The big bang, something from nothing?

[Thief]

Good point, and something I've been thinking about a lot lately...

If the effects of these multiverses on our current state of being don't amount to much, then what does it really matter? In that same vein, however, I guess it would be possible to assume that the homeostatic relationship of all of the current multiverses would be required for the continued existence of each other. The foundation of our primary laws may be hinged upon the coexistence of these seemingly disconnected planes.

if more than one reality.....
more than one god

so.....the Almighty is a term He cannot hold true for Himself?

 

[MonkeyFire]

It sounds like you are saying that God is an immoral monster.

It sounds like you like your suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sounds like you like your suffering.

Not at all. You are the one that said God is immoral, not me. Why would you believe in an immoral God? Worse yet why would you worship an immoral God?

 

[The Anointed]

There are many subtleties here. First, the law of conservation of energy, properly stated, says that the total amount of energy at one time is the same as the total amount of energy at any other time.

A problem arises if time itself has a beginning (which it does in general relativity--more about this later). In that case, the law only applies *after* the beginning of time. But the beginning of the universe and the beginning of time are the same, so you can't say anything about the energy of the universe at its beginning.

Another subtlety: in general relativity, the energy of a particle is one component o the energy-momentum vector. But, because of spacetime curvature (i.e, gravity), it turns out that computing the 'total energy' is an ambiguous operation. In essence, you need to translate the energy-momentum vector to one point to add things up, but the curvature *ensures* that the answer will depend on the path used to do the translation.

The only way to avoid this issue is to take into account curvature as one part of the total energy. But if you do that, then the total energy is always zero. In essence, the energy of curvature (i.e, gravity) is negative and cancels that of matter. That means there is no issue from energy conservation for the formation of the universe.

Now, when we add in quantum mechanics to this mix, a number of things happen. The most important is that very fast violations of energy conservation *are* allowed. The effect has even been measured. In the context of cosmology, there are two big changes: the first is that singularities tend to be 'smoothed out', allowing time to be infinite into the past, and the second is that those small, allowed violations can expand and form situations like our early universe. Again, no overall violation of energy conservation is produced.

In quantum mechanics, an atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus. The term atomic orbital may also refer to the physical region or space where the electron can be calculated to be present, as defined by the particular mathematical form of the orbital. Each orbita

Can you calculate how long it takes an electron to do one orbit of an hydrogen atom?

In physics, mass–energy equivalence states that anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa, with these fundamental quantities directly relating to one another by Albert Einstein's famous formula: E = m c 2 {\textstyle E=mc^{2}} This formula states that the equivalent energy can be calculated as the mass multiplied by the speed of light c = about 7008300000000000000♠3×108 m/s squared. Similarly, anything having energy exhibits a corresponding mass m given by..

Astronomers from Keio University, Japan, have observed what looks like the largest intermediate-mass black hole within the Milky Way galaxy The object is estimated to weigh 100,000 times the mass of the Sun and is located near the center of the galaxy.

Does the energy within the Black Hole of our Milky Way galaxy equal 100,000 times the energy of our solar systems sun?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Not at all. You are the one that said God is immoral, not me. Why would you believe in an immoral God? Worse yet why would you worship an immoral God?

So you hate God but Nature is just fine and dandy? Do you hate or doubt LOVE aswell? Do you believe in violence?
In my religion

Invincibility is the moral nihilistic angelic-demon who caused suffering in nature, the devils ace in the hole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you hate God but Nature is just fine and dandy? Do you hate or doubt LOVE aswell? Do you believe in violence? Invincibility is the moral nihilistic angelic-demon who caused suffering in nature.

What makes you think I hate God? You are rather mistaken about that. And why did you dodge my questions. That is indicative of guilt on your part.

Your questions are rather nonsensical based upon a strawman argument.

Why would you worship an evil God?

 

[MonkeyFire]

What makes you think I hate God? You are rather mistaken about that. And why did you dodge my questions. That is indicative of guilt on your part.

Your questions are rather nonsensical based upon a strawman argument.

Why would you worship an evil God?

It's not his fault you love violence, the thing that is bad for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not his fault you love violence, the thing that is bad for you.

I don't love violence. You said your god was evil. Why would you worship such a god? Perhaps you love violence.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I don't love violence. You said your god was evil. Why would you worship such a god? Perhaps you love violence.

Your putting words in my mouth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your putting words in my mouth.

Nope, I am honestly interpreting your words. Do you need me to quote where you said that your version of God is evil? I can explain your error to you.

 

[Polymath257]

In quantum mechanics, an atomic orbital is a mathematical function that describes the wave-like behavior of either one electron or a pair of electrons in an atom. This function can be used to calculate the probability of finding any electron of an atom in any specific region around the atom's nucleus. The term atomic orbital may also refer to the physical region or space where the electron can be calculated to be present, as defined by the particular mathematical form of the orbital. Each orbita

Can you calculate how long it takes an electron to do one orbit of an hydrogen atom?

Before I state anything else, this site requires you to give references when you quote material from off site. The paragraph you quoted was from Wikipedia.

In answer to your question: the question of how long it takes an electron to orbit an atom is meaningless. Electrons do NOT orbit in the sense that planets orbit the sun. That is why there is a distinction made by the words 'orbit' and 'orbitals'. Electrons have orbitals, which describe probabilities, not paths.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence states that anything having mass has an equivalent amount of energy and vice versa, with these fundamental quantities directly relating to one another by Albert Einstein's famous formula: E = m c 2 {\textstyle E=mc^{2}} This formula states that the equivalent energy can be calculated as the mass multiplied by the speed of light c = about 7008300000000000000♠3×108 m/s squared. Similarly, anything having energy exhibits a corresponding mass m given by..

Astronomers from Keio University, Japan, have observed what looks like the largest intermediate-mass black hole within the Milky Way galaxy The object is estimated to weigh 100,000 times the mass of the Sun and is located near the center of the galaxy.

Does the energy within the Black Hole of our Milky Way galaxy equal 100,000 times the energy of our solar systems sun?

Read the material you quoted: the *mass* of the black hole is 100,000 times the *mass* of the sun. Now, the vast majority of the *energy* in both cases is in the mass, and the vast majority of the mass of the solar system is in the sun. So the best answer to your question is yes,

But this is NOT the Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way. This is an *intermediate* sized Black Hole. The one at the center of the Mily Way is larger: about 4 million times the mass of the sun.

 

[ecco]

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant—it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside. The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same.

Yes. What's your point?

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become.

I don't believe "this material universe and has developed a mind". That's a silly notion.

God is the sum total of all that exists.

As I said, one would have to have a lot of faith in the ancient Jews to believe that.

 

[ecco]

I'm not buying it

You're also not addressing my question.

You wrote...

Someone had to be....First

I asked...

If someone...then how did "the First" come to be?

 

[Thief]

You're also not addressing my question.

You wrote...

I asked...

yes of course....the ultimate mystery

and as I usually post.......we get to ask Him when we get there

I realize the looks like a quick knee jerk escape

but I have considered at length.....
how indeed, does the First realize His own Being?

and THEN gain the ability to speak of it?!!!!!
as in.....I AM!

but reason should prevail
Someone had to be FIrst

 

[ecco]

Ridicule can be a strong basis for maintaining an appearance of superiority.

Is the above comment in reference to your...

In fact this has made me aware of a new understanding of Gods comically working with Adam to find his "helper". The effort that the authors of Genesis went through to steer clear of directly validating the power of nature and the goddess to reduce Eve to an optional sidekick is hilarious. I think, however, that the authors of Genesis were aware of this humor.

...or to my...

I doubt the Men telling the creation stories that ended up being written down in the Tora/OT were trying to inject humor into the situation. Making Women secondary and subservient to Men was part of the culture.

 

[jonathan180iq]

if more than one reality.....
more than one god

so.....the Almighty is a term He cannot hold true for Himself?

Yeah... It should be expected that ancient mythological explanations would fail to keep up as knowledge progresses.

 

[ecco]

yes of course....the ultimate mystery

Someone had to be FIrst

and as I usually post.......we get to ask Him when we get there

Well, that's at least an honest answer.

 

[viole]

numbers.....you believe in numbers, don't you?

and the odds that no one survives the last breath would be what......?
none at all?

Well, it would not be the last otherwise. Unless lungs are redundant when it comes to survive.

7billion+ possibilities and not one chance?
none

Many things are possible. That does not entail that they can possibly occur. For instance, it is logically possible that a human embryo develops wings that allow the born child to fly.

Are you aware of any instance of that among the 7billions and change?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

Is the above comment in reference to your...

...or to my...

To both...

Re-reading my comment, I should clarify that I think the authors of Genesis meant humor, in fact, they even have Sarah laugh at one point. From my own perspective I recognize the humor but I also regret the attitude to exclude valid spiritual and mythic context. The Bible's mysogeny is perhaps its greatest flaw.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Nope, I am honestly interpreting your words. Do you need me to quote where you said that your version of God is evil? I can explain your error to you.

Go ahead but im sure your wrong.