Edge of the Universe

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Yeah this is why in every single book in the bible the resurrection story has NO consistency at all. In every book the number of witnesses to seeing jesus changes. In some of the books, Jesus was not actually seen but instead the witnesses were told by angels that Jesus resurrected.

If it is a historical document by many different people through the hand of god, wouldn't the observer who knows for certain of such events get it right through all the books? But it doesn't.

Alan once again you are being dishonest and spreading falsehood. The bible was indeed written by multiple people, through out multiple time periods. But them all saying the same thing, is a lie.

Can anyone really improve on "Let there be light" a much better phrase than the silly Big Bang

There was no big bang , no explosion , the primordial universe just emerged from.............................?

God is as good as any option I can think about!

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Can anyone really improve on "Let there be light" a much better phrase than the silly Big Bang

There was no big bang , no explosion , the primordial universe just emerged from.............................?

God is as good as any option I can think about!

The light came later on, after the begining Alan.For someone who aint relgious you are giving a good impression. Smile

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

Can anyone really improve on "Let there be light"

Well just about anyone could, but it's just a matter of opinion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Well just about anyone could, but it's just a matter of opinion.

Improve on it then please I am waiting with bated breath? Smile

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

It's a pity the bible does not have a chapter explaining it all in detail. Something on quantum mechanics would have been handy.

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

Improve on it then please I am waiting with bated breath?

How about examine before acceptance.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

How about examine before acceptance.

Prove your case don't just make silly statements!!

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

Prove your case don't just make silly statements!!

What is this a joke? You got to be kidding me...

You draw parallels claiming the laws of the universe are some kind of intelligence and you want ME to provide evidence? That is a HUGE joke...

Because things follow the nature order of things does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. Just because water on earth doesn't go floating off in different directions doesn't make the water smart, the ground smart, or the air smart nor a being making it all happen.

You tell me there is a being behind it all pulling the strings, making it happen, it falls upon you to provide that evidence, not for me to disprove it.

Drawing parallels does nothing because I can do the same. Absence of evidence IS evidence... not good enough is it?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

What is this a joke? You got to be kidding me...

You draw parallels claiming the laws of the universe are some kind of intelligence and you want ME to provide evidence? That is a HUGE joke...

Because things follow the nature order of things does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. Just because water on earth doesn't go floating off in different directions doesn't make the water smart, the ground smart, or the air smart nor a being making it all happen.

You tell me there is a being behind it all pulling the strings, making it happen, it falls upon you to provide that evidence, not for me to disprove it.

Drawing parallels does nothing because I can do the same. Absence of evidence IS evidence... not good enough is it?

There "IS NO LACK OF EVIDENCE" this fact has been proved over and over again, even in the great atom smashers like the CERN Large Hadron Collider

Please EXPLAIN TO ME AND ALL THOSE READING WHY THIS IS NONSENSE

When you make such a huge statement , you must back up your statements with hards facts or acknowledge your lack of understanding in the field of physics

You simply don't get it the the fundamental laws of the universe are mathematically and empirically proved facts of science

Now you veer of at a tangent and bring some nonsensical intelligent into the debate

You said that gravity effecting time was nonsense and I both gave you proof and how that fact of science was proven

I will try again in desperation to explain in as simple as easy way for you to understand

An atomic clock moves slower on an airplane than its stationary atomic clock on the earth counterpart. These two clocks were both synchronized with unimaginably preciseness, The clock on the plane was left on it through countless journeys.

After scientifically reading these two unimaginably accurate atomic clocks it was noted and found that the clock on the airplane, that was subject to lesser gravity, ran infinitesimally faster than the stationary clock on the ground

Time thus moves slower in greater gravity than in a lower force of gravity, relative to one another. This is proof that Einsteins Theory of General Relativity was absolutely correct.

You just need to extrapolate that up into the unimaginable gravity of a neutron star, black hole where time almost stops, relative to the outside universe

I could have written this verbatim from a book on astrophysics or given you one of the countless Internet sources that back up my statement as the truth of the matter

But that would not work with you, sadly you will tell me they are just websites, or the books are untrustworthy , so I tried by very best to explain it in my own words

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

I am not religious, this is just a presumption you pulled out of your hat. My statements were all scientific
A theist like me can be absolutely anti- religion you know

My impression was that you were defending this other fantasy of the bible providing the whole truth.
I apologize that i apparently have been just assuming something.
However i am still a bit confused.
You say you are a theist, however nonreligious. This is probably an understanding of the word theist that needs its own explanation.
No need to explain it here maybe, actually i think i do have an idea of how this could possibly go together.
Do i really?
The more i look at it, it seems that you DO support the idea of the bible providing ultimate truth.
I am a person who prefers when people do not force you into categories.
For example i remember having used terms created by Karl Marx in a discussion and i really find it annoying when this is used for calling you a Marxist.
Calling yourself a theist but at the same time claiming that you are not relegious is a little bit hard to understand, however i am open minded enough to more or less accept it. My guess would be that you can see your theism based on clearly scientific facts.
However in this case i would expect your theism to be based on scientific writings only.
If you refer to the bible as a source of historical or scientifical facts, you fulfill all criteria of a person whose ideas are based on christian belief.
How can you call yourself nonreligious then?
Being a christian and at the same time believing in scientific theories doesn't make you nonreligous.
There is a whole lot of scientists who consider themselves being christians, and who try to prove scientifically that the bible is ultimately true.
This does not make them nonreligious.
Coming up with scientific ideas to prove the truth of the bible doesn't make the bible a scientific book.
Really it seems to me that you have confused a couple of things.
I might however not have realized the whole concept that you refer to.
Would you mind helping me out of this confusion?

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

After scientifically reading these two unimaginably accurate atomic clocks it was noted and found that the clock on the airplane, that was subject to lesser gravity, ran infinitesimally faster than the stationary clock on the ground

Gravity does not change with altitude.

If altitude effected gravity then 9.8m/s^2 would have to account for altitude. It does not, why? because altitude does not effect gravitational pull.

It is speed...

EDIT:

You made me do it again,

It is velocity...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Gravity does not change with altitude.

If altitude effected gravity then 9.8m/s^2 would have to account for altitude. It does not, why? because altitude does not effect gravitational pull.

It is velocity...

The approximation that the gravitational force (and so acceleration due to that force) only holds for as long as the surface of the Earth can be approximated as an infinite plane. For altitudes where this approximation is not good, gravity is observably a function of altitude.

As it happens, even close to the surface this acceleration varies across the planet. 9.8 m/s^2 is itself not highly accurate.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell;64062 wrote:

It's a pity the bible does not have a chapter explaining it all in detail. Something on quantum mechanics would have been handy.

There is. It's called the Zohar.

Among other concepts, it describes a unified field which divided to form a field of potential existence and a field of real existence. It describes the components of the later, and how energy becomes mass, matter, space and time. It further describes the effect of one field on the other. These effects form the "edge of the Universe", in effect the transition of one field to the other.

The edge of the Universe is the fluctuation between a unified field of potential and the physical reality which emerges from it. Where is that? it surrounds every particle.

1 Reply

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen, could you quote this for me. I am curious as to exactly what pieces of text you feel represent quantum mechanics, and why.

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Krumps and further to BO'S splendid reply, if something is lifted from the surface of the earth to a place where the earth's gravity is nill (an impossibly far place) then the object is given a nudge towards earth then the object will eventually hit the surface at about 25,000 mph plus the nudge. This of course is without any other gravitational influence. This is the earth's terminal velocity and it is because when an object is dropped the work done lifting the object is released exactly at impact.
I think you are getting a bit confused with the earth's escape velocity, which is about 25,000 mph on a lift from the surface but could be very low (1 mph say) if the object is far enough away.

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

Okay let me explain this in a better way.

The posed theory that I am rejecting is stating that altitude effects time. I say this can not be the case and here is why.

Let's say you construct a very tall tower. Lets say 40 miles tall which is just shy of what NASA considers you being an astronaut. At the top of the tower is your house where you live out your daily life. Now lets assume you need to be delivered your goods from the surface to your house on top of the tower. The delivery comes once a week.

Now according to the theory that altitude effects time I'll show you it can't be the case.

According to the theory, time would run slower inside this house on top of the tower as opposed to the surface.

So here is the time line of the tower relative to the ground.

|-----------------------------------| tower time line

Monday...................................Tuesday

|--------------------|--------------------| ground time line

Monday..............Tuesday.................Wednesday

This shows that the delivery of goods would not come once a week for you living in the tower. The person on the surface would show up too early.

If you run the math, over a given amount of time the history of the tower house would fall incredibly long behind the history of the surface. Therefore if this theory were true, things in the air would be much younger than things on the ground.

So if you spent a year in your tower house, you would be far behind the time on the ground. This does not happen...

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;64958 wrote:

Doorsopen, could you quote this for me. I am curious as to exactly what pieces of text you feel represent quantum mechanics, and why.

The quotes below are from a 19th century translation of a 13th century text called Zohar: The Zohar is a commentary on the Torah (the five books of Moses), written in medieval Aramaic. I do not care to justify, or debate the personal reasons for my belief in these texts, which are for the most part not fodder for the science mill of this particular thread, in any event you should find that these texts justify principles of quantum mechanics in and of themselves. These extracts are just a very brief example of the subject in question. The full text is available on Internet Sacred Text Archive Home for anyone who cares to study further the concealed knowledge contained in the Hebrew.

"The era of creation or manifestation had at last arrived. The nekuda reshima, primal point or nucleus, appeared. From it emanated and expanded the primary substance, the illimitable phosphorescent ether, of the nature of light, formless, colorless, being neither black nor green nor red. In it, latent yet potentially as in a mighty womb, lay the myriad prototypes and numberless forms of all created things as yet indiscernible, indistinguishable. By the secret and silent action of the divine will, from this primal luminous point radiated forth the vital life-giving spark which, pervading and operating in the great, enteric ocean of forms, became the soul of the universe, the fount and origin of all mundane life and motion and terrestrial existence, and in its nature and essence and secret operation remains ineffable, incomprehensible and indefinable. It has been conceived of as the divine Logos, the Word, and called Brashith, for the same was in the beginning with God.

(All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life became the light of man.)"

"The word zohar (brightness) designates that nekuda reshima, the central ray or point of light which was the primal manifestation of the Divine, En Soph. From it proceeded vibrations which made luminous the illimitable ether, from which was formed the universe that became the glorious temple or palace of the great Unknown. It was in a manner the holy seed or germ that gave origin and birth to the world, and is occultly referred to in the words: "The holy seed shall be the substance thereof." (Is. vi. 13.)

"When the primal vibration of the divine word took place it produced and impressed a wavelike motion throughout the boundless ether ..."

These descriptions would have been considered heresy in the 13th century, and indeed, in many religious circles, would still be heresy.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

If you run the math, over a given amount of time the history of the tower house would fall incredibly long behind the history of the surface. Therefore if this theory were true, things in the air would be much younger than things on the ground.

So if you spent a year in your tower house, you would be far behind the time on the ground. This does not happen...

If you spent a year in your tower house, you would fall behind the surface time by a very precise amount depending on the height of the tower house. The exact amount is given by some very difficult non-linear differential equations that I don't know, but I do know it wouldn't be by 'far'. We're talking less than microseconds (time dilation of an aeroplane) let alone seconds (time dilation of a space station). The Earth is a comparatively low-gravity celestial body.

---------- Post added at 05:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 AM ----------

Doorsopen wrote:

The quotes below are from a 19th century translation of a 13th century text called Zohar: ...

"When the primal vibration of the divine word took place it produced and impressed a wavelike motion throughout the boundless ether ..."

Isn't it remarkable that a text translated in the 19th century, when the luminous ether was proposed as a medium for light wave propagation, happened to mention an ether in which waves propagated?

Either physicists got their ideas from a very obscure, previously untranslated text, or it was translated into the parlance of our times with no mean creativity.

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

If you spent a year in your tower house, you would fall behind the surface time by a very precise amount depending on the height of the tower house. The exact amount is given by some very difficult non-linear differential equations that I don't know, but I do know it wouldn't be by 'far'. We're talking less than microseconds (time dilation of an aeroplane) let alone seconds (time dilation of a space station). The Earth is a comparatively low-gravity celestial body.

Yes, but why does everyone keep ignoring the fact that time adds upon itself? Microseconds would go on to become seconds, then minutes, then hours then days, so on and so forth.

You can't write it off and say well it'll only be a few microseconds behind. If it's slower then it is consistently slower.

-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|-|

---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

lets assume that a dash is a microsecond. and the vertical line is just a way to determine when the microsecond begins and ends. Look at this simple depiction.

In the first instance you have a total of 20 micro seconds.

In the second instance you have a total of 10 micro seconds.

This is a constant for altitude right? So as you continue with time the micro seconds would add upon themselves accordingly. This is what people neglect with the math.

You can't just write it off and ignore the math. Slower time means it constantly falls behind faster time.

It's not exponential but it is linear addition.

EDIT:

The funny thing here is that I had to argue both sides of the issue. In this current addition it was the prove that time must be added upon itself if it were to be slower. It does not matter how much slower time is, it would have to consistently be slower to be considered slower.

The whole point I was really making is that it doesn't happen. I am not saying mass does not effect time. I am saying altitude does not effect time. I am also making the argument that velocity is what effects time not because of the gravitational pull. You might say I am contradicting myself by saying mass effects time but gravity doesn't.

Well gravity isn't necessarily a force to begin with. It could just be the result of the bent space/time.

So if space and time are connected then mass bending that space would thus also bend time. Bending of time means it changes. So therefore mass effects time. However; gravity does not effect time nor does altitude. I know that there is a drop off in the gravitational "force" with the distance from mass. That might sound like another contradiction but it's not. To me it makes sense that the further away you get from the mass the less distorted or bent the space/time would be. There would be a point where the force would be completely null.

On a side note, at the subatomic level gravity is completely tossed out the window. The force becomes almost completely zero it doesn't influence the math. But I guess that's a whole new topic?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

You have got me totally confused now dam it.Gravity is the result of mass, i was told, so how is it not related when comparing its effect on time.Or are you saying gravity and time fluctuation are both a result of mass.Like you would not be able to say that time affects gravity?:perplexed:

1 Reply

Edge of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know