Evidence for an ancient earth

[Rockstar Matt]

About science.

If you could, would you please explain that thought a bit more specifically?

Then show me an experiment that a thing came to existence from vacuum, vacuum to me means nil, no energy
of any source, easier to turn a dead to alive than speaking nonsense, but anyway I'm all ears to your views
if it makes sense.

Then you have failed to understand what a vacuum is. The vacuum of space just means there is very low density and pressure. It does not mean space is devoid of particles and it does not mean it is devoid of energy. There is no naturally occurring "perfect vacuum" in the universe, (perfect meaning absolutely no particles and no energy) not even in intergalactic space.

To understand why a bit better, we need to understand what Quantum Field Theory is. I will just give the basic description, as we will be here all day if I give a more complicated description. QFT describes the fundamental particles as excitations (the application of energy to a particle, object, or physical system, in particular) in fields. Fields that permeate every corner of our universe. Even in the complete vacuum of space, these fields hover around zero, but they are always there.

For an example, take an electron. It is an excitation in its own field, as I said prior, and that field permeates every corner of the universe. Add some energy to this field, at a specific point, and that point will vibrate, which is then what we call an electron. This same process applies to all of the other fields that which make up our universe.

So in a sense, there is no such thing as "empty" space or nothingness in space because there is always energy and matter (sub-atomic), everywhere.

As for the origins of the universe? We have utterly no clue if the universe came to be from "nothing" or if the universe has always been, just going through cycles of expansion and contraction. Both have logical explanations and reasonings if we prove either to be true. We can only tell the universe use to be much smaller in volume, much more dense and much hotter than it is presently. There is direct evidence for that.

However, just because we do not know the true origin or if it has always just existed, does not mean we can infer a divine creator of which we have never seen any evidence of in 13.8 billion years of history.

 

[FearGod]

However, just because we do not know the true origin or if it has always just existed, does not mean we can infer a divine creator of which we have never seen any evidence of in 13.8 billion years of history.

That's it, God always existing or the unknown source for the particles is always existing.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's it, God always existing or the unknown source for the particles is always existing.

Since there is absolutely no evidence or logical reasoning to suggest that any of the thousands of gods that humanity has believed in actually exist, admitting we don't know is far more rational. It's not as if a god would solve the basic mystery of existence anyway - as you point out, we'd just substitute an unexplained universe with an unexplained god...

 

[Polymath257]

About science.



Then show me an experiment that a thing came to existence from vacuum, vacuum to me means nil, no energy
of any source, easier to turn a dead to alive than speaking nonsense, but anyway I'm all ears to your views
if it makes sense.

I happens all the time. In fact, any vacuum has a continual production of 'virtual particles' that pop in and out of existence in matter-antimatter pairs. This is a measured effects.

 

[FearGod]

I happens all the time. In fact, any vacuum has a continual production of 'virtual particles' that pop in and out of existence in matter-antimatter pairs. This is a measured effects.

And we need an external force to disturb the vacuum, where that force should came from?

 

[Polymath257]

And we need an external force to disturb the vacuum, where that force should came from?

That is a mistake. No external force is required. Quantum fluctuations are a fact about the universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

And we need an external force to disturb the vacuum, where that force should came from?

Firstly, no we don't.

Secondly, the inability of current science to explain something does not add credence to unevidenced storytelling (like the various god myths).

 

[FearGod]

Firstly, no we don't.

Secondly, the inability of current science to explain something does not add credence to unevidenced storytelling (like the various god myths).

Prove it to me that no external force is needed to affect a field which isn't a particle or a real particle if I may say.

 

[Polymath257]

Prove it to me that no external force is needed to affect a field which isn't a particle or a real particle if I may say.

OK. How much physics do you know? Do you have any familiarity with quantum field theories?

 

[ratiocinator]

Prove it to me that no external force is needed to affect a field which isn't a particle or a real particle if I may say.

Science doesn't do proof - it is conerned with evidence.

However, the theory that predicts this is extremely well tested and the effects have been confirmed by experiment (the Casimir effect). It can be seen as a result of the uncertainty principle which applies to time/energy as well as position/momentum.

 

[FearGod]

Science doesn't do proof - it is conerned with evidence.

However, the theory that predicts this is extremely well tested and the effects have been confirmed by experiment (the Casimir effect). It can be seen as a result of the uncertainty principle which applies to time/energy as well as position/momentum.

That doesn't prove that a field is existed from nothingness, it's still a thing as the soul is a thing to me which is a myth to you.

 

[Polymath257]

That doesn't prove that a field is existed from nothingness, it's still a thing as the soul is a thing to me which is a myth to you.

In a vacuum, there is still, because of the uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of quantum physics, a probability that a particle-antiparticle pair will be spontaneously produced. This probability is high enough that the actual effect happens continuously.

Yes, even in a vacuum. And no, no force is required for this effect.

You basic claim that a vacuum cannot produce things is falsified.

 

[FearGod]

In a vacuum, there is still, because of the uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of quantum physics, a probability that a particle-antiparticle pair will be spontaneously produced. This probability is high enough that the actual effect happens continuously.

Yes, even in a vacuum. And no, no force is required for this effect.

You basic claim that a vacuum cannot produce things is falsified.

If there's a field then that isn't a vacuum, as I said to you I regard the soul as a thing even though it's a vacuum
according to our knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

If there's a field then that isn't a vacuum, as I said to you I regard the soul as a thing even though it's a vacuum
according to our knowledge.

In a vacuum, all fields have a value of zero. It turns out that is an unstable state. So, spontaneously, the various fields adopt a non-zero value. In other words, from a vacuum, it is inevitable that things will arise.

You have no 'knowledge' of a soul. There is no way to observe one. There is no way to test the properties of one. All you have is your *belief* in one. But that isn't enough to claim a truth. What is required for truth is observation and testing.

 

[FearGod]

In a vacuum, all fields have a value of zero. It turns out that is an unstable state. So, spontaneously, the various fields adopt a non-zero value. In other words, from a vacuum, it is inevitable that things will arise.

And what kind of things that will arise spontaneously from vacuum?

You have no 'knowledge' of a soul. There is no way to observe one. There is no way to test the properties of one. All you have is your *belief* in one. But that isn't enough to claim a truth. What is required for truth is observation and testing.

We didn't know about electrons during the 17th century, that doesn't mean electrons doesn't exist but it means we were
lacking in science that needed to discover the electrons.

 

[Polymath257]

And what kind of things that will arise spontaneously from vacuum?

Any type of particle-antiparticle pair. Because of their mass, electron-positron pairs are the most common.

We didn't know about electrons during the 17th century, that doesn't mean electrons doesn't exist but it means we were
lacking in science that needed to discover the electrons.

First of all, nobody in the 17th century was claiming the existence of electrons either. It took the development of the science of electricity and magnetism to get to the point where electrons were even a reasonable possibility for exploration. They were discovered when the experimental techniques and equipment became good enough to detect them.

In contrast, people have been claiming the existence of 'souls' for thousands of years. But there is *still* no actual evidence for their existence. So, at the very least, the claims are far, far in advance of the evidence.

So, I would ask you what sort of equipment would be required to detect and measure the properties of a soul? What evidence do you have for even making the claim that souls exist? What prompts this claim? Evidence? Or dogma?

 

[FearGod]

Any type of particle-antiparticle pair. Because of their mass, electron-positron pairs are the most common.

Bring some examples of real particles existing spontaneously from vacuum?

First of all, nobody in the 17th century was claiming the existence of electrons either. It took the development of the science of electricity and magnetism to get to the point where electrons were even a reasonable possibility for exploration. They were discovered when the experimental techniques and equipment became good enough to detect them.

In contrast, people have been claiming the existence of 'souls' for thousands of years. But there is *still* no actual evidence for their existence. So, at the very least, the claims are far, far in advance of the evidence.

So, I would ask you what sort of equipment would be required to detect and measure the properties of a soul? What evidence do you have for even making the claim that souls exist? What prompts this claim? Evidence? Or dogma?

And where in reality that a physical body can think, even a programmed machine can't think.
It's either to believe that matters can think if it has a physical brain or to believe that something
other than the physical body is involved.

 

[Polymath257]

Bring some examples of real particles existing spontaneously from vacuum?

Look up the Casimir effect.

And where in reality that a physical body can think, even a programmed machine can't think.
It's either to believe that matters can think if it has a physical brain or to believe that something
other than the physical body is involved.

And *all* the evidence is that matter, in particular our physical brains, can think.

 

[FearGod]

Look up the Casimir effect.

And how it answers my question, we don't see real particles appear from vacuum.

And *all* the evidence is that matter, in particular our physical brains, can think.

The same as a physical computer processing a given data, do you think that it does so just because
of the physical body of the computer.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Prophecies isn't delusion.

Prove it. What? you cannot? Hmmmmmm.....