7
   

Big Bang or a Stretch of God's Imagination?

 
 
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Nov, 2011 10:26 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
My theory begins with the universe being dense and hot, cooling as it evolved into existence, as apposed to expanding.

How do you explain the observations that show the universe to be expanding?

Quote:
The pushing of the dark energy against the energy within the atoms of matter would explain why the galaxies are moving away from each other.

This doesn't explain the movements of galaxies away from each other unless they were created closer to each other. That doesn't seem to be part of your theory.

The dark energy, stretched across the infinite depth of darkness, pushing against the confined neutral and positive energy which creates matter, trying to take up the same space at the same time. Which we know is imposable, pushes the galaxies apart.
The two small points of neutral/positive energy in the nucleus spins together trying to take up the same space at the same time.
Any energy released into the darkness, such as a photon, goes to infinite mass at the speed of light as it is absorbed by the darkness.
When light energy is observed, it's motion is stopped, then it appears as a particle.
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 08:38 pm
@parados,
Quote:
This doesn't explain the movements of galaxies away from each other unless they were created closer to each other. That doesn't seem to be part of your theory.
My point is, yes the galaxies are farther apart than they were when they began forming, and are still moving away from each other at an increasing rate of speed, but that doesn't necessarily mean the universe began from a miniscule point with a big bang.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 11:27 pm
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
The dark energy, stretched across the infinite depth of darkness, pushing against the confined neutral and positive energy which creates matter, trying to take up the same space at the same time. Which we know is imposable, pushes the galaxies apart.

If it is impossible for dark matter and matter to occupy the same space, then that would mean they don't presently do so. Since they don't occupy the same space why would they cause the universe to expand? Are you saying that dark energy is expanding thus forcing matter to move outward? What evidence do you have?
0 Replies
 
Miss L Toad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2011 11:38 pm
@voiceindarkness,
Show me the math.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 12:45 am
@voiceindarkness,
In the beginning, there was nothing.

But that’s not true either. There was one ‘thing’ -- a pinpoint of concentrated energy. It had ‘always’ been, but the word ‘always’ is also meaningless in the absence of time. (The concept of eternity is every bit as difficult for the mind to grasp as the concept of nothing.) Then -- for lack of a better word -- it ‘decided’ to become ‘something.’ And, thus, the Big Bang, which is not an event that occurred some billions of earth-years ago but is happening right now.

Now there was motion, therefore there was also space (there can be no motion of anything outside of a space to move in) and time began. But our concept of ‘time’ is also a slippery eel of a notion. We speak of ‘years’ as though this was a meaningful measure in general. It is meaningful only on this planet. We speak of ‘years’ when what we mean is ‘earth years.’ A year on Jupiter, say, or on Venus is something entirely different than an earth year. It is as meaningless to speak of ‘years’ when considering the ‘age’ of the universe as it is to speak of ‘days’ when taking the Biblical view of the so-called Creation.

In the final analysis, nothing was ‘created.’ It always was. It always will be. It simply changed form.

Spinoza probably said it best when he defined God as a causa sui whose very essence involves existence and whose nature cannot be conceived unless existing. For Spinoza, God simply is in much the same way that ‘nothing’ is not.

Poor Baruch Spinoza. He was formally cursed and exiled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam where he had come of age. He was, after all, a heretic. Later on he was in difficulties with the Church and most of his writings were not published during his own lifetime. He was accused of being an atheist although he never claimed to be one. Theologically Spinoza was a few centuries ahead of his time. He uses the words ‘God’ and ‘Nature’ virtually interchangeably. For Spinoza, there can be no Creator which is separate from his creation. God (or Nature, if you will) is self-creating and eternal. Causa sui, a cause of itself.

This almost echoes the Islamic dictum that God ‘does not beget and is not begotten.’ (Which, of course, makes nonsense of the notion that God somehow got Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, pregnant! But that’s beyond the scope of this discussion.)

Time is an extremely subjective yardstick.

God created the world in six days. That can be an absolutely true statement, depending on your definitions of ‘God’ and of ‘day.’ (I doubt, however, that this deity ‘rested’ on the seventh day. A cosmic force needs no rest and, as I already pointed out, the work is continuing. All is motion, all is flux.)







farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 06:10 am
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
Any energy released into the darkness, such as a photon, goes to infinite mass at the speed of light as it is absorbed by the darkness.
When light energy is observed, it's motion is stopped, then it appears as a particle.


Work in laboratories using slits and polarizers has demonstrated that this statement is "cartoon physics"
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 10:11 am
@voiceindarkness,
voiceindarkness wrote:
Any energy released into the darkness, such as a photon, goes to infinite mass at the speed of light as it is absorbed by the darkness.

No, light doesn't "go to" infinite mass. Light has zero mass which is exactly why it moves at the speed of light. If something had infinite mass it would collapse the universe.
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 10:55 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

voiceindarkness wrote:
Any energy released into the darkness, such as a photon, goes to infinite mass at the speed of light as it is absorbed by the darkness.

Quote:
No, light doesn't "go to" infinite mass. Light has zero mass which is exactly why it moves at the speed of light.
Light moves at the speed of light because it is moving through the dark energy, otherwise it would be instantaneous. The fact that light is moving at all is an illusion created by the darkness.

Quote:
If something had infinite mass it would collapse the universe.
Maybe mass is a poor choice of word. It expands at the speed of light infinitely.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:03 am
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
The fact that light is moving at all is an illusion created by the darkness.


SO Steve Wright is still among us.
0 Replies
 
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:44 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Any energy released into the darkness, such as a photon, goes to infinite mass at the speed of light as it is absorbed by the darkness.
When light energy is observed, it's motion is stopped, then it appears as a particle.
Quote:
Work in laboratories using slits and polarizers has demonstrated that this statement is "cartoon physics"

The double slit experiment proves my point. Light in motion at the speed of light appears as a wave, stop it's motion by observing it and it appears as a particle.
voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 03:14 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

In the beginning, there was nothing.

Quote:
But that’s not true either. There was one ‘thing’ -- a pinpoint of concentrated energy. It had ‘always’ been, but the word ‘always’ is also meaningless in the absence of time. (The concept of eternity is every bit as difficult for the mind to grasp as the concept of nothing.)
A pinpoint of concentrated energy? As apposed to, In the beginning God. He has always been.
Quote:
Then -- for lack of a better word -- it ‘decided’ to become ‘something.’ And, thus, the Big Bang, which is not an event that occurred some billions of earth-years ago but is happening right now.
It decided?
God said, "I am he which was, which is, and which is to come". Notice he said "I am", God dwells in an eternal now.
Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
At a point in God's existence, God realized he didn't have to be alone, as in the only God. He created a reality with it's own consciousness, man's.
Reality exist within man's consciousness, created by information received by man's six senses. The sixth sense is consciousness interacting with the consciousness of reality that collectively is shared by all. God made man god of his own reality, within reality.
Quote:
Now there was motion, therefore there was also space (there can be no motion of anything outside of a space to move in) and time began. But our concept of ‘time’ is also a slippery eel of a notion. We speak of ‘years’ as though this was a meaningful measure in general. It is meaningful only on this planet. We speak of ‘years’ when what we mean is ‘earth years.’ A year on Jupiter, say, or on Venus is something entirely different than an earth year.It is as meaningless to speak of ‘years’ when considering the ‘age’ of the universe as it is to speak of ‘days’ when taking the Biblical view of the so-called Creation.
Space, time, motion, matter, is all an illusion, created by light in darkness, within the imagination.
Quote:
In the final analysis, nothing was ‘created.’ It always was. It always will be. It simply changed form.
How about, God always was, God is, God always will be? He changed his reality from I am, to we are. The physical reality, God created from light, created from himself.

Spinoza probably said it best when he defined God as a causa sui whose very essence involves existence and whose nature cannot be conceived unless existing. For Spinoza, God simply is in much the same way that ‘nothing’ is not.

Poor Baruch Spinoza. He was formally cursed and exiled from the Jewish community in Amsterdam where he had come of age. He was, after all, a heretic. Later on he was in difficulties with the Church and most of his writings were not published during his own lifetime. He was accused of being an atheist although he never claimed to be one. Theologically Spinoza was a few centuries ahead of his time. He uses the words ‘God’ and ‘Nature’ virtually interchangeably.
Quote:
For Spinoza, there can be no Creator which is separate from his creation. God (or Nature, if you will) is self-creating and eternal. Causa sui, a cause of itself.
This is my point. God, or God's consciousness, did separate himself from his creation. God created evil, the consciousness of Satan, and Satan became the prince of the darkness of the imagination of man. God became man in the person of Jesus, entered the darkness through the death of Jesus on Masada, so man can emerge from the darkness and become one with God, one flesh, one mind, one spirit, individual personalities, with individual realities.
In the darkness God sees through our eyes, in the light we see through Gods eyes.

Quote:
This almost echoes the Islamic dictum that God ‘does not beget and is not begotten.’ (Which, of course, makes nonsense of the notion that God somehow got Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth, pregnant! But that’s beyond the scope of this discussion.)
Alpheus was the father of Jesus, and the husband of Mary, but that's another story.

Time is an extremely subjective yardstick.

Quote:
God created the world in six days. That can be an absolutely true statement, depending on your definitions of ‘God’ and of ‘day.’ (I doubt, however, that this deity ‘rested’ on the seventh day. A cosmic force needs no rest and, as I already pointed out, the work is continuing. All is motion, all is flux.)
The reference of days in creation is from the perspective of the creator. Each "day", is referred to as "the evening and the morning", or the end of something done (evening), and the beginning of something else (morning).
The seventh day is yet ahead of us. It is the day of the Lord, it has no end, it is the rest that we enter into.








Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 03:40 pm
@voiceindarkness,
You're really saying essentially the same thing I said. You just like to use highly-charged poetic allegorical language. Whether or not you choose to call that pinpoint of energy 'God' is your choice and there's nothing wrong with that. I sometimes use the word 'God' because it's such an easy word -- three letters, one syllable. A lot easier than saying 'a higher power' or even 'the Force' or 'Nature.' But I suspect that when I say 'God' it means something entirely different to me than it does to you.

The Bible and all the teachings of the priests and ministers and rabbis and imams is 99 percent allegory with a smidgen of historical fact thrown in (1 %) to make it acceptable. And the King James version, at least, is exquisitely good poetry in a lot of places. (I sometimes suspect that Shakespeare had a hand in the shaping of the translation. His knowledge of ancient Greek was quite good, despite what Ben Jonson said later.)

But see my reference to Baruch Spinoza above, which you quoted but didn't comment on.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 05:23 pm
@voiceindarkness,
Quote:
stop it's motion by observing it and it appears as a particle.
Outside of this crap, youve made MY point. Its experimentally shown about lights properties (no it doesnt stop and still remain visible, it moves on and disperses)
Do you know in what form light is propogated? One or the other or both (particle or wave)?

voiceindarkness
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 06:13 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
You're really saying essentially the same thing I said. You just like to use highly-charged poetic allegorical language. Whether or not you choose to call that pinpoint of energy 'God' is your choice
I'm not calling that pinpoint of energy 'God'. You say, in the beginning, a pinpoint of energy. I say, In the beginning God, infinite and eternal.
"Highly-charged poetic allegorical language"? No, I used words to describe, the best I could in a few words, what God is and what he did.
Quote:
But I suspect that when I say 'God' it means something entirely different to me than it does to you.
Really? Have you read the rest of my post.
Quote:
The Bible and all the teachings of the priests and ministers and rabbis and imams is 99 percent allegory with a smidgen of historical fact thrown in (1 %) to make it acceptable.
Where did you get these facts?
Quote:
And the King James version, at least, is exquisitely good poetry in a lot of places. (I sometimes suspect that Shakespeare had a hand in the shaping of the translation. His knowledge of ancient Greek was quite good, despite what Ben Jonson said later.)
The old testament was written in Hebrew, The new testament in Greek. Copies of books in the old testament where found with the dead sea scrolls.
Quote:
But see my reference to Baruch Spinoza above, which you quoted but didn't comment on.
I did comment about the statement on God and nature being the same. The consciousness of God is separate from his creation.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 08:12 pm
@voiceindarkness,
I do hope you're in therapy, Voice. If you actually believe the crap you just posted, you're in worse shape than I had realized. The Torah (Old Testament) was written in Heaven ??? Where the hell's that? Beyond the furthest galaxy we're aware of? You're hopeless, son. My sincere sympathies go out to you.
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:10 pm
@voiceindarkness,
voiceindarkness wrote:
Maybe mass is a poor choice of word.
Nice try, but "poor choice of words" doesn't do justice to the depth of your misunderstandings.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:31 pm
@voiceindarkness,
spewage in the darkness
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2011 11:52 pm
@voiceindarkness,
voiceindarkness wrote:
The old testament was written in Hebrew, The new testament in Greek. Copies of books in the old testament where found with the dead sea scrolls.


The Old Testament may have been written in Hebrew originally but the only Hebrew language copies we have today are all re-translations from the Greek. The originals were destroyed when the Second Temple in Jerusalem was razed in the uprising against Rome in 70 c.e. There were Greek translations available, however, and they were quickly re-translated into Hebrew for use in the Synagogues.

Precious little of the Torah was found at the Tel Qumran dig where the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Most of those Scrolls deal with the day-to-day business of the monastery that was there. The Essene sect which ran the facility was very Messiah-oriented and hence has excited the imagination of Christian scholars. But most historians who have seen and studied the scrolls don't find anything significant in them that they did not already know.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 05:04 am
More to the point, many of the newly copied versions of the Torah were corrupted in the process. The great christian "scholar" Origen of Alexandria was using a corrupted copy of the Septuagint, which matters because, thanks to Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen's canon became the christian canon. It is possible that some of the so-called gospels were originally written in Aramaic. Saul of Tarsus, the not so saintly Paul, is responsible for making christianity a Hellenistic cult. No copies of the "new testament" survive from a period any earlier than the 4th century, so all those jokers are just whistlin' past the graveyard when it comes to scriptural authenticity.
voiceindarkness
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2011 02:50 pm
@Setanta,
One of the most important contributions of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the numerous Biblical manuscripts which have been discovered. Until those discoveries at Qumran, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures were copies from the 9th and 10th centuries AD by a group of Jewish scribes called the Massoretes. Now we have manuscripts around a thousand years older than those. The amazing truth is that these manuscripts are almost identical! Here is a strong example of the tender care which the Jewish scribes down through the centuries took in an effort to accurately copy the sacred Scriptures. We can have confidence that our Old Testament Scriptures faithfully represent the words given to Moses, David and the prophets.

Part V: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=44&chapid...

Although most of the readings of the scroll l are the same as those of the traditional Hebrew Bible (the Masoretic Text), there are a number of important variant readings that have been included in modern translations of Isaiah. For example, Isaiah 33:8, as translated in the King James Version of the Bible, reads:

The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man.

The Isaiah scroll reads:

The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth: he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the witnesses, he regardeth no man.

The Isaiah scroll reads witnesses rather than cities, thus presenting a more accurate, superior reading.

This is something interesting I just came across. This appears to be prophetic concerning the two witnesses of Revelation 11, and the antichrist.

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
 

Related Topics

If the Universe has no beginning? - Discussion by edgarblythe
Bad News for "Big Bang(TM)" - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did all the antimatter go? - Discussion by CAfrica141
New TV series: Young Sheldon - Discussion by edgarblythe
God's Critical Mass - Question by dalehileman
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 08:49:53