Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 125
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum TheoryPage 6 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

a materialistic natural answer? well, no one can do that right now.

its all conjecture and fun.

as long as everyone understands that.

science aint got a thing that does away with a creator, as some believe.

what science discovers is only gods process.
which is what these laws can be interpreted as just as easy.


As I said, the trick is to answer the question, and know how to do so.

And this ^ is not a productive attitude, and would never get the job done.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/22/2013 12:15:55 AM
And this ^ is not a productive attitude, and would never get the job done.

and yet, what I said is true.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 127
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/22/2013 2:16:21 AM


do you believe all the shit they try to pass as science?


Let's just say I'm inclined to accept the consensus view of established experts in their field, since they (supposedly) adhere to the scientific method, which I hold in high regard as our most useful tool of inquiry into the nature of nature. I'm a sceptical man, but I have neither the time nor the expertise to poopoo every theory that comes down the pike. If a theory conflicts with my worldview, then I look into it to see what has to go...more often than not it has been my worldview that had to change, as deeper investigation proved it to be erroneous.

Even the idea that a creator may or may not be needed is only an assumption...Who is to say there was a creation at all, or that if there was, that an external creator was needed for it?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/22/2013 6:53:24 PM
see dukky, I cant do that at all anymore.

there's just way too much bullshit out there past off as science.
[most what we call science has never ever, and some even cant be experimented the proper way.]

dukky, you owe it to yourself to check out at least one thing in a serious fashion.

bacterial evolution is a pretty simplistic one to study and see that there is no real evidence for molecules to man.
no evidence there that really shows how dna would or did get from non to billions of lines of info.

oh hell, there's no way to see how life could even get off the rocks!
at least everyone should realize they are for now nothing but stories.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 129
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/23/2013 1:02:32 AM


oh hell, there's no way to see how life could even get off the rocks!
at least everyone should realize they are for now nothing but stories.


Like the universe itself, life just occurred. How that happened exactly isn't known...but we have some plausible explanations that we might consider scientific. The "stories" make sense to me, so I see no reason not to accept them until a more convincing story comes along.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/23/2013 11:59:54 PM
dukky!.......you just admitted the stories change, why not just say you don't know, in that department?

I can't [impossible for me] believe anything I don't understand.

It would be silly.
for me, anyways.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 131
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/24/2013 12:32:31 AM
I have no problem believing a plausible explanation, but that is not to say that I accept anything as immutable dogma or some sort of final truth. I'm always open to new ideas that explain things better.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/24/2013 1:42:28 AM
everything in the universe seems to have a function, I think.

do asteroids help dissipate unwanted planet harmonics, if there is such a thing?
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/26/2013 6:23:55 PM
My theory and questions.

Maybe viruses are completely separate from cellular organisms and that it was only when the two met, on earth (and elsewhere?) and viruses became parasitic, (to continue surviving under the cosmic invasion?) that life as we know it was able to evolve and survive?

Is/Was there more than one starter? and only when the two finally met, and evolved, (blended?) was conscious life a possibility?

How many trees of life are there really? Seeds of life?

Do we get consciousness from the virus part of our ancestors? Instinct from our cellular side? Are viruses themselves conscious?
Or when the the virus part of our ancestors became parasitic, was it the gassing off that activated our cellular instincts to become conscious?

Will there be a "perfect" meeting of the two that will make it so we can "travel" through dimensions? Or will we always need an asteroid?



 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/26/2013 7:33:14 PM
um....? say what : /
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/26/2013 7:52:33 PM
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ lol ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

until the "right" evolutionary balance is found, (we may be stuck just speculating).

If we do evolve into a perfectly balanced species, maybe we can reach into the realms of collective consciousness and be able to travel through different dimensions.

I do not believe we evolved from a single "type" of ancestor or "tree of life". (at a minimum,2)
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 136
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/27/2013 4:55:32 PM
dame; you wont commit to an evolutionary story that solidified your belief in evo, molecules to man.

its good that you are making stuff up though, evolutionary so called science does it all the time.
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 137
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/27/2013 8:08:37 PM


science aint got a thing that does away with a creator, as some believe.


Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed. Unlike god, that’s not a delusion, it’s a fact. That fact does away with the god delusion.



as long as everyone understands that.


It would certainly make a better world.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/27/2013 9:34:49 PM
''. That fact does away with the god delusion'' ..................no it doesn't.
that's an atheist dream.

did I miss it, or did you say whether energy existed before the creation of the universe?
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 139
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 11:19:44 AM


no it doesn't.
that's an atheist dream.


No, it’s physics. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed, is not only physics, it is a _fact_. One that remains a fact no matter how much you wish to deny it. It trumps all gods which pretend to have “created” something.



did you say whether energy existed before the creation of the universe?


First, there has never been such a thing as “creation”. That is a human concept that does not exist in nature.

As far as whether energy existed before the “creation” of the universe, let’s restate that question correctly: was there energy before the transformation that led to what we call the universe today ?... answer is: not necessarily but, even if the answer were no, there would still be no “creation”. The presence of energy doesn’t require “creating” it. A kid can prove that mathematically.

There is no god. There has never been a god. There never will be a god. Simply because nature won’t allow a god. god is in the imagination of those who don’t understand, make up a god to compensate for what they don’t understand and, in passing pick up the delusion of immortality along the way.



evolutionary so called science does it all the time.


I suppose you mean to denigrate the science of evolutionary biology. It is a science for those who understand it and, who knows what it is exactly, for those who don’t.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 11:33:47 AM
your post is mostly opinions.

of course there was a creation.

the universe was created by the latest opinion of how science thinks it was created.

even if you think it was created by some fluctuating this or that, it was still created.

your own high priests of evolution denigrate evo enough.
read their stuff, read between the lines.
its not hard to see the doubt.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 141
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 11:44:30 AM
Hehehe! So this is my sunday morning entertainment! Keep it up, I need those laughter-endorphins. Helps keep me healthy.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 142
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 8:18:13 PM


of course there was a creation.


There was?...What can you cite as evidence to support your claim?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 8:41:44 PM
well if there was nothing once, and there is something now, didn't something get created along the way, somehow?
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 144
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/28/2013 10:02:11 PM





well if there was nothing once, and there is something now, didn't something get created along the way, somehow?


The answer is no, creation is neither necessary nor possible. Furthermore, it can be mathematically proven. Your reasoning is incorrect.

As I said before, the presence of energy doesn’t require “creating” it. A kid can prove that mathematically.

Obviously, that proof is not within your grasp, if it were, you wouldn’t be asking such a question.

 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 145
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/29/2013 5:17:58 AM


if there was nothing once, and there is something now, didn't something get created along the way, somehow?


That presumes that there was once nothing. Do you have any evidence to suggest that there was ever "nothing"?

If there was once nothing, and there is something now, then I suppose it would be fair to say that something appeared, but I wouldn't necessarily call it "created." Be that as it may, and to spite possible "big bang" explanations for our local universe, we simply have no facts to determine whether or not there was ever "nothing"; it may be that the universe/multiverse had no beginning and was always in existence. If that is the case, there is no need for a creation or a creator.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/29/2013 6:48:50 PM
The following speculation may seem to "rhyme" with some of the cliche's or axioms born of some religious apologetics or spiritualism:

a) Who we are, as humans, is decided by our particular arrangement of energy (and matter) (information), and is an emergent phenomena of.

b) When we die, that particular arrangement ceases to exist, but all of that energy is returned and released back into the total "ecosystem" of constant energy transformation/transduction.

c) Our examples of energy transformation (I like saying "transduction" instead) are necessarily oversimplified. When we speak of light striking a surface, for example, and that light getting transduced into heat and other wavelengths, etc...there's always more going on than even that. Every given discrete "event", every instant, in every volume of space or matter, can involve hundreds (?) of avenues through which energy is transduced. And ultimately, all energy, all events, and everything, is connected in one constant flow back and forth through hundreds or millions of avenues of energy transduction, instant after instant, in all places everywhere.

d) All of the energy that's been wrapped up in making us who we are loses it's particular arrangement of information when we die, and re-joins, in varying degrees, a, or the, larger energy-transduction-cause-and-effect-ecosystem of constant flow through zillions of avenues every instant everywhere.

e) Is it reasonable to at least philosophize that...when we re-join this larger state of being by dying, all of who we are being composed of a momentary bundle of a small portion of this energy flow, there is even a kind of "awareness" or "consciousness". This awareness/consciousness is of course very alien to our experience of it, and would be completely different. Because of the disparity between the two, as organic life forms and human beings we cannot (?) "detect", relate to, or sense this other kind of awareness/consciousness such that we'd think of it this way as compared to our understanding or experience of the state of awareness/consciousness. Maybe while we are alive the way that we are, our experience from residing within our brains "drowns out" any sense of the other. Maybe we feel it while we're asleep and not dreaming, but we can never remember or grasp it as being some kind of awareness/consciousness whenever we awaken.

f) Since the whole of the universe is a very large scale ecosystem of constant energy transduction flow, with therefore enough avenues of flow/forms of energy to compare to what we understand of the interconnections that make a brain what it is, is the ultimate scale of this capable of the emergent property or phenomena of a kind of awareness/consciousness? (And so would this be some kind of pantheistic "god"?)

g) This would of course imply the rhetoric of us all coming from the same "source", and when we die we melt back into one state of being together. There are many states of existence (different forms of matter), but concerning awareness/consciousness, maybe life-forms that exhibit some degree of this (as we think of it, that is) is like a "prick" or "pinch" in the otherwise smooth surface of the ultimate largest scale energy ecosystem...such that it creates a singular "pool" of it, which is us. Or maybe this is reminiscent of the idea that we are individual dreams of this larger state of being. But this would all in turn imply, since all physical matter is reducable to energy (?), the nature of stuff really is non-stuff, in a deepak chopra vein.

...maybe someone needs to pop me upside my head, and wake me up.

Uh-oh...ok now wait a minute...does this mean that we really can dream of what we'd like our next planet, world, heaven, or life to be...and somewhere else in the extremely vast universe it is being "made" for each person who's reasonably in tune with this?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 147
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/30/2013 12:24:36 PM
by Hontas Farmer

http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/cosmology_big_bang_speculative_theories_and_possible_future_proof

I had an idea that the theories of the earliest stages of the universe were speculative. I just never really knew how speculative until I really looked at them. The CMB is as far back as we have actual data. From that we have to divine everything.

Consider the two competing theories for a solution to the horizon, flatness, and isotropy problems of the big bang. Cosmic inflation and VSL. These two theories are often considered to be at odds. However they are really the same in one key respect. Both of them speculate about something which we cannot observe with current techniques and technology. They speculate about what happened before the emission of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation was first emitted.

In pop cultural explanations of the CMB, it has been described as the echo of the big bang. It has been described as the Doppler shifted protons from the big bang. Not at all! In fact the CMB is separated from the big bang by about 380,000 years. The CMB is the first light to escape into a transparent universe after the cosmic dark age. During the Cosmic Dark age photons could not propagate very far without recombining into hydrogen atoms, or knocking electrons out of hydrogen atoms. When the universe cooled enough for the photons to no longer be able to ionize hydrogen the CMB was emitted. At that time it was in the infrared part of the spectrum. What that all really means is that the photons of the CMB we see now have almost no relation to the big bang, or any physics which transpired just after the big bang.

Determining just what happened before this phase is the reason that two very important lines of cosmological research are being undertaken.

1. Searches for the B-mode polarization of the CMB. This would be a gravitational wave signature in the CMB, which could only be from the Big Bang, as no other sources of gravitational waves are expected in the early universe. No stars had formed. (Though I suppose we could detect evidence of primordial black holes.)

2. The proposed future NASA project the Big Bang Observer. This would be a multi satellite space based interferometer. With this instrument the actual big bang could be observed, or at least farther back than the CMB will allow with EM based technology. Though like so many fantastical NASA projects I just have a feeling this will be cancelled for some reason or the other. ($$$$$$$)

I am doing a MS Thesis on the Cosmology of the universe from the Big Bang to the CMB. My work is mostly theoretical. So far I have only studied the classical theories, inflation, and VSL. Why both when inflation is the standard? Because as I pointed out above at this point there is not direct observational proof either is true or false.

- - - - -
- - - - -

Some may also be interested in these (too much to post):

http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/ch24_txt.htm

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/hpsc/Whitmontreal.pdf

http://www.maphy.uni-tuebingen.de/members/rotu/papers/zei.pdf
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 5/6/2013 10:19:28 PM
aremeself: you are correct, I won't commit to an evolution story, even my own. I will speculate though, and toss in my theories and questions.

I do not have to agree on ALL parts of the theory of evolution to agree with most. It has not been proven to me that evolution comes from ONE tree of life.

I also don't believe we are truly conscious but if we were, we could break on through to another side.

Viruses may be truly conscious, I don't know.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 5/26/2013 3:23:04 PM
its a big deal, but, creating something out of nothing isn't AS big of a deal as we sometimes think.

the conditions in the particular universe have to be correct, aka the laws of physics.

and;

with a little push, you can have something from nothing.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory