science vs religion?

[Unveiled Artist]

Without rocks, etc, there is a vacuum. That is space without the presence of matter, although today all vacuum has, at least, energy from photons going through.

Without energy from photons going through, what is left and define it.

What do you mean by 'outside of space'? Why do you think there *is* an outside of space?

Why do you think there is a limit to how far space travels out?

Huh? yes, we *do* know there are other 'suns'--they are known as stars. We *do* know there are other planets, etc.

How far out do you know scientist travel to know this?

Maybe you should go learn a little bit of astronomy (or even look up at a dark sky at night). The stars you see at night are ALL similar to the sun--the sun is actually a star.

Yes, I know..... no sarcasm.

Actually, many people can quite easily understand these things. We have telescopes that can see other stars, other planets, etc. These have been known about for *centuries*.

They can only go but so far. Again, we're not in the center of the universe/idiom for we are only discovering what's limited to our instruments and so forth. Why would we assume outside of what we observe is the same thing?

That's "playing god." People literally thought the world was flat. Right or wrong does not matter. The point was this is what they believe was a fact. They probably thought they were the center of the universe. Humans have a lot of ego.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well,maybe you should go learn a bit of modern science, then. This isn't fiction.

Again, I used a children's site for these definitions. How I explain it doesn't reflect if the children site is false or not. Why would I take up modern science for something as simple question as I'm asking?

Why make it so complicated? Come back to the earth, there is nothing in my hands, how can something come from it?

 

[Polymath257]

Again, I used a children's site for these definitions. How I explain it doesn't reflect if the children site is false or not. Why would I take up modern science for something as simple question as I'm asking?

Why make it so complicated? Come back to the earth, there is nothing in my hands, how can something come from it?

You are assuming causality when causality doens't apply.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You wrote, and i quote "I am limited by lack of knowledge not lack of experience."

Yes. Ask for clarification rather than assuming.

You wrote and i quote "If these things make up space, why wouldnt you say these things are space?"

Yes. I asked that. No need to repeat it.

Because i wouldn't call an elephant - a fountain pen so why should i call as ball of rock - space?

I have no clue what you're talking about with this analogy.

If rocks, energy, etc make up (is defined as) space, why would you say these things are in it instead?

If these things are in space, take out these things energy, photons too, and define space.

You didn't mention expanding or eternal. You want to talk about the expanding universe?

If you can talk in kids terms.

As for eternal... Who knows... Measurements indicate it can be infinite but our universe has been around for a finite period and will always be so.

"Who knows" is right.

This is what I read:

This is because there is no air in space – it is a vacuum. Sound waves cannot travel through a vacuum. 'Outer space' begins about 100 km above the Earth, where the shell of air around our planet disappears. ... Space is usually regarded as being completely empty.

I'm probably saying space and mean universe. Can you tell me what's outside our universe?

I think i said space is not empty and contains... asteroid's, planets, moons, suns, galaxies, galatic clusters.

Unless space is defined by these things, once you take out these things, I'm asking what it is defined by.

It was written in English, sorry you didn't understand, i suggests trying a dictionary to look up the definition of vacuum.

Don't assume I haven't looked anything up.

No sarcasm.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I already did. See above.

I know you said you can. I'm asking for more information. How.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The absence of geometry and distance.

What is absense what is absense of gemetry and distance?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course. There is distance, for example. The lack of matter doesn't mean it doesn't have structure.

Structure? How does lack of matter in and of itself have structure?

Anyway, you guys are confusing me. Websites doesn't help.

 

[Polymath257]

Without energy from photons going through, what is left and define it.

Empty space. Also known as a vacuum.

Why do you think there is a limit to how far space travels out?

Why do you think I think that?

How far out do you know scientist travel to know this?

Why do you think travel is required?

Yes, I know..... no sarcasm.

They can only go but so far. Again, we're not in the center of the universe/idiom for we are only discovering what's limited to our instruments and so forth. Why would we assume outside of what we observe is the same thing?

Because when we gain the ability to see more, it is usually more of the same.

That's "playing god." People literally thought the world was flat. Right or wrong does not matter. The point was this is what they believe was a fact. They probably thought they were the center of the universe. Humans have a lot of ego.

Yes, humans have a lot of ego. The difference is whether people base their beliefs on evidence or bias. In point of fact, it was clear to the educated people that the Earth was round long, long ago.

 

[Polymath257]

Structure? How does lack of matter in and of itself have structure?

Anyway, you guys are confusing me. Websites doesn't help.

Clearly. I would suggest you go learn some physics and maybe a bit of math. They might help.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are assuming causality when causality doens't apply.

Everything is interrelated to each other. What has a cause has an effect. Not talking about god or anything just the motion of change and how one thing affects the other.

Don't know how your post relates.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm probably saying space and mean universe. Can you tell me what's outside our universe?

Well, at least the question makes more sense. But why do you think there is *anything* outside our universe?

 

[Polymath257]

Everything is interrelated to each other. What has a cause has an effect. Not talking about god or anything just the motion of change and how one thing affects the other.

Don't know how your post relates.

The transition from nothing to something wasn't a causal transition. The question of 'how' is assuming a cause, so isn't appropriate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Empty space. Also known as a vacuum.

With no photons and energy, I don't know how you'd define a vacuum.

Why do you think travel is required?

My rudimentary knowledge heard once before space with the atoms etc are expanding. So, if something is expanding, it's covering as it expands a vacuum that existed until the expandation of whatever it is filled it up, for lack of better terms. So, it's no longer a vacuum. Outside of space, the universe, we are assuming what we explore here is the same as what would be outside what we can observe.

It's a alright assumption. I'm not saying it's right or wrong just entertaining the possibility and definition of what's outside of what we can observe.

Because when we gain the ability to see more, it is usually more of the same.

Yes, humans have a lot of ego. The difference is whether people base their beliefs on evidence or bias. In point of fact, it was clear to the educated people that the Earth was round long, long ago.

If you like. I don't see either way as morally wrong to believe in. We probably figure out something thousand years from now and it will change how we see things. Until then, we are always right because we can observe and test it.

Something that's been repeated on RF many times but science-nontheist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, at least the question makes more sense. But why do you think there is *anything* outside our universe?

Because I don't see our universe as the only universe, so to speak, just because we cannot see beyond it. Kinda like the god thing theist keep talking about. What you don't experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's interesting to think about but I think people think of god because they can't imagine a universe just being or just is. That and I don't know if many can entertain the possibility of our universe not having limitations based on what we can measure inside it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The transition from nothing to something wasn't a causal transition. The question of 'how' is assuming a cause, so isn't appropriate.

I just wanted to know when I have nothing in my hands how can there all of the sudden be something in it. Everything is interrelated so if there is nothing in my hand, I don't see any cause (like picking up a pencil and placing it in my hand) to where I can see by my actions the result is something I'm holding.

As of now, there isn't anything in my hands. So, my question is how can something all of the sudden be in my hands when there is nothing in it. No cause. Just nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

My rudimentary knowledge heard once before space with the atoms etc are expanding. So, if something is expanding, it's covering as it expands a vacuum that existed until the expandation of whatever it is filled it up, for lack of better terms. So, it's no longer a vacuum. Outside of space, the universe, we are assuming what we explore here is the same as what would be outside what we can observe.

You make an assumption that expansion of the universe means that it expands *into* something outside. And that is an incorrect assumption. ALL of space is filled with matter and energy, but still space itself is expanding.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You make an assumption that expansion of the universe means that it expands *into* something outside. And that is an incorrect assumption. ALL of space is filled with matter and energy, but still space itself is expanding.

Hmm. What I was entertaining was the idea that there is something outside of space to which in our universe expands to. If there is a possibility to have nothing in my hand, I relate that as there is a possibility that after but so far there'd be nothing in the universe.

That, and isn't the things inside our universe, if one likes, are a result of gasses and rocks from various galaxies rather than they exist in and of themselves where no light source is at?

 

[Repox]

I don't believe in astrology.

But I can understand your deflection. You've been kinda. . . well, talking out your bottom about being able to find variables and predict probabilities about the universe, but at no point have you actually demonstrated that you can do so, or even bothered to link a source to a mathematician/
cosmologist who has made the attempt.

Why is this? Can you at least isolate one variable to get us started? I'm only a high school math teacher, so it's possible I may know something about this stuff.

I have thought about this possibility after discussing on the internet with those who propose there is no proof for God as the creator of the universe. Then, I recall scientific studies about what happened with matter and anti-matter particles collided at the beginning of the universe. At some particular point, probable when elements began to form, the universe as we know it began to take shape, maybe 380,000 years after the BB. Anyway, there must be some way of isolating key variables, or subatomic particles, for a model of predictability based on interacting events. Would the interactive model for that particular time predict chaotic outcomes, or It would predict a trend toward an intelligent design for the universe? Theoretically, it is possible to isolate key variables for a usable matrix allowing for predictable outcomes. I think the main task is to first identify key variables (virtual particles, matter and anti-matter), at specific points on a time line. It may not be possible, I don't know. What I do best is come up with abstract problems. I am a retired college professor with some spare time. When I was in graduate school I had a reputation for critiquing theories. It drove my professors batty, they put me into independent studies to get me out of their classrooms.

I'll attempt to learn more about the possibility of a research design for the project. Again, the main problem is to identify key variables. If you can quantify them, you can apply probability equations for testing expected outcomes. I believe it is possible. I don't think it has ever been done. If achieved, it would be a strong argument for God as the designer of the universe. The argument would be based on the laws of probability for God's design, as apposed to random or accidental outcomes, which would be associated with chaos, no physical laws, and no natural beauty.

 

[leibowde84]

Without energy from photons going through, what is left and define it.

He already said, it's a vacuum. Whether or not there are energy photons going thru it, it's still a vacuum.

 

[Repox]

Show me the math, i have asked before and you seem reluctant to offer it. Then lets see if i understand it or you ate talking hogwash.

One thing is sure, if you could show real mathematical proof of god (or god magic) that stands up to scrutiny then you would be rich beyond avarice, you would have the worlds religious leaders on speed dial and you would have destroyed atheism and every religion but your own. I don't see it's happened yet. I'll wait.

Not a bad proposition. I need a multi-million dollar grant, an army of graduate assistants, and a lot of computer time to calculate possible outcomes. I don't have a religion, just a basic belief that God did it.

I can do the theory, all I need is an adequate research design.