A Universe from Nothing?

[godnotgod]

It made as much sense as the other baffle-gab in this thread. Maybe it would be better if you capitalized every other word. Some seem to be impressed by that sort of nuanced drivel.

You mean capitalized baffle-gab sorta like


YmirGF Bodhisattva?

Ooooh! Impressive, but thoroughly empty. Bodhisattva my *ss!

 

[`mud]

What contains the Cosmos ?

 

[godnotgod]

What contains the Cosmos ?

The Cosmos, or The Universe, is Everything that exists, so there is no 'other' that contains it. Being Infinite, nothing can contain it.

There are no 'things' IN The Universe; those very things ARE The Universe itself.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It made as much sense as the other baffle-gab in this thread. Maybe it would be better if you capitalized every other word. Some seem to be impressed by that sort of nuanced drivel.

As Deepak Chopra might say, why use plain English and risk being exposed as a BS merchant? Surely better to hide behind ill-defined Pretentious Proper Nouns, spout pseudo-science and then keep moving the goalposts!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong.

It is "mass" not "matter" that are conserved.

So whenever they talk of conservation of either "mass" or "energy" - "cannot be created or destroyed" - they are talking of "mass", not "matter".

Matter have properties like mass and energy.. And there is a link between mass and energy.

What cannot be created or destroyed, it can be "changed" or "transformed".

And lastly, the law of conservation only referred to a "closed" system. This law of conservation doesn't always apply if the system is "open".

An example of open systems would be like object have become radioactive. Large amount of energy will escape the system.

I said...."the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change"...yes? Are you saying matter has no mass? The mass of the universe is unchangeable...and what is this universal mass composed of in your opinion, if not energy and matter?.Me thinks you do not understand physics...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, and the amount of pseudo-science in these threads is tiresome.

If you think that the sum total of universal mass is not constituted of energy and mass, then please provide your explanation of why it is not?

 

[gnostic]

The Cosmos, or The Universe, is Everything that exists, so there is no 'other' that contains it. Being Infinite, nothing can contain it.

There are no 'things' IN The Universe; those very things ARE The Universe itself.

This is just pure sophistry.

Oh no? Then tell me: what state of mind are you using to determine that?

My "state of mind", only tells me that we are each expressing one's view - each other's opinions that we disagree with.

Nothing in your view showed that your view to be "enlightened", especially in regards to what you believe in - "Absolute", "Infinite", and what's is or isn't illusion.

What I see is that , you are playing word games, capitalising "this" word, or classifying "that" to be either "infinite" or "illusion", depending on your own state of mind.

What is illusion is that you think have enlightenment.

 

[gnostic]

Are you saying matter has no mass?

Where in the heck did I say that or even imply that???!!!

Mass is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of matter.

It is you who is not understanding the physics. You are confusing mass with matter.

Energy is link to the mass. Finding one will or could determine the other. If you can measure the mass of the matter, then it is possible to determine the energy, or at least the potential for work.

The conservation laws only applied to a closed system, but do you understand what happen to mass or energy in an open system?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Where in the heck did I say that or even imply that???!!!

Mass is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of matter.

It is you who is not understanding the physics. You are confusing mass with matter.

Energy is link to the mass. Finding one will or could determine the other. If you can measure the mass of the matter, then it is possible to determine the energy, or at least the potential for work.

The conservation laws only applied to a closed system, but do you understand what happen to mass or energy in an open system?

Don't just claim I am confusing mass with matter, quote my precise words that you are referring to.....for as it is I have no idea where you are coming from?

The only thing I could think of was that you were saying it because I said ."the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change"...is that it?

 

[godnotgod]

What contains the Cosmos ?

godnotgod said: The Cosmos, or The Universe, is Everything that exists, so there is no 'other' that contains it. Being Infinite, nothing can contain it.

There are no 'things' IN The Universe; those very things ARE The Universe itself.

gnostic said: This is just pure sophistry.

So are you saying that it is a matter of belief or opinion that The Universe is Everything that exists?

My "state of mind", only tells me that we are each expressing one's view - each other's opinions that we disagree with.

To be clear, I am not stating my position as a matter of opinion or belief. However, you made statements as if they were certainty. So my question to you is what state of mind is that coming from?

Nothing in your view showed that your view to be "enlightened", especially in regards to what you believe in - "Absolute", "Infinite", and what's is or isn't illusion.

I am trying to explain to you how what I have said is an enlightened view. IOW, there is a way of determining a delusive view from an enlightened one. So I begin by asking you the question: Is the Universe Everything there is? Can you answer that question or not?

What I see is that , you are playing word games, capitalising "this" word, or classifying "that" to be either "infinite" or "illusion", depending on your own state of mind.

What is illusion is that you think have enlightenment.

Show me specifically the word game I am playing with you. I am trying to be clear, but I think you are just confused.

No, I am not making a claim of enlightenment, but I can demonstrate to you that there is an Absolute, via Logic.

 

[godnotgod]

Mass is a property of matter. Energy is also a property of matter.

No. The new physics is showing us that all mass is virtual mass, and that 'matter' is merely fluctuations in the Quantum/Higgs Fields, and that there is no 'matter' as such. We've already covered this in this thread, demonstrating that what you think is physical 'matter' is standing waves, and that the real action is in the field which creates them. So energy is not a property of matter; matter is a creation of energy waves, and ultimately, of consciousness:

• I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
  • As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.

—Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy. Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max‑Planck‑Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797

• As quoted in Braden, Gregg The Spontaneous Healing of Belief Hay House, 2008, p. 212

Max Planck
*****

“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

― Albert Einstein

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wrong.

It is "mass" not "matter" that are conserved.

So whenever they talk of conservation of either "mass" or "energy" - "cannot be created or destroyed" - they are talking of "mass", not "matter".

Matter have properties like mass and energy.. And there is a link between mass and energy.

What cannot be created or destroyed, it can be "changed" or "transformed".

And lastly, the law of conservation only referred to a "closed" system. This law of conservation doesn't always apply if the system is "open".

An example of open systems would be like object have become radioactive. Large amount of energy will escape the system.

Here are my words which you quoted and to which you say I am confusing mass with energy. Please point out exactly which words you are referring to that makes you think this?

"Matter is made of energy......only the forms are created and destroyed...like stars and planets and humans...the underlying universal mass of energy and matter does not change.."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

matter is a creation of energy waves, and ultimately, of consciousness:

"...and ultimately of consciousness"? So you are claiming that matter is a creation of consciousness? Really?

Let's see some evidence for this claim.

Actual evidence, clearly laid out. Don't just keep posting your stock quotes from Hindu swamis and fringe scientists, let's see some actual evidence for this claim. Let's see a coherent argument in plain English ( though I am not holding my breath ).

Let's see some actual evidence for your claims of "Cosmic Consciousness", and the big bang being an "event in consciousness". Let's see a coherent argument to support these claims, plain English, free from your ill-defined jargon buzz-words.

You have been preaching this Chopra-inspired twaddle on RF for years, but I still haven't seen any clear evidence for your beliefs.
It is all smoke and mirrors, pseudo-science, misrepresentation, false equivalences, illogical conclusions, twisting and glossing over.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nothing in your view showed that your view to be "enlightened", especially in regards to what you believe in - "Absolute", "Infinite", and what's is or isn't illusion.

I agree. It's a common problem, people get attached to religious beliefs and begin to see them as "facts", they then have a strong need to "prove" they are true, it becomes an ego-trip. In extreme cases you see delusions of grandeur, people are convinced they have seen the "truth" and they become very arrogant, they dismiss and patronise any point of view which contradicts their beliefs.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Don't just claim I am confusing mass with matter, quote my precise words that you are referring to.....for as it is I have no idea where you are coming from?

You were confusing mass and matter.

Anyway. Judging by your rambling pronouncements, you believe that there has always been something?

Do you have any clear evidence for this claim?

Clearly you are a theist with Hindu leanings, and you make comments like these:
"God can only reveal God to God.. " ( #2580 )
"For God is One and the apparent separate acts of creation is also the apparent act of destruction.....only the real is eternally unchanged...God" ( #2583 )

I think that like another contributor here, you start with your religious beliefs and then scrabble around trying to find support for them. You muddle in science with Hindu ideas, you continually try to bang square pegs into round holes, and end up with a horrible mess.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You were confusing mass and matter.

.

So as I keep asking to you and gnostic....quote my words whereby you think I confused mass with matter. Refusal or inability to do so shows that you do not understand the principles of physics....which is obvious to me from yonks ago...and I am happy to reveal it to all,,..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So as I keep asking to you and gnostic....quote my words whereby you think I confused mass with matter. Refusal or inability to do so shows that you do not understand the principles of physics....which is obvious to me from yonks ago...and I am happy to reveal it to all,,..

The bit that Gnostic responded to in post #2595 was a complete muddle. Many of your posts are a muddle, partly because of your pretentious stream of consciousness posting style with all the ......
Could you PLEASE start using proper sentences so we can understand what points you are actually trying to make? Please start using plain English.

Anyway, how about you quit the barrack-room lawyer act, and respond to the substance of my last post?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The bit that Gnostic responded to in post #2595 was a complete muddle. Many of your posts are a muddle, partly because of your pretentious stream of consciousness posting style with all the ......
Could you PLEASE start using proper sentences so we can understand what points you are actually trying to make?

Anyway, how about you quit the barrack-room lawyer act, and respond to the substance of my last post?

Ok....so you obviously can't point out the specific words whereby I confused matter and energy. Complaining my post was a muddle is a feeble attempt to obfuscate the fact that your are obviously uneducated in physics...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ok....so you obviously can't point out the specific words whereby I confused matter and energy. Complaining my post was a muddle is a feeble attempt to obfuscate the fact that your are obviously uneducated in physics...

Your post WAS a muddle and it does confuse mass and matter, as I said in #2618. Many of your posts are a muddle, so please start using proper sentences.

I am still waiting for you to respond to the substance of my last post.

For example, do you have any clear evidence for your belief that there has always been something?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your post WAS a muddle and it does confuse mass and matter, as I said in #2618. Many of your posts are a muddle, so please start using proper sentences.

I am still waiting for you to respond to the substance of my last post.

For example, do you have any clear evidence for your belief that there has always been something?

Saying it is a muddle merely implies ignorance of understanding.....an explanation as to the scientific reason why you think what I said scientifically incorrect is what I am looking for! If you think I am confusing mass with matter...point it out...otherwise keep digging your hole deeper...