but who created the atoms, energy? - Page 2

lunamoth · 07-06-2005, 10:59 PM

Interesting, Vajradhara--thank you for filling us in.

Not a very inspiring theology, is it?

lunamoth

Vajradhara · 07-07-2005, 12:22 AM

Namaste lunamoth,

thank you for your kind words.

i learned of this concept from a Christian scientist fellow whom i've had the great fortune to meet.

as you may suspect, this being is a paleobotonist. what... you didn't suspect that?

it's true... a died in the wool Christian scientist. who knew? wait a sec.. you mean to say that there are lots of Christian scientists working in fields like paleobotony, geology, biology and so forth? interesting.

i suppose that puts paid to the myth that Christians don't believe in Gravity! ha!

metta,

~v
(with tongue firmly planted in cheek)

Bandit · 07-07-2005, 02:13 AM

OIC Vajradhara

i never heard it called that b4, but that is the idea i usually get. i thought the hiding god in gaps was about the churches who adjust with the times, like they cannot do that or something.
thank you for explaining because now i have to start all over on my own personal scigoddidgapit theory.
cheers

Quahom1 · 08-13-2005, 03:10 AM

I once read a story about a universe that was imploding. The dominant species at the time knew it (they were called HomoFelinous, or sentient cat people). Anyway they struggled to live a good life with what time they had and their scientists speculated that once the universe came together, it would explode outward again, fresh and anew, however their lives and existence would be gone. But they did have hope for life itself and wondered at who would come next, to ponder such questions about the universe as they had.

The epilogue of the story has the heroine and her mate sleeping, and dreaming, only it is a shared dream. They are standing on green hills of a strange planet they've never seen before, and observing in wonder the creatures below them as they went obout their lives and began to grow in development, maturity and technology. The creatures they observed were ones they'd never seen before either. So like themselves yet so different. They were mankind.

v/r

Q

florian · 08-13-2005, 03:39 PM

The question is often asked , how all the matter in the universe could be packed into the 'seed' that became the big bang. However in fact there was no matter until some short time after the big bang when a phase transition took place and the various forces condensed out . I did read an explanation of how matter could have come out of nothing . It was something like this (I havn't got my books handy but will check when I get home ) . After the big bang there was a period of rapid expansion called 'inflation' . This expansion of empty space produced a negative pressure in the expanded universe . Since negative pressure is the same as gravity this meant that the empty universe contained a powerful gravitational force . Since gravity in a sense is 'stuff' i.e whether 'graviton' messenger particles or gravity waves (BTW neither of which have been yet detected ) This would account for at least the presence of a large source of energy/particles which may then have led to the other constituents of the early universe .

Quahom1 · 08-13-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by florian

The question is often asked , how all the matter in the universe could be packed into the 'seed' that became the big bang. However in fact there was no matter until some short time after the big bang when a phase transition took place and the various forces condensed out . I did read an explanation of how matter could have come out of nothing . It was something like this (I havn't got my books handy but will check when I get home ) . After the big bang there was a period of rapid expansion called 'inflation' . This expansion of empty space produced a negative pressure in the expanded universe . Since negative pressure is the same as gravity this meant that the empty universe contained a powerful gravitational force . Since gravity in a sense is 'stuff' i.e whether 'graviton' messenger particles or gravity waves (BTW neither of which have been yet detected ) This would account for at least the presence of a large source of energy/particles which may then have led to the other constituents of the early universe .

Correct, as matter is nothing more than energy at a slower level of vibration (not frequency).

Perhaps your thought about how so much "energy" could be packed so tightly into a 'seed' became the Big Bang, has a pseudo answer. Just look at the energy packed into an Atomic bomb...

Consider also a 'singularity' pulling all that material and energy into it, building building....What would happen if it reversed itself and released all it had absorbed, all at once? And still that is miniscule compared to the Big Bang.

My thoughts.

v/r

Q

florian · 08-14-2005, 04:29 PM

In fact it may not require much matter to make a universe. It was once suggested that there is in fact only 1 individual electron (& possibly one individual example of each of the other particles ) but because it zips back and forward in time it is able to appear in many places simultaneously (to us ) as if there are countless multitudes forming all the atoms in the universe .
Perhaps a bit like the way a tv works , a tiny stream of electrons vibrating back and forth gives the illusion of an entire visible world .
So you don't need much actual matter ,all that is needed to create the illusion of a universe is a series of simple vibrations in time and an observer with a nervous system wired in such a way that confabulates from its restricted view a moment to moment continuous cosmos.

capthowdy · 08-14-2005, 09:34 PM

To answer one of the question about who created atoms or energy......according to one of einsteins' theories energy can not be created or destroyed, only proccessed.......but that still doesn't answer the question of origin.......definetly a thought worth pondering..

florian · 08-14-2005, 11:08 PM

The law of conservation of matter and energy only applies to a closed system and not if the singularity of the big bang was a linked to another universe . It also seems that virtual particles ( i.e. pairs of particles and anti-particles that spontaneously appear for very short times can also violate the law of matter/energy conservation for the minute period of time that they exist .

InLove · 08-16-2005, 06:26 AM

Hi, Peace,

Quote:

Originally Posted by capthowdy

To answer one of the question about who created atoms or energy......according to one of einsteins' theories energy can not be created or destroyed, only proccessed.......but that still doesn't answer the question of origin.......definetly a thought worth pondering..

Or "processing", eh, cap'n?

Don't know why (yes I do) I decided to stop by this thread tonight. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the way you put that.

I would also like to say that I really appreciate florian's presence here--there are places in this forum now which are going through some transitions, so I just want you both to know, if you don't already, that this is a place of ongoing change and consistency.

Betcha knew that anyway--just needed someplace to hang out for a few minutes.

InPeace,
InLove

InLove · 08-16-2005, 06:57 AM

Well, now, that did not make a whole lot of sense, did it?

Will it be sufficient for me to say that I just appreciate you both, and thanks for the posts?

I hope someone knew what I was trying to say...

(by the way, in case you did not notice, it did not sound very scientific...)

Anyway...on with the thread!

InPeace,
InLove

satay · 08-16-2005, 06:15 PM

God and creation are not separate. God for one is not an object. It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought.

We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"

Get it?

satay

Awaiting_the_fifth · 08-16-2005, 09:41 PM

Hear Hear !!!!

Quahom1 · 08-16-2005, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satay

God and creation are not separate. God for one is not an object. It's an idea, a philosophy, a thought.

We can not say God created the world or universe. Because that naturally leads to the question of who created God then. There is no "creation"...There just "is"

Get it?

satay

Life is but a dream? Hope the "dreamer" never awakens...

human1111 · 08-17-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

When I was young, I used to ask, who created the universe and my Dad would say, God created the universe.

Then I would say, who created God? and my Dad would say no-one created God, he's just always been there.

If you can accept that it is possible for something to have always been there, then why does it have to be God, why cant you just say that the Universe has always been there? Certainly not in it's current form, but maybe the Big Bang was not a beginning, just a change caused by whatever it was before? Our science cannot at present determine what that might have been, but if we all accept that it was just Gods will, we'll stop trying.

We should remember that the Catholic church has changed it's mind about the nature of the universe several times in accordance with science. First it accepted the ptolemic model of the universe, then the Big Bang theory, when that theory is disproved I have no doubt that the church will find a new place for God to live until that too is disproven.

What about G-d being a "general law of everything, including everything and everyone where everything we see is G-ds effects?"

In my mind scientists who are working hard at finding the "Theory of Everything" are actually true religious people searching for G-d. They just use different terms and methods, that is it.

As such it is indestructible, imortal, perfect, etc.