the 'very small' or comprehend the 'very large'. Driven by such mystery, unknowns and necessity, science continues to fill in gaps in our understanding, allowing us to build an evermore accurate picture of the universe we inhabit.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there are natural phenomena that are not natural phenomena, which is obviously self refuting.

IOW, irrespective of whether anyone can ever answer your questions to your satisfaction or not, you need positive evidence in favour of your god existing not gaps in knowledge.

God of the Gaps and God of the Quantum Tunnel = the same thing!
Ewol
synthsin your answer makes things even more confusing. What you seem to be saying is even though we measure SoL in miles per second from a photons point of view it takes no time to traverse any distance, no local time infers that time ceases to exist, please explain difference between no time and stopped time as to me they are essentially the same.
I am aware of the differences between classical and quantum and think that at least some of quantum may be explained through differences in time frames.
The book I read stated that quantum tunneling allowed a particle to overcome an energy hill that it should not have had the energy to climb, this means to me that a low energy particle is able to overcome a higher energy wall much like you doing high jump with a broken leg so why are you applying classical rules where I didn't.
SU your comments are noted but do not alter the fact that so many questions are answered like the 20billion and 1 universes described in BB model existing in space smaller than atom, 1 takes bounds of reason and common sense to extremes.
Untill proven otherwise God still remains as good an answer as any to unanswered questions especially the most fundamental ones.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 20 2011, 05:09 AM)
Untill proven otherwise God still remains as good an answer as any to unanswered questions especially the most fundamental ones.

Scientists and other people who appreciate logic have a different definition of what makes a "good" answer. You seem to appreciate any answer that validates your belief system. Logic dictates that "good" answers offer a framework for future investigation and discovery. God offers no such framework.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 20 2011, 09:09 AM)

SU your comments are noted but do not alter the fact that so many questions are answered like the 20billion and 1 universes described in BB model existing in space smaller than atom, 1 takes bounds of reason and common sense to extremes.
Untill proven otherwise God still remains as good an answer as any to unanswered questions especially the most fundamental ones.

But a complex god would require an even more extraordinary explanation than any bizarre quirks of the known universe, so to propose a god as the explanation of said universe's' is an epic failure of logic.

So, gods are not as good as any answer. In fact a god would be even more improbable, not a good starting point let alone an asserted conclusion. Faith is required to believe in god as there is no evidence.

You are using a God of the gaps fallacy. Sorry.
synthsin75
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 20 2011, 03:09 AM)
..., please explain difference between no time and stopped time as to me they are essentially the same.

Stopped time means a single event occurs forever. It never progresses in time and would suffer no increase in entropy. Instantaneous means there is no measurable time lapse between two events, or the beginning and end of an event.

Stopped time is like what we would observe of something falling past the event horizon of a black hole. It just seems to sit there forever. Instantaneous time is the opposite. It seems to not occur.

QUOTE
...takes bounds of reason and common sense to extremes.


No, it simply takes the bounds of YOUR reason and common sense to extremes. And just assuming its all God from there on is just a lazy man's excuse not to learn more.
Ewol
10billion antimatter particles plus 10 billion and 1 matter particles at BB = 20 billion and 1 universes (20 billion anhilated) you say its reasonable to fit these into space smaller than atom, while it may be possible to do so mathematicaly I would like to see you try it in reality.
Just to clarify at SoL time seems not to occur so energy seems to travel through space not time.
I have said before my thoughts on God are as universal intellegence guiding things but not interfering unless necessary, why would this need a more extraordinary explaination. Your thoughts exist as energy impulses in your brain, Gods within the energy of the universe. He needs no more explaination than the thought processes going on inside a brain.
Dont forget we did not write the rules we are only deciphering them.
My belief system is based on what I see and read, there are many things that seem to be pushed aside if they dont fit into current theory. There is no mention of supermassive black holes, for example, yet logic says that as they are in the center of galaxies and the largest structures they must be the oldest and the galaxies formed round them, there is also the fact that heavy elements are less common in center of galaxy than outskirts which to me is the opposite of what should be expected as older stars in center would have had more chance to produce them.
There are also gravity waves which go against logic as gravity attracts yet waves tend to push away from center. If they exist surely there should be an interference pattern somewhere caused by waves from sun, earth and moon. Personally I believe gravity works in straight line, is it possible that Dark energy is in fact the opposite of gravity, I believe also that for every positive in universe there must be a negative to balance things out, it may also explain why galaxies dont tear themselves apart, which is why I think we are looking for dark matter, as it would have a squashing effect on them as well as expanding space.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 20 2011, 11:49 AM)
10billion antimatter particles plus 10 billion and 1 matter particles at BB = 20 billion and 1 universes (20 billion anhilated) you say its reasonable to fit these into space smaller than atom, while it may be possible to do so mathematicaly I would like to see you try it in reality.

Complete & Utter Ignorance != Proof
QUOTE
I have said before my thoughts on God are as universal intellegence guiding things but not interfering unless necessary, why would this need a more extraordinary explaination. Your thoughts exist as energy impulses in your brain, Gods within the energy of the universe. He needs no more explaination than the thought processes going on inside a brain.

Nothing in existence benefits from being explained with god. God adds nothing to scientific knowledge. Your are simply using god as a placeholder for your own ignorance.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I have said before my thoughts on God are as universal intellegence guiding things but not interfering unless necessary, why would this need a more extraordinary explaination. Your thoughts exist as energy impulses in your brain, Gods within the energy of the universe. He needs no more explaination than the thought processes going on inside a brain.

Nothing in existence benefits from being explained with god. God adds nothing to scientific knowledge. Your are simply using god as a placeholder for your own ignorance.
My belief system is based on what I see and read, there are many things that seem to be pushed aside if they dont fit into current theory. There is no mention of supermassive black holes, for example, yet logic says that as they are in the center of galaxies and the largest structures they must be the oldest and the galaxies formed round them, there is also the fact that heavy elements are less common in center of galaxy than outskirts which to me is the opposite of what should be expected as older stars in center would have had more chance to produce them.

Elements heavier than hydrogen and lighter than iron are not released until a star dies. Iron and heavier elements are only produced in supernovae. Supernovae are the products of stars that are big and hot, but inevitably short-lived. Some massive stars will only live a few million years before blowing up.

In short, old stars do not produce heavy elements.
QUOTE
There are also gravity waves which go against logic as gravity attracts yet waves tend to push away from center.

You have no idea how gravity waves work.
synthsin75
QUOTE
Just to clarify at SoL time seems not to occur so energy seems to travel through space not time.


Nope. If a photon could observe, it would be the contraction of space to zero that would require zero time to traverse. For ALL other observers light traverses both time and space, otherwise it wouldn't have a finite speed.

As I already said: "No, it simply takes the bounds of YOUR reason and common sense to extremes. And just assuming its all God from there on is just a lazy man's excuse not to learn more."

BTW, seeking to learn only to find more gaps into which you can inject God is no learning at all. You simply cannot write anything off as God's doing until you actually understand it, and guess what, that's when you know he isn't immediately necessary. Any assumption of God's doing, because of its lack of verifiability, is no better than just shrugging your shoulders.
Ewol
20 billion and 1 look up antimatter mystery new scientist as 1 example and I have seen others.
Look up the unanswered questions in this thread, they cover a number of subjects or gaps, a god of the gaps is fine by me, if you cant fill the gaps then accept that god may exist at least until the gaps are filled.
I dont consider myself taking the lazy way out at least not to much but it is very difficult trying to understand what appears to be contradictory information even more so when you are ignored when trying to clarify. Virtually all the responses I have had on this site are what I would call political answers in other words answers to questions not asked or just ignored very few straight answers, most of my last post has been ignored or just brushed over.
Example our discussion on time dilation if a photon could observe it would be the contraction of space to 0 that would require 0 time to traverse this implies that at the SoL relative space and time are set to 0 but as it has a finite speed they cannot both be set to 0. I am not interested at this point in observors travelling below SoL as this is about time at the SoL I have seen the info on moving bodies travelling at less than SoL. All info I can find just says what happens to relative time as you approach SoL not what happens at SoL.
Does anyone understand gravity waves?
The part on supermassive BHs and heavy elements got an answer but not to the question asked. I can only assume from the answer given that supernovae are more common in outskirts than in the center of galaxy. No explaination as to the black holes though.
I cannot believe how many problems there seems to be with the inflationary model of the universe yet it is still put forward as almost proven.
As for nothing in existance benifits from being explained by god I have yet to see the mechanism that explains the existance of mass, how do you convert massless energy into mass? Am not interesred in unproven higgs field as that also requires a sensible explaination other than just appearing, makes it similar to God yet you accept the higgs field why? Its a belief in something you dont know exists in other words anything goes as long as it doesnt include God.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 21 2011, 06:41 AM)
Does anyone understand gravity waves?

Scientists have a theoretical understanding of gravity waves, but you have no idea what the theory even is.
QUOTE
The part on supermassive BHs and heavy elements got an answer but not to the question asked. I can only assume from the answer given that supernovae are more common in outskirts than in the center of galaxy. No explaination as to the black holes though.

You didn't een ask a question. You just mentioned them and then went on to make a fallacious statement about heavy elements and the age of stars. What was your question?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The part on supermassive BHs and heavy elements got an answer but not to the question asked. I can only assume from the answer given that supernovae are more common in outskirts than in the center of galaxy. No explaination as to the black holes though.

You didn't een ask a question. You just mentioned them and then went on to make a fallacious statement about heavy elements and the age of stars. What was your question?
I cannot believe how many problems there seems to be with the inflationary model of the universe yet it is still put forward as almost proven.

You have yet to mention any real problems with the theory. You can't seem to even grasp the fundamentals of the theory itself.
QUOTE
As for nothing in existance benifits from being explained by god I have yet to see the mechanism that explains the existance of mass, how do you convert massless  energy into mass? Am not interesred in unproven higgs field as that also requires a sensible explaination other than just appearing, makes it similar to God yet you accept the higgs field why? Its a belief in something you dont know exists in other words anything goes as long as it doesnt include God.

If god was behind the higgs field, how does that help our scientific knowledge? All research in that field would stop dead. Oh, god did it, nothing else to see here. That is why science rejects "god did it" as an answer. There's no future in discovery if god is the answer. Can you imagine if we simply dismissed lightning as god's work? We would have no electricity, and anyone who experimented with it would be accused of "playing god."
Ewol
The question was why is there a greater abundance of heavy elements in outskirts of galaxy than in the middle which you would have known if you had read the posts properly.
Where did the inflationary energy come from for a start and how did universe expand faster than light if c is constant. My reading is that it was proposed to fill a gap in an earlier theory. Suggest you try reading sites that have an unbiased opinion. Think you are splitting hairs because you dont have answer.
You have not explained what gravity waves are supposed to be. If gravity is supposed to be distortion of spacetime bt mass like I have been told then why should it produce waves anyway.
What I was saying was belief in god is no different to belief in unproven theories.
You have still not explained how supermassive BHs origionated.
I have been looking at constants and wonder how long it would take from scratch to come up with those numbers if someone asked you to develop a universe capable of supporting life. Or explain why the numbers are so exact without fine tuning.
Notice you ignored the amount of matter suposedly produced at BB. As I said pick and choose you responses like a politician.
Further to time dilation I have been trying to recocile the following
Two observers 1 and 2. 1 stays on earth and 2 leaves at SoL for 1 year. Observer 1 would see 2 age at 1/2 normal rate and 2 would not see 1 age at all. At end of the year observer 2 heads back to earth he would see 1 age at twice normal rate and 1 would still see 2 age at 1/2 rate untill 2 got back to earth where he would appear suddenly 2years older than when he left. This scenerio is an optical illusion because of relative speeds of information between the 2 observers but sorts itself out when they meet up after the two years. Problem is experiment shows clocks slow down with increased velocity. so how does it work itself out what would be the true age of observer 2 when he got back to earth assuming they were both 20 years old at the start. Hope this is understandable.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 21 2011, 12:02 PM)
The question was why is there a greater abundance of heavy elements in outskirts of galaxy than in the middle which you would have known if you had read the posts properly.

Your posts are horribly formatted, perhaps you should try to express your thoughts better instead of writing your stream-of-consciousness.

In response to your question, your statement is incorrect. The regions with the highest concentration of heavy elements are in the middle of concentrations of stars. The core and the arms are both rich in heavy elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity#Population_I_stars
QUOTE
Where did the inflationary energy come from for a start and how did universe expand faster than light if c is constant. My reading is that it was proposed to fill a gap in an earlier theory.

Matter didn't expand at faster than c, space did. Relativity doesn't have any problem with space itself expanding at velocities higher than c. The pre-Big-Bang singularity filled the entire universe at the time. Something made the universe itself expand, and the matter came with it.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Where did the inflationary energy come from for a start and how did universe expand faster than light if c is constant. My reading is that it was proposed to fill a gap in an earlier theory.

Matter didn't expand at faster than c, space did. Relativity doesn't have any problem with space itself expanding at velocities higher than c. The pre-Big-Bang singularity filled the entire universe at the time. Something made the universe itself expand, and the matter came with it.
You have not explained what gravity waves are supposed to be. If gravity is supposed to be distortion of spacetime bt mass like I have been told then why should it produce waves anyway.

Gravity waves are oscillations in the curvature of space itself. Gravity distorts spacetime, and gravity waves are simply the medium through which changes in that distortion occur.
QUOTE
What I was saying was belief in god is no different to belief in unproven theories.

Except you're wrong because unproven theories can still provide useful results. You can build models with them and attempt to predict future observations. BTW, there is no way to prove a theory. A theory is simply a model to explain and predict events. If the theory doesn't explain or predict, it is modified or discarded. What predictions can you make with your god theory?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What I was saying was belief in god is no different to belief in unproven theories.

Except you're wrong because unproven theories can still provide useful results. You can build models with them and attempt to predict future observations. BTW, there is no way to prove a theory. A theory is simply a model to explain and predict events. If the theory doesn't explain or predict, it is modified or discarded. What predictions can you make with your god theory?
You have still not explained how supermassive BHs origionated.

How is this hard to explain? They are probably the result of thousands of black holes colliding and merging with each other. The core region of a galaxy has millions of stars in close proximity to each other. When they go supernova, they leave a black hole behind, and over time these black holes accumulate and slowly sink lower into the core.
QUOTE
I have been looking at constants and wonder how long it would take from scratch to come up with those numbers if someone asked you to develop a universe capable of supporting life. Or explain why the numbers are so exact without fine tuning.

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine-tuned for the universe. Change the rules and life is still possible in a different form.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I have been looking at constants and wonder how long it would take from scratch to come up with those numbers if someone asked you to develop a universe capable of supporting life. Or explain why the numbers are so exact without fine tuning.

The universe is not fine tuned for life. Life is fine-tuned for the universe. Change the rules and life is still possible in a different form.
Notice you ignored the amount of matter suposedly produced at BB. As I said pick and choose you responses like a politician.

I don't even know what you're talking about here.
QUOTE
Two observers 1 and 2. 1 stays on earth and 2 leaves at SoL for 1 year. Observer 1 would see 2 age at 1/2 normal rate and 2 would not see 1 age at all.

No. For one, matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. Two, the 1/2 normal rate thing only works if person 2 is traveling at half the speed of light. Traveling AT the speed of light would result in no time passage at all for person 2.

If you still want to ask this question, correct your errors and ask again.
synthsin75
This guy isn't interested in learning anything. Only exploiting whatever he can find to bolster his own ideology. He's already ignored or dismissed too many valid answers to his questions. He just jumps to the next "gap" and then circles back around as he forgets one has already been answered.

Ewol
We are talking hypothetical observers, I am fully aware that matter cannot be acelerate to SoL.
The 1/2 normal rate works at the SoL. At 6 months point it would take light 6 months to travel back to observer 1 meanwhile observer 2 travels a further 6 months forward so at the time he reaches the 1 light year point the light from the 6 month point reaches observer 1 so at the 1 year point observer 2 appears to observer 1 only 6 months older. Therefore it is not I that has made the error.

Thank you for confirming what I already thought that at the SoL time does not pass, so at least in theory energy traveling at the SoL would be eternal because time is not passing.

Again I say that there was enough matter/antimatter produced at the BB to make 20billion and 1 universes suposedly from a space smaller than an atom, you asked for proof and I told you where to find it.

What predictions can I make, well if there is an afterlife you are in serious trouble, if there is no God then what we do on earth matters not so rape pillage and murder to your hearts content as when you are gone it will not matter.

In reply to synthsin I will go back and see what has been answered or not, and make a list.
Unfortunately your explaination only covers thousands of solar masses, the largest BHs are apparently up to 18 billion, the one in our galaxy I believe is over 4 billion. That means that billions of stars have to be close enough together to be within the gravitational pull of a small BH in order for it to grow. I honestly do not know the maximum density stars can reach in a given volume of space but I suspect for billions it would cover light years in radius, would the gravitational pull of a small BH reach out light years?

Of course while I can accept your explaination for gravity waves it does not alter the fact that they sre still unproven.

Something made the universe expand and the matter came with it is not a very scientific explaination, you are obviously biased towards inflationary model.

flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 22 2011, 12:15 PM)
The 1/2 normal rate works at the SoL.

No, it doesn't. A hypothetical observer travelling at c would experience no passage of time at all between the point when they achieved c and the point at which they decelerated to below c. An observer travelling at c would not age at all while they are travelling at that velocity.
AlexG
Why is anyone arguing physics or cosmology with ewol? Two subjects he knows nothing about?
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 22 2011, 12:15 PM)
if there is no God then what we do on earth matters not so rape pillage and murder to your hearts content as when you are gone it will not matter.

If there was no god, you would rape, pillage and burn? You are a terrible person.
NymphaeaAlba
Umm, HELLO. Wasn’t it God who told us to rape, pillage, and burn?
Oh ya, that was him in Numbers 31. blink.gif

What a d-ick.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 22 2011, 02:14 PM)
Umm, Hello. Wasn’t it God who told us to rape, pillage, and burn?
Ya, that was him in Numbers 31.

I guess he's a terrible person with OR without god.
Ewol
In time senario I was assuming normal passage of time for all observers, thought that would have been obvious, but you have confirmed that this is wrong and that time slows as velocity goes up which was the origional question a number of posts ago and had that question been answered simply a lot of time would not have been wasted.
2nd senario. Observer 1 in normal time observer 2 at velocity where passage of time at 1/2 normal. For simplicity sake SoL = 100units per second. 2 markers set up 200units apart. As beam of light passes marker 1 both observers start timers, at marker 2 both stop timers. Observer 1 will show 2 seconds passed, observer 2 will show 1 second (time at 1/2 normal rate). Both have seen same event but light seems to have travelled at 2 x speed for observer 2. I thought SoL was constant for all observers so where have I gone wrong in this senario?
Following good and bad can anyone tell me why some are good and others bad or what causes good and evil in different people?
As for alex I noticed comment and lack of answers, or do you not know either?
Fine tuning - I again noticed lack of depth in answer, I am assuming you are pretending ignorance as I believe you know as well as I do that changing some constants would mean no universe let alone one fit for life.
Nymphaeaalba - noticed you never have anything constructive to say either. What happens to non-believers has no consequence as they have no place with God in afterlife which is what is important not the few years we spend on earth.
Am accused of being ignorant but questions still go unanswered so as I have said before can only assume answers are unknown so asking questions that are not answered does not make me ignorant. I read find something out then find out someone else says its wrong, how do you separate truth from untruth. No conformation about gravity waves being unproven presumably because I am right and that is not possible is it.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 25 2011, 08:07 AM)
I thought SoL was constant for all observers so where have I gone wrong in this senario?

For one, you haven't mentioned the direction vector of observer 2. Is this observer travelling away from observer 1? Secondly, the observers would not see the beam pass marker 1 and 2 at the same time. Light has to propagate to observer 2's new position. You're grossly oversimplifying the problem, so no wonder you have bad results.
QUOTE
Following good and bad can anyone tell me why some are good and others bad  or what causes good and evil in different people?

"All evil is good become cancerous" - Isaac Asimov
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Following good and bad can anyone tell me why some are good and others bad  or what causes good and evil in different people?

"All evil is good become cancerous" - Isaac Asimov
Fine tuning - I again noticed lack of depth in answer, I am assuming you are pretending ignorance as I believe you know as well as I do that changing some constants would mean no universe let alone one fit for life.

Changing the constants would make the universe unfit for the life that you are familiar with, but other life could exist that works on different rules. Life has adapted to the universe.
QUOTE
What happens to non-believers has no consequence as they have no place with God in afterlife which is what is important not the few years we spend on earth.

What happens to non-muslims has no consequence as they have no place with Allah in afterlife which is what is important not the few years we spend on earth.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
What happens to non-believers has no consequence as they have no place with God in afterlife which is what is important not the few years we spend on earth.

What happens to non-muslims has no consequence as they have no place with Allah in afterlife which is what is important not the few years we spend on earth.
Am accused of being ignorant but questions still go unanswered so as I have said before can only assume answers are unknown so asking questions that are not answered does not make me ignorant. I read find something out then find out someone else says its wrong, how do you separate truth from untruth. No conformation about gravity waves being unproven presumably because I am right and that is not possible is it.

Your questions are dishonest and so completely flawed that they are impossible to answer without re-writing the question. Answer this question: How long would it take to fall from New York to Los Angeles?
Ewol
Sorry about senario, assume observer 2 is in orbit if you like around observer 1 and both at marker 1 looking towards marker 2, thought it was obvious that both observers would be in similar observational positions.
Asimov is a statement not an explaination.
Agreed but some constants would not allow universe to exist long enough for life to evolve. Yes life will evolve if possible but not all things make it possible.
Allah and God as far as I understand are the same thing, it is belief in the 1 God that is important whatever you call him.
New York to LA - check flight times.
You obviously understand the questions if you think they need rewriting. I apologise if they are written in a form you cannot understand.
Am still waiting for opinion or replies on BB density and Supermassive BHs.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 25 2011, 10:49 AM)
Sorry about senario, assume observer 2 is in orbit if you like around observer 1 and both at marker 1 looking towards marker 2, thought it was obvious that both observers would be in similar observational positions.

Adding in an elliptical orbit at c is the most complicated thing you could have done to this problem. Do you have any idea how much force you would need to force that orbit? You've taken a simple geometry problem and thrown it into advanced calculus territory. Let's keep this one in the realm of straight lines, plz.
QUOTE
Asimov is a statement not an explaination.

Actually, it is if you think about it. Evil happens when people try to do what they think is right at the expense of other people's rights. Stalin was trying to make his country great, at the expense of his citizens. Hitler tried to improve Germany at the expense of the lives of millions of Jews. When your sense of right & wrong takes away someone else's freedom, that is evil. When my sense of right tells me that I need money more than a bank does, that is evil. It's very simple, really.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Asimov is a statement not an explaination.

Actually, it is if you think about it. Evil happens when people try to do what they think is right at the expense of other people's rights. Stalin was trying to make his country great, at the expense of his citizens. Hitler tried to improve Germany at the expense of the lives of millions of Jews. When your sense of right & wrong takes away someone else's freedom, that is evil. When my sense of right tells me that I need money more than a bank does, that is evil. It's very simple, really.
Agreed but some constants would not allow universe to exist long enough for life to evolve. Yes life will evolve if possible but not all things make it possible.

How likely are those universes? Of course, there is an element of probability here, but as observers, we obviously live in a relatively long-lived universe.
QUOTE
Allah and God as far as I understand are the same thing, it is belief in the 1 God that is important whatever you call him.

Why does god care if people believe in him?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Allah and God as far as I understand are the same thing, it is belief in the 1 God that is important whatever you call him.

Why does god care if people believe in him?
You obviously understand the questions if you think they need rewriting. I apologise if they are written in a form you cannot understand.

You grossly misunderstand the things you are asking about.
QUOTE
Am still waiting for opinion or replies on BB density and Supermassive BHs.

These have already been answered. In both cases, your initial question didn't get the facts right.
Before the BB, matter filled 100% of the universe, which was very small.
Supermassive black holes are easily formed by merging black holes.
Ewol
The clue to the senario was hypothetical which to me at least means leave out the unecessary stuff and stop finding reasons not to answer the question.
Where does sense of right and wrong come from, it is not all nurture as brothers can be brought up in a similar way yet one stays good and the other comits crimes, where does concience come from.
You think it reasonable for that amount of matter to be squeezed into such a small space and for a supermassive BH to grow within the time frame of the universe? I suggest you put some deep thought into it rather than accepting first explaination however far fetched.
But then lets face it if I had proposed inflation at BB I would have been banned for unrealistic theories, or come up with 10 extra dimensions it would have produced nothing but contempt.
In order to understand God you need to understand the next life and the reason we are in this one.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 26 2011, 06:43 AM)
The clue to the senario was hypothetical which to me at least means leave out the unecessary stuff and stop finding reasons not to answer the question.

I've already told you. No-one can witness light travelling at greater than c.
QUOTE
Where does sense of right and wrong come from, it is not all nurture as brothers can be brought up in a similar way yet one stays good and the other comits crimes, where does concience come from.

Where does it come from? The brain, duh.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Where does sense of right and wrong come from, it is not all nurture as brothers can be brought up in a similar way yet one stays good and the other comits crimes, where does concience come from.

Where does it come from? The brain, duh.
You think it reasonable for that amount of matter to be squeezed into such a small space and for a supermassive BH to grow within the time frame of the universe? I suggest you put some deep thought into it rather than accepting first explaination however far fetched.

If you make it a fight of faith vs science, faith will lose every time. The science is sound. Give it up.
QUOTE
But then lets face it if I had proposed inflation at BB I would have been banned for unrealistic theories, or come up with 10 extra dimensions it would have produced nothing but contempt.
In order to understand God you need to understand the next life and the reason we are in this one.

Your inability to understand does not limit the theories that scientists can come up with.
Ewol
You have yet to tell me where my senario goes wrong, observer 2 times SoL as twice that of observer 1 because of the time factor, WHY? The fact you have told me that light cannot be witnessed traveling faster than c is not relevant, its like me saying pigs can fly and you have to trust me on that.
You are correct that all thought good and bad comes from the brain. I would like to than RC for a well presented answer, a breath of fresh air, but I am taking a different route. Thoughts are patterns of energy within the brain controlled at least to some extent by chemicals. Therefore a thought could be construed as certain energy patterns, so good thoughts and bad thoughts would consist of different patterns and consience is knowing the difference. As the afterlife is spiritual rather than physical then this life could be looked at as filtering the good and bad energy patterns as that is what will go forward and only the good is wanted.
You have no idea on what I can understand, I can put forward theories way beyond anything I have come accross and just using what we know exists rather than inventing stuff that may or may not exist. Unfortunately I have no idea if I am right or wrong because I look at things from all angles many of which it is now quite obvious very few can follow. To pre-empt replies I once did an exercise on a management course, up to that time the record was held by a team of scientists, on my own applying unconventional thought lines I built a stronger structure with a 60% more efficient use of materials so please do not tell me that things should be taken for granted because that is the way it is, that sort of thinking will never get you to a theory of everything.
As far as the science being sound I only have your word for it, you have so far only given opinions and no constructive answers. I know there are holes in the science just like a sieve.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 27 2011, 05:39 AM)
You have yet to tell me where my senario goes wrong,

I have, several times. Now you're just trolling.
AlexG
QUOTE
You have no idea on what I can understand,


But we've got a very good idea about what you don't understand, and it appears to encompass all of physics.
Ewol
As no-one seems to be able to come up with proper answer to my senario it looks like I will have to answer it myself, but will give forum members a little while longer to see how well relativity is understood.
synthsin75
First, it'd be nice if you could even articulate a straight-forward question. You seem to keep abridging whatever you ask based on your abridge knowledge. Until you understand more of the basics you 1) won't be able to ask sensible question and 2) won't be able to understand any but perhaps the most naive answers.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 27 2011, 12:58 PM)
As no-one seems to be able to come up with proper answer to my senario it looks like I will have to answer it myself, but will give forum members a little while longer to see how well relativity is understood.

No, no-one has given you the answer that you have already decided on. You aren't here for knowledge, you're just another dishonest POS.
Ewol
I did not know the answer when I first asked the question but in order for the SoL to remain constant relative distance must also reduce so what observer 1 sees as 200 units long observer 2 sees as 100 units long thus observer 1 times 200 units in 2 seconds and observer 2 times what he sees as 100 units in 1 second keeping the SoL constant for both observers. Many thanks to all you experts out there for helping me to the answer that was not to difficult really just took a bit of thought and without training in relativity.
This also potentially explains 1 the SoL constant, 2 why energy travels as waves not in a straight line, 3 Branes in the cyclic universe theory, 4 The results of a wierd quantum experiment I read about somewhere 5 How the universe came into being 6 maybe even quantum spin.
It only takes a simple diagram, but as I do not have the knowledge to put the maths to it only the concept I can go no further, but no maths will reach the concept unless by accident nor will any text book.
It also may explain the realm of God.
Suspect you are all so educated that the creative spark has been smothered which is why you do not understand my questions as you think text book rather than question them, not all is how it appears whatever your books tell you.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 28 2011, 08:36 AM)
I did not know the answer when I first asked the question

You're stating the answer you want in your question:
QUOTE
in order for the SoL to remain constant relative distance must also reduce

You're wrong. You know nothing about Relativity, and you have no interest in learning. You simply want ammo to push your theistic POV.
Ewol
You stated that no-one could witness light traveling faster than c. This is an opinion not backed up by any factual evidence.
If you dont like my answer come up with one of your own or admit you cant.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 28 2011, 01:46 PM)
You stated that no-one could witness light traveling faster than c. This is an opinion not backed up by any factual evidence.
If you dont like my answer come up with one of your own or admit you cant.

The speed of light has been tested in every case we can possibly test it, and it always comes out the same. That fact alone is responsible for the theory of Relativity. This is another instance of complete ignorance on your part.
Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
synthsin75
QUOTE (Ewol+Jul 28 2011, 11:46 AM)
You stated that no-one could witness light traveling faster than c. This is an opinion not backed up by any factual evidence.
If you dont like my answer come up with one of your own or admit you cant.

Light can indeed appear to travel faster than c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-l...non-information

In every case, such apparency cannot transmit information faster than c.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (synthsin75+Jul 28 2011, 05:18 PM)
Light can indeed appear to travel faster than c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-l...non-information

In every case, such apparency cannot transmit information faster than c.

For the sake of Ewol's tiny brain, let's keep it simple.
In none of those examples is light actually travelling faster than c.
synthsin75
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 28 2011, 03:39 PM)
For the sake of Ewol's tiny brain, let's keep it simple.
In none of those examples is light actually travelling faster than c.

Absolutely right, as they only appear to travel faster than c. But I've given up on what Ewol may or may not be capable of understanding.
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (Ewol+)
My position is that about 6 months ago I went to bed a sceptic and woke up a believer in a universal entity or intellegence that we know as God.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 28 2011, 01:39 PM)
For the sake of Ewol's tiny brain, let's keep it simple.
In none of those examples is light actually travelling faster than c.

QUOTE (synthsin75+)
Until you reach everyone, you merely deal with the symptom, as ignorance and insanity is infectious.

QUOTE (synthsin75+)
Absolutely right, as they only appear to travel faster than c. But I've given up on what Ewol may or may not be capable of understanding.

QUOTE (synthsin75+)
No, it simply takes the bounds of YOUR reason and common sense to extremes. And just assuming its all God from there on is just a lazy man's excuse not to learn more.

Now, now, boys. We are going to try an experiment here. Come on. Make an effort to perform a prolonged experiment on the matter.

Ewol, my dear. What exactly is it that you are having trouble understanding? Perhaps, I could help. smile.gif
synthsin75
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 28 2011, 03:57 PM)

QUOTE (synthsin75+)
No, it simply takes the bounds of YOUR reason and common sense to extremes. And just assuming its all God from there on is just a lazy man's excuse not to learn more.

Now, now, boys. We are going to try an experiment here. Come on. Make an effort to perform a prolonged experiment on the matter.

Ewol, my dear. What exactly is it that you are having trouble understanding? Perhaps, I could help. smile.gif

Yes, NA, and you'll notice I am refuting poor understanding of science, not his belief in the existence of a God, which cannot be determined by science.

Try again.
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE
And just assuming its all God from there on is just a lazy man's excuse not to learn more.


Really? Well, you could have fooled me. rolleyes.gif
synthsin75
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jul 28 2011, 04:07 PM)

Really? Well, you could have fooled me. rolleyes.gif

What? The existence of God has nothing to do with whether or not we can figure out a natural cause for phenomena. To think so would be extremely simple-minded. Just because a God may exist doesn't mean that he's hidden causes from us. Even if he were the first cause, it does not necessarily follow that he is every other step in all chains of causation.
NymphaeaAlba
You’re preaching to the choir. Tell it to the Christians but please, tone it down.
You're starting to sound like a proselytizing fundamentalist, for Pete's sake. blink.gif
Ewol
There is a senario near the bottom or page 10 in this post that seems to say light can be observed at 2 x speed, as light travels at constant speed all I am looking for is the flaw in the senario. Think I will try a different forum as no-one on this seems capable of giving a straight concise answer.
Ewol
Looks like I was right about length dilation, so its all comon sense really thanks to all the experts for thier help.
May not matter anyway looks like we are near the end of this cycle, the bump on the cmrb was where this one started.
We may all get to meet god after all.
Daddyo930
Has anyone bothered reading the Sumerian tablets or the Egyptian book of the Dead?

The bible, tora and quaran are based on these two works. Originally in the Book of the Dead, there were over 200 commandments. Somehow, the wise men in the 1400's paired them down to 10.

The Sumerian tablets tell a very different story of our creation. They say that sentient beings came down here from the sky and created us as slaves to mine gold in africa because their own people were tired of doing it and rebelled.

Funny how sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
Ewol
There are many flood, creation myths from around the world, there are also many god myths at least some of which could describe Jesus's twin brother but from much earlier times. All suggest God has had a hand in human development over many thousands of years.
As for modern sience claiming it can explain all without God it should seriously look at the misconceptions/ misinterpretations upon which much of it is based.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Ewol+Aug 24 2011, 02:16 PM)
As for modern sience claiming it can explain all without God it should seriously look at the misconceptions/ misinterpretations upon which much of it is based.

What are you claiming can't be explained without god?
AlexG
QUOTE
All suggest God has had a hand in human development over many thousands of years


All suggest that new myths are simply retellings of older myths.
Grumpy
AlexG

QUOTE
All suggest that new myths are simply retellings of older myths.


I would say that new myths are EVOLUTIONS of old myths, like the worlds biggest game of telephone(and because it causes fundy heads to explode).

Grumpy cool.gif
Daddyo930
I just love how so called men of science don't get it. There is no god. If you want to believe in a divine creator that created the universe or something like that, fine. Imperical evidence suggest that the concept of god was made up. [Moderator: It's spelled "empirical." In the alternative, the correct form of address is "Your Imperial Majesties." And we are not amused. ]

I know it hurts. It came as something of a shock to me as well. I am a spiritual being and to find out that everything that I believed in was some kind of sick joke made me a little upset but the fact that I had read so many sci fi books made it easier. Issac Asimov and the like helped me through it.

We are about to evolve people. [Moderator: This claim lacks support. Evolution is an ongoing process at the level of reproducing populations and does not affect the destiny of individuals due to the way that human genomes are nearly fixed at conception modulo retroviruses and gene therapy.] The three days of darkness in September will be your sign. This is not a biblical sign although many will point out the prophecy in religious texts. There is astronomical evidence of this happening now. [Moderator: This claim lacks support. As pointed out below, you understand very little of the geometry of eclipses, the dynamics of the solar system or how to distinguish reliable claims based on empiricism from this child-raping tripe. For further reading: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/h.../128708798.html ]

When this happens, the explanation from the government as to why they didn't feel the need to tell people that this would be coming should be very interesting.
[Moderator: Suspended 20 days for gross intellectual dishonesty, repetition of claims without elucidation, for failing to state a positive case for how the existing evidence came to be, and for improperly attempting to shift the burden of proof.]
NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 29 2011, 06:20 AM)
I just love how so called men of science don't get it. There is no god. If you want to believe in a divine creator that created the universe or something like that, fine. Imperical evidence suggest that the concept of god was made up.

I know it hurts. It came as something of a shock to me as well. I am a spiritual being and to find out that everything that I believed in was some kind of sick joke made me a little upset but the fact that I had read so many sci fi books made it easier. Issac Asimov and the like helped me through it.

We are about to evolve people. The three days of darkness in September will be your sign. This is not a biblical sign although many will point out the prophecy in religious texts. There is astronomical evidence of this happening now.

When this happens, the explanation from the government as to why they didn't feel the need to tell people that this would be coming should be very interesting.

Comet Elenin is only 3-5 kilomers wide. It’s too small to block the sun, and from our standpoint, it won’t even cross the sun’s face.

If you want to avoid darkness, pull your head out...rolleyes.gif
adoucette
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 29 2011, 10:20 AM)
The three days of darkness in September will be your sign.

What 3 days?

I'd like to stock up on candles before the rush.
kowalskil
QUOTE (Daddyo930+Aug 29 2011, 02:20 PM)
I just love how so called men of science don't get it. There is no god. If you want to believe in a divine creator that created the universe or something like that, fine. Imperical evidence suggest that the concept of god was made up.

I know it hurts. It came as something of a shock to me as well. I am a spiritual being and to find out that everything that I believed in was some kind of sick joke made me a little upset but the fact that I had read so many sci fi books made it easier. Issac Asimov and the like helped me through it.

We are about to evolve people. The three days of darkness in September will be your sign. This is not a biblical sign although many will point out the prophecy in religious texts. There is astronomical evidence of this happening now.

When this happens, the explanation from the government as to why they didn't feel the need to tell people that this would be coming should be very interesting.

God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
kowalskil
QUOTE (kowalskil+Aug 30 2011, 12:50 AM)
God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books). Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

P.S.
My serious short article about poisonous conflicts between believers and nonbelievers has been submitted to a journal. Posting it now would interfere with possible acceptance; they want original content. I will probably be allowed to post the content after the article is published.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
witnessoftheone
God has a plan

You are either on board or your participation will be without your knowledge.

NymphaeaAlba
QUOTE ( Kowalski+)
God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only.

P.S.
My serious short article about poisonous conflicts between believers and nonbelievers has been submitted to a journal. Posting it now would interfere with possible acceptance; they want original content. I will probably be allowed to post the content after the article is published.

Oooo, I can’t wait! Your skills exceed mine. So tell me, Professor, when administering a dose of reality, do we consider the brain size, or the age? What would be the proper dose for someone like you? huh.gif
Capracus
QUOTE (kowalskil+Aug 30 2011, 12:50 AM)
God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Methods of validation of claims in our material world (using logic based on reproducible experimental data) are not the same as those in our spiritual world (using logic based on holy books).

What is appropriate is the justified anthropological evidence that exposes the genesis of, and continued belief in God as a product of erroneous deduction. This renders the argument for the existence of God as defined by the ancients a negative prospect.


QUOTE
Many potentially dangerous conflicts, between believers and nonbelievers, would disapper if such statement was universally recognized as valid.

The conflict would lessen if it were universally recognized that spiritual is a euphemism for imaginary.
jimdean
Maybe God can do whatever the hell he wants and its really nun of your business. Just kidding.
Capracus
QUOTE (jimdean+Sep 18 2011, 07:18 PM)
Maybe God can do whatever the hell he wants and its really nun of your business. Just kidding.

Of course in theory a truly omnipotent god could do what ever it wanted, but then it wouldn’t fit the definition of God as defined by the Bible, it would be a god of anarchy.
soundhertz
I beg to differ. The God of the Bible IS a God of anarchy. For a God to inform the created that if they mimic any number of His own acts He would have them burn in hell forever is not a logical request. If the tree is known by it's fruit, the Tree of of Jehovah has been dropping the seeds of anarchy and destruction for as long as the Tree has been able to yield. These seeds sprout into rapacious weeds that are on the go, are invasive, and overrun the delicate fragile seeds of love, tolerance, forgiveness, and brotherhood that are sparsely scattered in the satchel.
Capracus
QUOTE (soundhertz+Sep 19 2011, 04:16 PM)
I beg to differ.  The God of the Bible IS a God of anarchy.  For a God to inform the created that if they mimic any number of His own acts He would have them burn in hell forever is not a logical request.  If the tree is known by it's fruit, the Tree of of Jehovah has been dropping the seeds of anarchy and destruction for as long as the Tree has been able to yield.  These seeds sprout into rapacious weeds that are on the go, are invasive, and overrun the delicate fragile seeds of love, tolerance, forgiveness, and brotherhood that are sparsely scattered in the satchel.

Let me see if I can channel newguy.

The covenant between God and his followers is the linchpin of the Abrahamic religions. If God were free to abandon his ordained prescription of reward and punishment, adherents would have no guarantee of salvation through righteous belief and conduct, and no reason to reverentially follow such a god.

It’s like the relationship between parent and child, do as I say, not as I do. God’s children aren’t equipped to handle or comprehend his responsibilities; therefore the expectation of leadership by example is not appropriate

"Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments." Deuteronomy 7:9
soundhertz
And yet Jehovah is still a God beset with chaotic impulses and actions; the originator of "Do as I say, not as I do".
jimdean
I must say that many times i have read in this forum that one must read the material before stating conclusions and who makes it all the way through right , that is one looooong book. The bible has a beginning and middle and end. It changes, the way humans interacted with God changed through the story. The bible has many of the things you speak but the end is about Grace. I understand that Revelation makes this confusing. I think it interesting how some ,no matter what they believe ,are so passionate. i ask you, how would you do it? If everything was perfect right now how would you know the difference. Anarchy, i like that one its funny. I ask you, would you clean up spilled soup by separating all its ingredients first. I really like the posts on this one, almost stating every point of view is a beautiful thing. R Penner, maybee the forehead was just to flashy and would cause sterility after head injuries.
jfields03
This is an interesting topic. Does God Exist? Good question. I don't believe God exists in a physical way, but hopefully he/she/it could exist in the hearts of more people. I do believe that the concepts of God or the Devil have a spiritual existence. From where I am sitting God is good with an ‘o’ removed and the Devil is evil with an added ‘d’. So it is a very clear choice for us to do good or evil.

The problem being is that the majority of humans don’t allow themselves to do good, they permit the seduction of material things to dictate how they live their lives. They will do anything they must do in the pursuit of money, a new car, house, etc. Evil is very sneaky. You have to be on the lookout for it on a constant basis.

If more people chose to do good this would be a much more wonderful place to live. We should all try to find God within ourselves and tell the Devil to go take a hike.
sinfart
Im a simple man with no hidden agenda.

If you are seeking god,,,then go look! and you will find him....for all the other smart asses out the who deny you that right. with there comments. i suggest they start looking.

Anyone who can read the bible properly will tell you that there is a god,,,but not for all, becouse of 2.
Capracus
QUOTE (sinfart+Oct 13 2011, 04:49 AM)
If you are seeking god,,,then go look! and you will find him.

When you do find him, please introduce him to all of us, I've got some questions I'd like to ask him.
sinfart
Capracus,,,,once you get ur head out of ur ***,,,,and redefine what ur looking for,then you can start finding. if you want someone to just give you the answers then you have failed.....start by tearing away all ur ego and things that you have been told in school,church and history.

For me it has been a life time in learning how to read threw the *** to find the truths. if you havent found it,,,then ur the only one to blame,,,ur lazy.

The truth is right in front of you CLOONS but ur iether to lazy to search for it,,,or you are not the one ment to see it.
AlexG
QUOTE (sinfart+Oct 13 2011, 08:14 PM)
Capracus,,,,once you get ur head out of ur ***,,,,and redefine what ur looking for,then you can start finding. if you want someone to just give you the answers then you have failed.....start by tearing away all ur ego and things that you have been told in school,church and history.

For me it has been a life time in learning how to read threw the *** to find the truths. if you havent found it,,,then ur the only one to blame,,,ur lazy.

The truth is right in front of you CLOONS but ur iether to lazy to search for it,,,or you are not the one ment to see it.

Why, this sounds like the religious bullshit of a young adolescent. One who doesn't know how to use the spell checker, or else is unaware that words have particular spellings.
Capracus
QUOTE (sinfart+Oct 14 2011, 01:14 AM)
Capracus,,,,once you get ur head out of ur ***,,,,and redefine what ur looking for,then you can start finding. if you want someone to just give you the answers then you have failed.....start by tearing away all ur ego and things that you have been told in school,church and history.

For me it has been a life time in learning how to read threw the *** to find the truths. if you havent found it,,,then ur the only one to blame,,,ur lazy.

The truth is right in front of you CLOONS but ur iether to lazy to search for it,,,or you are not the one ment to see it.

Since we’re theoretically talking about the most capable and accessible being conceived by man, then presumably such a being should be at least as apparent as our contemporary human celebrities. There is hourly documentation of the conversations and activity of the likes of Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, but not a lick of print or footage on the current activities God.

Since God seems to be so conspicuously absent from our view, I have no choice other than to keep looking in places where the sun don’t shine.
sinfart
And thats why you.ll never see past ur own nose,,,it is very apparent that the two of you are upset becouse you were not invited to the party,,,ssshhhhhhh before you say anything else,,,,,,shhhhhhhhhhh, Ur not invited to the party,,,,not now not ever!

You had ur shot,,,but failed! now reap what you soe Cane.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.