Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Daviso ownin' **** up in here
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Debate of God.
- Thread starter Daviso452
- Start date
godnotgod
Thou art That
Universe shows 'imprints' of events that took place BEFORE the Big Bang, say scientists
By NIALL FIRTH
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 30th November 2010
Scientists say they have discovered evidence that the universe existed before the Big Bang.
Concentric circles discovered in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the after-effects of the Big Bang – display evidence of events that took place before most scientists believe the universe came into being.
The controversial finding points to the existence of a universe that did not begin 13.7billion years ago, as is generally accepted, but is instead a cycle of so-called aeons.
A map of the cosmic background radiation (CMB) in the universe with circles which may signify events that took place before the Big Bang
The discovery has been posted online on the website arXiv.org by respected scientist Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University and Professor Vahe Gurzadyan from Yerevan State University, Armenia.
Most scientists believe the universe was created in the Big Bang around 13.7 billion years ago. Stars and galaxies started to form around 300 million years later. Our Sun was born around five billion years ago, while life first appeared on the Earth around 3.7 billion years ago.
The CMB dates back to 300,000 years after the Big Bang and has now cooled to around -270 degrees C.
But Penrose and Gurzadyan argue that evidence unearthed by Nasa’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotophy Probe in the CMB shows imprints in the radiation that are older than the Big Bang.
They say they have discovered 12 examples of concentric circles, some of which have five rings, meaning the same object has had five massive events in its history.
The rings appear around galaxy clusters in which the variation in the background radiation appears to be strangely low.
The research appears to cast aside the widely-held 'inflationary' theory of the origins of the universe, that it began with the Big Bang, and will continue to expand until a point in the future, when it will end.
They believe the circles are imprints of extremely violent gravitational radiation waves generated by supermassive black hole collisions in a previous aeon before the last big bang.
They say that this means that this means that the universe cycles through aeons dominated by big bangs and supermassive black hole collisions.
Professor Penrose believes that his new theory of ‘conformal cyclic cosmology' means that black holes will eventually consume all the matter in the universe.
According to his theory, when they have finished all that will be left in the universe will be energy, which will then trigger the next Big Bang - and the new aeon.
Professor Penrose told the BBC: 'In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future.
'I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon.'
Read more: Universe shows 'imprints' of events that took place BEFORE the Big Bang, say scientists | Mail Online
Buddhism and Hinduism have been saying that the universe is a cyclical 'on/off' affair all along. Rather than anything being 'created', it is merely being manifested, in pulses.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Cutting edge astrophysics now recognizes 'nothingness' as a very important 'something' from which the universe may have emerged.
See here:
[youtube]0ZiXC8Yh4T0[/youtube]
Lawrence Krauss: "A Universe From Nothing" - YouTube
Of course, the Buddhists and Hindus have been pointing to this for centuries!
The old definitions of matter and energy don't seem to apply any longer. We have particles behaving sometimes like matter; other times like energy. Besides, atoms are mostly empty space.
Perhaps in asserting that life is 'nothing but' matter and energy is all the limited rational mind will allow us to know about it.
Last edited:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Universe shows 'imprints' of events that took place BEFORE the Big Bang, say scientists
By NIALL FIRTH
Last updated at 12:40 AM on 30th November 2010
Scientists say they have discovered evidence that the universe existed before the Big Bang.
Concentric circles discovered in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) the after-effects of the Big Bang display evidence of events that took place before most scientists believe the universe came into being.
The controversial finding points to the existence of a universe that did not begin 13.7billion years ago, as is generally accepted, but is instead a cycle of so-called aeons.
A map of the cosmic background radiation (CMB) in the universe with circles which may signify events that took place before the Big Bang
The discovery has been posted online on the website arXiv.org by respected scientist Professor Roger Penrose from Oxford University and Professor Vahe Gurzadyan from Yerevan State University, Armenia.
Most scientists believe the universe was created in the Big Bang around 13.7 billion years ago. Stars and galaxies started to form around 300 million years later. Our Sun was born around five billion years ago, while life first appeared on the Earth around 3.7 billion years ago.
The CMB dates back to 300,000 years after the Big Bang and has now cooled to around -270 degrees C.
But Penrose and Gurzadyan argue that evidence unearthed by Nasas Wilkinson Microwave Anisotophy Probe in the CMB shows imprints in the radiation that are older than the Big Bang.
They say they have discovered 12 examples of concentric circles, some of which have five rings, meaning the same object has had five massive events in its history.
The rings appear around galaxy clusters in which the variation in the background radiation appears to be strangely low.
The research appears to cast aside the widely-held 'inflationary' theory of the origins of the universe, that it began with the Big Bang, and will continue to expand until a point in the future, when it will end.
They believe the circles are imprints of extremely violent gravitational radiation waves generated by supermassive black hole collisions in a previous aeon before the last big bang.
They say that this means that this means that the universe cycles through aeons dominated by big bangs and supermassive black hole collisions.
Professor Penrose believes that his new theory of conformal cyclic cosmology' means that black holes will eventually consume all the matter in the universe.
According to his theory, when they have finished all that will be left in the universe will be energy, which will then trigger the next Big Bang - and the new aeon.
Professor Penrose told the BBC: 'In the scheme that I'm proposing, you have an exponential expansion but it's not in our aeon - I use the term to describe [the period] from our Big Bang until the remote future.
'I claim that this aeon is one of a succession of such things, where the remote future of the previous aeons somehow becomes the Big Bang of our aeon.'
Read more: Universe shows 'imprints' of events that took place BEFORE the Big Bang, say scientists | Mail Online
Buddhism and Hinduism have been saying that the universe is a cyclical 'on/off' affair all along. Rather than anything being 'created', it is merely being manifested, in pulses.
This is a new model and the data is still pouring in. I can tell you that I know of a couple of people (William Lane Craig and physicist James Sinclair) that are already preparing refutations of this Penrose model. Second, this model doesn't answer the problem of the two arguments against actual infinities based on philosophy, which are INDEPEDENT of any empirical models. Third, Penrose already gave us the probability of our universe having this low entropy condition of 10:10(123) by random chance. This would mean that any universe prior to ours would also have to be fine tuned to a higher degree to produce a fine tuned universe like ours. There are many models out there, and this Penrose model, I predict, will be no different than the rest. Either it will be highly speculative or we will find out that after you remove the fluff and feathers, the model itself cannot be finite in the past and therefore require a beginning.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I took a very large dose of MDA in 1976 (actually I took the drug at least every other day for a few months, it was very new and very amazing). I was living in a hut in a place called Dobroyd Head in Sydney Harbour. After watching the stars fall into the harbour like rain I went into my hut and sat in meditation for about 12 hours.
During that time I experienced a particularly memorable vision. I was out-of-body and floating in space, accompanied by an angel (invisible, but intimately, palpably present).
There were objects which looked like a cross between flowers blooming, and drops of ink hitting water. Spherical.And somehow expanding and imploding simultaneously.
As many as there are stars in the sky.Very beautiful.
I asked my companion what they were. "Universes" was the answer.
I wonder what Ezekiel was on ?
Anyway, it was 'just' a vision. But then, I am 'merely' stardust dreaming.Ask any scientist. :rainbow1:
When we talk about quantum physics and subatomic particles, we are discussing our body.
When we talk about eternity, evolution and the 'laws of the universe', we are referring to our mind.
We are not living in reality. We are reality living.
Daviso452
Boy Genius
I'm not entirely sure to what you are referring. You cannot mean that literally; the human body has almost nothing to do with quantum physics. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that we are the observers?
Unless of course current explanations/hypotheses of consciousness being the result of quantum processes are correct.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
We are stardust.
Sometimes people talk about the universe as though it were something other than us, as though we are just passengers in it.
Are there no particles and quantum events comprising that body you call 'me' ?
The universe is thinking 'your' thoughts, the idea that you are a separate entity is a perceptual phenomenon which is sometimes referred to as an 'illusion'.
That's what I meant. I was just reminiscing about some of the ways I remembered myself.
:angel2:
Sometimes people talk about the universe as though it were something other than us, as though we are just passengers in it.
Are there no particles and quantum events comprising that body you call 'me' ?
The universe is thinking 'your' thoughts, the idea that you are a separate entity is a perceptual phenomenon which is sometimes referred to as an 'illusion'.
That's what I meant. I was just reminiscing about some of the ways I remembered myself.
:angel2:
godnotgod
Thou art That
Are we really all made of stardust?
We are all made of stardust. It sounds like a line from a poem, but there is some solid science behind this statement too: almost every element on Earth was formed at the heart of a star.
Next time you’re out gazing at stars twinkling in the night sky, spare a thought for the tumultuous reactions they play host to. It’s easy to forget that stars owe their light to the energy released by nuclear fusion reactions at their cores. These are the very same reactions which created chemical elements like carbon or iron - the building blocks which make up the world around us.
After the Big Bang, tiny particles bound together to form hydrogen and helium. As time went on, young stars formed when clouds of gas and dust gathered under the effect of gravity, heating up as they became denser. At the stars’ cores, bathed in temperatures of over 10 million degrees C, hydrogen and then helium nuclei fused to form heavier elements. A reaction known as nucleosynthesis.
This reaction continues in stars today as lighter elements are converted into heavier ones. Relatively young stars like our Sun convert hydrogen to produce helium, just like the first stars of our universe. Once they run out of hydrogen, they begin to transform helium into beryllium and carbon. As these heavier nuclei are produced, they too are burnt inside stars to synthesise heavier and heavier elements. Different sized stars play host to different fusion reactions, eventually forming everything from oxygen to iron.
During a supernova, when a massive star explodes at the end of its life, the resulting high energy environment enables the creation of some of the heaviest elements including iron and nickel. The explosion also disperses the different elements across the universe, scattering the stardust which now makes up planets including Earth.
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=52
Tas atvam asi
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
What? Have you not read my "reproduction" business? That is specificed complexity. Second, due to the fact that evolution could not have been a blind and randon process, that is an example of specified complexity. Our universe did not "become" complex, the low entropy conditions had to be an initial condition from the very beginning of it.
Everything we are made of us is about 14 billion years old which makes us all about the same age.
godnotgod
Thou art That
It is neither 'blind', nor 'not-blind'. That is to say, it is not purposeful.
"The wild geese do not intend to cast their shadows;
the still pond does not intend to reflect their images."
Daviso452
Boy Genius
I was going to ask a question, but your inability to accept that you cannot be 100% certain that it is impossible unless you had the knowledge of God is just sad. You have made claims with reasons but not evidence. You have given plenty of reasons why it cannot be complex without intelligence, but have provided no evidence as to how you know.
Just give us the evidence. And no, observation isn't evidence. Observation leads to evidence.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Cmon now Davis. I said that reproduction would be impossible on a evolutionary view, because if males evolved faster than females, or vice versa, there would BE no reproduction at all. How could there be reproduction when it will take the females reproduction system 5 million (just throwing a number out there) to evovle enough to be compatible with the males (or vice versa). There IS no evolutionary answer for this whatsoever. So since we can cast aside that theory, the best explanation is, the male and the females systems had to have been "placed in" at the same time, or around the same time. The creation account is the best explanation for this. God created man first, and a day or so later created the female. On this theory, there is no thousand, no million, or no billion gap in between the male and the female. There is no way around this, and if there is a way around it, i would love for you to lay it out for me. Also, as I said before, this problem is not just for humans, but for ALL LIVING AND BREATHING ORGANSMS THAT REPRODUCE WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX. You have to provide an answer for them as well, because the same thing applies.
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
godnotgod
Thou art That
Well, actually, it is neither purposeful, nor purposeless, since it is non-dual.
Where do you see 'purpose'?
1st observer: 'the flag is moving'
2nd observer: 'the wind is moving'
3rd observer: 'both flag and wind are moving'
passerby: 'your minds are moving!'
godnotgod
Thou art That
The universe everywhere is in vibration. It is cosmic dance, everywhere you look. The universe is the dance of Absolute Joy. Gender and duality makes that possible. You don't need a creator-God for an intelligent universe to manifest itself in dance. Such a God would just be in the way. No. The universe IS the Absolute itself, in cosmic dance.
'From the One, came the Two;
From the Two, came the Three;
And from the Three came the Ten Thousand Things'
Tao te Ching
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Nice philosophical viewpoint, but can you provide any empirical evidence to support any of this?