Debate Mansion

   

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 143)

Post Reply New Post

Page 143 of 149

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 10:58am | IP Logged
It is possible that this is the reason space is expanding at the "outermost edges".

I think we need to separate space and energy. Space has energy is not a true statement IMO. Whatever is expanding the space is also a type of energy ("dark energy") as they put it, which means there is energy (first and foremost) and one "type" of it is responsible for "creation" of space (even though scientists deliberately avoid the word creation and prefer "expansion".




The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 143)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 11:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Vintu, I was enunciating from the point of view of field lines and how the so called properties influence the regions of space around them





An electron has charge; it's a point particle as we know with no spatial extent. Yet, the lines of force influence the region of space around it.

My question was more related to the energy space itself has. What is the region of influence for the spatial energy? I think it gets circular to define the region in terms of the same region which has energy.

As for the cosmological constant, I think you are on the right track there even though what you said wasn't completely clear to me.

In short, I am looking into what exactly it means when someone says "vacuum energy". And what does that in turn mean in at the quantum scale.




 K... Tongue

  Oh! Right ..So you are on about the Spatial Radius of the charge ..So I would like to believe the charge is propagated to a certain limited extent to the space around it..Though miniscule it can affect the other particles evenly or those that are oppositely charged. and this should happen because of the quantity of particles exerting the charge together ..
 
 For instance ..One ant ..can't pull a dead bug alone ..but a 100 ants together do the trick ...Same way the humungous quantity in which the particles exist make them capable of
exerting forces beyond their individual spatial radius ..

 As far as the Vacuum / dark energy is concerned I'm as much in the dark as could be ..LOL 
But what makes it viable for a hypothesis must be the theory that states ...the Mass / Energy density of the universe must be the same as the Critical Density ...<<<<   And this is where all the matter in the Universe fall short ...That accounts only for 4 % of the Critical Density and the Dark matter adds another 22 %  ..   So the remaining must be that of the vacuum ..As nothing else exists ..LOL ...So obviously the vacuum has Density ..Which fluctuates to create those Virtual particles...

 ^^^ Now does that make sense ?

  Vintu ... Tongue





 


The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe._Angie_

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 11:23am | IP Logged
So at singularity, what we have is more than a unified force (or supergravity as they would like to call it).

What we had was something that gave "birth" to dark energy, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, space, time, nuclear forces (strong/weak) and, yeah, the miniscule good for nothing matter :)

Technically, we could call that something the universe itself, but somewhere in that there is the oddball consciousness that is aware of the universe. So what we have is universe + awareness / intelligence unless the awareness / intelligence could be explained in terms of the universe.




The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine_Angie_Beyond_the_Veil

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 11:34am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

It is possible that this is the reason space is expanding at the "outermost edges".

I think we need to separate space and energy. Space has energy is not a true statement IMO. Whatever is expanding the space is also a type of energy ("dark energy") as they put it, which means there is energy (first and foremost) and one "type" of it is responsible for "creation" of space (even though scientists deliberately avoid the word creation and prefer "expansion".



 Hahaha ...LOL  Yay !  ..That's why they use abstruse terminology for simple things ...I think Stretching is the right word ..Not expansion ..and I ll tell ya why .. See the matter, the galaxies in the universe are accelerating away from each other and the point of their creation ..Which means the space / vacuum between them is increasing ...But when the material universe doubles in speace ..the density of the vacuum halves <<<< Now doesn't that sound more like Stretching ? .Also the vacuum energy remains constant ..( Cosmological constant ) ..
 
 It in turn means the universe will definitely end one day ..May be after a trillion years ..as the vacuum's density is decreasing ..as there won't be nuff dense vacuum to create anymore virtual particles ...

@ Bold: ..The density is present ( In vacuum )  ..Which is = Mass / volume  ...Now what we need is the Force to cause acceleration ...for the fluctuations to take place ..and         F = ma  ..So the only part needed to create the force is the Acceleration ...Which is caused by the the associated Gravity ... which is also present in the case of vacuum ..

 But even after this the question would remain ..what created the density ..<<<< The mother of all answers lie in that answer ...

 hm ..

 Vintu ... Ouch

 




 

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 03 November 2012 at 5:26am | IP Logged

Uh- oh ! Not celebration time yet ...Shocked 

 

Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


 
 Oh! Right ..So you are on about the Spatial Radius of the charge ..So I would like to believe the charge is propagated to a certain limited extent to the space around it..Though miniscule it can affect the other particles evenly or those that are oppositely charged. and this should happen because of the quantity of particles exerting the charge together ..
 
 For instance ..One ant ..can't pull a dead bug alone ..but a 100 ants together do the trick ...Same way the humungous quantity in which the particles exist make them capable of
exerting forces beyond their individual spatial radius ..

 

There I knew it! With that you kicked  the theory of single Electron out of the universe LOL


 As far as the Vacuum / dark energy is concerned I'm as much in the dark as could be ..  
But what makes it viable for a hypothesis must be the theory that states ...the Mass / Energy density of the universe must be the same as the Critical Density ...<<<<   And this is where all the matter in the Universe fall short ...That accounts only for 4 % of the Critical Density and the Dark matter adds another 22 %  ..   So the remaining must be that of the vacuum ..As nothing else exists .. ...So obviously the vacuum has Density ..Which fluctuates to create those Virtual particles...

 ^^^ Now does that make sense ?


 

 Nope ! Can vacuum have mass and without mass density? Or are you rooting for  some sort of virtual mass ...

Originally posted by K.Universe.

So at singularity, what we have is more than a unified force (or supergravity as they would like to call it).

What we had was something that gave "birth" to dark energy, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, space, time, nuclear forces (strong/weak) and, yeah, the miniscule good for nothing matter :)

Technically, we could call that something the universe itself, but somewhere in that there is the oddball consciousness that is aware of the universe. So what we have is universe + awareness / intelligence unless the awareness / intelligence could be explained in terms of the universe.

[/QUOTE]

Right on there! The energy, force, vacuum and least of all matter so far have failed to explain the emergence of consciousness though the standard assumption in neuroscience is that consciousness is a byproduct of the operation of the human brain. This needs some critical unbiased re-assessment.

 

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 03 November 2012 at 8:16am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Angie_


Uh- oh ! Not celebration time yet ...Shocked 

  Angie ...WTH ..LOL ..And I came prepared for a fiesta ..That ll last eternally ..I attired flamboyantly ...Stole the best of the thread and some exy champagne from the neighborhood stores ..to rejoice our win Tongue ...This is crazy ..I hope the cops don't bail me up again ..at least before we find the God ..Ouch


 

Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


There I knew it! With that you kicked  the theory of single Electron out of the universe LOL

  Yehahaha  LOL...I did just that ...I hope the History takes a note of this event ..To show to the next generation of God Finders ...when they go scouting for something that has no beginning or End ...LOL

  Nope ! Can vacuum have mass and without mass density? Or are you rooting for  some sort of virtual mass ...

  Haha ..That's why I associate vacuum with my notion about you ..It's just as occult and prolific as you ..Tongue ...Something that's actually nothing but creates everything ...<<< LOL

 On a serious note:  It has virtual particles which has been proven by the Casimir effect ...Or should we call that the Angie effect ? LOL  Yay ! ..That sounds more apt ..I bet ..I bet ..

Originally posted by K.Universe.



Right on there! The energy, force, vacuum and least of all matter so far have failed to explain the emergence of consciousness though the standard assumption in neuroscience is that consciousness is a byproduct of the operation of the human brain. This needs some critical unbiased re-assessment.

  ^^^ Exactly my point ..Even K and Birdie would concur ...The consciousness it is ..everyone fails to explain ..Even if its a by product of the brain ..The credit goes to someone who created / designed the brain ..and everything else ...that works so wonderfully well ..

 I guess we must not limit our view to a observable Universe ...I bet we are in a Multiverse ..

as the Brane cosmology suggests ...and someone who is conscious ...or himself is consciousness monitors everything quietly ...Impeccably ...

 This is why I once said ..We must know the age of the Electrons ..as they don't decay ..May be we ll know some might have existed even before the (So called ) Big bang ...may be we have come from another universe that was Open / Flat ..after escaping it's event horizon..All conjectures I say ..The reality is as obscure as someone's vision after a few nasty pegs ..LOL

 Something which only the God can tell !  LOL

[/QUOTE]

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 06 November 2012 at 9:50pm | IP Logged
Do we agree that one or a combination of these are the only possible resolutions to the question of how our universe came about?
  • Universe is the observed; there is a Conscious observer observing the universe
  • Universe came about because of random fluctuations owing to probability
  • Universe is a Simulation
  • God created the Universe
  • There is not just one universe but a Multiverse (or the somewhat related many worlds)
  • Everything is unreal / Maya / Illusion
If yes, then it's time to pick what's the best resolution of all. If not, please add to the list.

If picking one (or a combination) it's best to provide reasons why the others are being eliminated.

Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012

Posts: 13810

Posted: 06 November 2012 at 10:34pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Do we agree that one or a combination of these are the only possible resolutions to the question of how our universe came about?
  • Universe is the observed; there is a Conscious observer observing the universe
  • Universe came about because of random fluctuations owing to probability
  • Universe is a Simulation
  • God created the Universe
  • There is not just one universe but a Multiverse (or the somewhat related many worlds)
  • Everything is unreal / Maya / Illusion
If yes, then it's time to pick what's the best resolution of all. If not, please add to the list.

If picking one (or a combination) it's best to provide reasons why the others are being eliminated.

It's not so easy K. I don't find any of them satisfactory.

(1) What is observed and who observes? And where are the observer and thing being observed "contained"?

(2) Fluctuations in what? What was always there? How can something be always there.

(3) That's just shifting problem one level back. Where did the simulator come from and how did his world came to be?

(4) That's shifting the problem to another entity. How come God exists without creation?

(5) It just makes problem more complex. How did all those came to be?

(6) This one is never explained clearly. In Matrix too, there was areal world in which people were kept and connected to a system that created the illusion in their minds. So, at least the world of creator was real. So, something has to exist, right?

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not just trying to strike everything down. None of them  really fill the hole of questions.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 89 90

Summer3 719 30995 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm
By Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

monika. 94 4693 20 September 2011 at 11:49am
By epiphany.
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Summer3 10 821 12 May 2011 at 4:20am
By Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SolidSnake 71 4021 17 September 2010 at 1:42am
By _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

shalini1323 11 780 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm
By Vinzy

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.