The Big Bang as evidence for God

[Subhankar Zac]

Hiranyagarbha (Golden Embryo)- point of singularity.
Higgs field- Purusha.
Energy interacting with the Higgs to make matter- Prakriti and Purusha mingling together to create the entire cosmos.
So, though not a full picture, yet similar ideas do occur throughout.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hiranyagarbha (Golden Embryo)- point of singularity.
Higgs field- Purusha.
Energy interacting with the Higgs to make matter- Prakriti and Purusha mingling together to create the entire cosmos.
So, though not a full picture, yet similar ideas do occur throughout.

So matter is made of energy?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

So matter is made of energy?

Energy when reacts with the Purusha, it turns into matter (though not entirely) in turn creating the cosmos.
Everything in the cosmos is energy

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy when reacts with the Purusha, it turns into matter (though not entirely) in turn creating the cosmos.
Everything in the cosmos is energy

What is Purusha constituted of...what is the Higg's Field constituted of...energy I take it?

I am intuitively inclined to go with the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter .... http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+W...d+the+origin+of+the+Natural+Laws.-a0191393601

 

[Subhankar Zac]

What is Purusha constituted of...what is the Higg's Field constituted of...energy I take it?

Purusha is the universal consciousness. Prakriti is the energy that interacts with it making the universe.
Though not stated of course, but the Purusha is similar to the Higgs field.
Purusha is unchanging and Prakriti or energy is dynamic that evolves with time.
These forces are believed to be independent or dependant or part of a higher consciousness called Bhagwan, Paramatma (Lord Krishna) depending on religion or school of thought.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Purusha is the universal consciousness. Prakriti is the energy that interacts with it making the universe.
Though not stated of course, but the Purusha is similar to the Higgs field.
Purusha is unchanging and Prakriti or energy is dynamic that evolves with time.
These forces are believed to be independent or dependant or part of a higher consciousness called Bhagwan, Paramatma (Lord Krishna) depending on religion or school of thought.

Thank you..btw, I edited my post with the WSM reference about the same time you posted...

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Thank you..btw, I edited my post with the WSM reference about the same time you posted...

Well, I don't know much about physics. Was a tough subject for me in school, but now gradually, I m trying understand all aspects of the cosmos, bit by bit.
Though I find similarities in Hindu beliefs as well, though not explicitly

 

[viole]

You didn't answer my question and then further impose positions I don't assume.

Let's go back to the basics. You throw a clock into a black hole, why would you see it slow down but never stop? I am not married to the idea that the clock has to stop, it's just what the theory alludes to. Obviously I've never seen this clock approaching a black hole.

Time on the surface of earth runs "slower" when observed from someone in outer space. This is the reason why GPS satellites must keep this "delay" in consideration. This is orthodox general relativity. On the event horizon of a black hole time "stops", when observed from someone outside of it. But not for the clock, which will go through the event horizon as nothing happened. And that is why we see the clock slowing down (together with its motion towards the horizon) without ever reaching it. This is also canonical relativity.

So I do not see how your question intends to falsify relativity since they are direct consequences thereof.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

You didn't answer my question and then further impose positions I don't assume.

Let's go back to the basics. You throw a clock into a black hole, why would you see it slow down but never stop? I am not married to the idea that the clock has to stop, it's just what the theory alludes to. Obviously I've never seen this clock approaching a black hole.

Try this on for size: Photons don't age, but they do die. That is a paradox. If photons don't experience time (because they are moving at the speed of light) how can they vanish? Yet if a photon is absorbed on a surface, that's exactly what happens.

The paradox arises because in saying a photon doesn't experience time, we are not following the rules of Einstein's relativity. He discovered that to make sense, the allowed inertial frames in the theory must always move at less than the speed of light. Lightspeed inertial frames are explicitly not allowed. So there is no inertial frame that serves as the proper frame for light.

Physicists sometimes cheat, particularly to say something that will confound and amaze the non-physicist, so we sometimes say "time comes to a halt for a photon." The only sense that really makes is in the limit; if a photon has very tiny rest mass, so far unobserved but real, then its time almost comes to a halt. The problem with the limit is that it doesn't exist.
(thanks to Richard Muller, UC Berkeley Physics)

 

[idav]

Time on the surface of earth runs "slower" when observed from someone in outer space. This is the reason why GPS satellites must keep this "delay" in consideration. This is orthodox general relativity. On the event horizon of a black hole time "stops", when observed from someone outside of it. But not for the clock, which will go through the event horizon as nothing happened. And that is why we see the clock slowing down (together with its motion towards the horizon) without ever reaching it. This is also canonical relativity.

So I do not see how your question intends to falsify relativity since they are direct consequences thereof.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah that makes sense but the time delay does happen. So if the clock again meets observer the observer would be an old person while the clock barely moved in time. Perhaps there isn't a point the clock isn't doing something but has little to do with the mass affect. As the clock approaches the horizon point each second becomes more and more years. There would be a point that it breaks free of spacetime with enough mass, even if it kept doing stuff.

 

[idav]

Try this on for size: Photons don't age, but they do die. That is a paradox. If photons don't experience time (because they are moving at the speed of light) how can they vanish? Yet if a photon is absorbed on a surface, that's exactly what happens.

The paradox arises because in saying a photon doesn't experience time, we are not following the rules of Einstein's relativity. He discovered that to make sense, the allowed inertial frames in the theory must always move at less than the speed of light. Lightspeed inertial frames are explicitly not allowed. So there is no inertial frame that serves as the proper frame for light.

Physicists sometimes cheat, particularly to say something that will confound and amaze the non-physicist, so we sometimes say "time comes to a halt for a photon." The only sense that really makes is in the limit; if a photon has very tiny rest mass, so far unobserved but real, then its time almost comes to a halt. The problem with the limit is that it doesn't exist.
(thanks to Richard Muller, UC Berkeley Physics)

That's interesting, I always heard achieiving the speed of light isn't even possible but there photons go.

 

[Sapiens]

That's interesting, I always heard achieiving the speed of light isn't even possible but there photons go.

Hey, it's the speed of LIGHT. What is LIGHT? Photons!

 

[idav]

Hey, it's the speed of LIGHT. What is LIGHT? Photons!

And what are these timey wimey packets of wibbly wobbliness, really?

 

[Magical Wand]

I’ve often found here and elsewhere that the big bang theory is somehow evidence of a creator. To be fair, many scientists (including Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” derisively) objected to the idea that the universe ever “began” for precisely this reason (or at least something similar). The origins of the infamous cosmological constant began with Einstein’s attempt to make the universe static rather than having originated.

So let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe isn’t eternal (as basically all physics suggests). Here’s a problem with the “then necessarily god created it” argument that is based upon the idea of a “first cause” or the idea that there are no uncaused events or that everything must have a cause and so on: In all of these arguments, it is assumed that cause is some (rather simplistic, naïve) “linear” processes whereby we can assert that causes MUST precede effects.

With this EXTREMELY minimal causal assumption (causes precede effects) we cannot say anything about the “cause” of the universe. The SAME PHYSICS which suggest the universe is not eternal but originated with the big bang suggests that time’s origins are the same: the big bang. The point is this:

If causes precede effect, then there is no time in which ANYTHING could have PRECEDED the big bang, because there was no TIME for such a process to “happen”. In short, no “cause” can precede an “effect” when there is no “time” for it to precede in.

So whatever evidence the big bang may be for “god” or deism or whatever, it can’t be based on arguments from causality.

That's not a problem for apologists who postulate God causes the universe simultaneously with the effect (i.e., with time beginning to exist). You may argue simultaneous causation is prohibited by GR, but God is postulated to transcend the laws of physics. So, as long as the metaphysical possibility exists (and given that the necessity of causation is self-evident to us, according to apologists), we should still posit a first cause.