• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Creation Remains Nothing Lie We Once Believed

blarg said:
not seining why its so stupid to do any of that its all the same sooner or later apparently

now living might be stupid and its a kind of stupid im very much behind but form my perspective were all probably ****ed any way and nothing masters much in of itself

if you think about it which I try not to its depressing
Click to expand...

Come on back and try that again when you're sober.
 
Cephus said:
Come on back and try that again when you're sober.
Click to expand...

k

not seining why its so stupid to do any of that its all the same sooner or later apparently

now living might be stupid and its a kind of stupid im very much behind but form my perspective were all probably ****ed any way and nothing masters much in of itself

if you think about it which I try not to its depressing
 
specklebang said:
Religions are the original forms of government as we know it today.

Our country has agreed from inception that the various formats of religious beliefs are to be kept separated from secular governance. But if you look at the roots of religions, you'll see that our entire government is based on them. 9 of the 10 commandments are an integral part of our laws. And for all our claims of separation - you notice how god appears everywhere including our currency.



Now, some religions have their own rules and there are efforts to impose those rules on everyone. But that is really relatively rare. For the most part, the rules are the same. Some have been completely dismissed (when was the last time anyone got in trouble for adultery, coveting or failing to honor their parents?).

A religious sect is really no different than an alternative political party. They offer both good and bad and we hope we have the wisdom to know the difference.
Click to expand...
Because, much like the Pope, their power came from a perceived god.

But we didn't keep church and state separate. We made some concessions to religious freedom but too many people were religious, so religion crept into the system. Now we're trying to get religion out of the system and getting a ton of flak for it. There were still Blue Laws here when I was a kid and Sundays are still "special days" when it comes to alcohol. Creationism in science class - Really?



I disagree. While I've seen a lot of Party Line People in my life, they can't hold a candle to the religious fanatics. I have no problem equating Catholics, for example, with a political party but many religions are far beyond that and it's those I have issues with.
 
Manny said:
Because universes gets created this way according to the model
Click to expand...
Get created what way according to what model? You'll have to be more specific.

I've been reading this kind of stuff for decades and what you're saying is disjointed at best.


PS
Have you read any of Brian Greene's books? How about Lawrence Krauss? If so, which ones? Brian Greene is one of the best and Krauss is very good, too. But they're not the only physicists who write popular science. Kip Thorne? Steven Weinberg? Stephen Hawking? All have written science books.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Get created what way according to what model? You'll have to be more specific.

I've been reading this kind of stuff for decades and what you're saying is disjointed at best.


PS
Have you read any of Brian Greene's books? How about Lawrence Krauss? If so, which ones? Brian Greene is one of the best and Krauss is very good, too. But they're not the only physicists who write popular science. Kip Thorne? Steven Weinberg? Stephen Hawking? All have written science books.
Click to expand...

Yes I've read a book by Greene and also Hawkings books.I'm a backyard astronomer so enjoy keeping up with the science. My background is in electromagnetism.

I'm no expert on cosmology but what I'm saying is factually close enough to what the scientists say. It's not what this thread's about though, which started with me referencing to Brahma blowing bubbles in a cosmic pool of water, in which infinite universes are born.

Anyone who wants to know more about quantum stuff should google 'quantum foam big bang' or 'quantum vacuum fluctuations' or like that.
 
Manny said:
It's somewhat of a misconception. If we can believe the model, there is this phenomenon called quantum vacuum fluctuations. What that means is, the energy of vacuum is not totally zero. There is a small amount of energy there, and this energy is fluctuating. Scientific theory implies that virtual particles are being created by this. They are particle-antiparticle pairs that annihilate one another but they do so in a very short amount of time. Shorter than the planck time, that is why they are considered 'virtual' in that they do not exist within the normal definition of bosonic matter of our universe. Hence they are not real. Thats what the nothing is.

That's how I interpret it. I'm no scientist, just read stuff that's all scientifical sometimes.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the point before the inflation of space when the universe was a singularity of infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.

Unless, you're explaining Lawrence M. Krauss's theory of the relativistic quantum field theories that virtual particles pop in and out of existance from the vacuum of space or nothing?

Cephus said:
Please quote and reference these people who say the Big Bang came from a literal nothing. I've yet to see anyone who has ever done so.
Click to expand...

That's because you think you know everything. How about Stephen Hawking is that a reputable enough source for you?

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence.
Click to expand...

Big Bang Didn't Need God, Stephen Hawking Says | Origin of the Universe | Space.com


We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse–the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Hawking: no God behind the Big Bang « Why Evolution Is True
 
grip said:
I'm talking about the point before the inflation of space when the universe was a singularity of infinitesimal volume with extremely high density and temperature.

Unless, you're explaining Lawrence M. Krauss's theory of the relativistic quantum field theories that virtual particles pop in and out of existance from the vacuum of space or nothing?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has an answer to how the singularity came to exist, just possible theories such as the one about spontaneous virtual particles. And in fact we may never be ABLE to know, because of uncertainty. Enter religion...
 
MoSurveyor said:
Because, much like the Pope, their power came from a perceived god.

But we didn't keep church and state separate. We made some concessions to religious freedom but too many people were religious, so religion crept into the system. Now we're trying to get religion out of the system and getting a ton of flak for it. There were still Blue Laws here when I was a kid and Sundays are still "special days" when it comes to alcohol. Creationism in science class - Really?

I disagree. While I've seen a lot of Party Line People in my life, they can't hold a candle to the religious fanatics. I have no problem equating Catholics, for example, with a political party but many religions are far beyond that and it's those I have issues with.
Click to expand...

How are religious fanatics different than political fanatics? We certainly see political fanaticism right here on DP.

I have issues with all of them, so we're not really different.

Creationism in Science class? Sounds like.....Texas!:)
 
grip said:
That's because you think you know everything. How about Stephen Hawking is that a reputable enough source for you?
Click to expand...

Sure, but I think you need to look at what he's talking about when he says "nothing" because in science, there is no such thing as "nothing" in the sense you're talking about. This is what happens when you don't understand the words that are being used in the context that they are being used.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, but I think you need to look at what he's talking about when he says "nothing" because in science, there is no such thing as "nothing" in the sense you're talking about. This is what happens when you don't understand the words that are being used in the context that they are being used.
Click to expand...

Explain the difference between nothing and nothing? You don't know what I understand, which is more proof of your misconceptions.
 
grip said:
Explain the difference between nothing and nothing? You don't know what I understand, which is more proof of your misconceptions.
Click to expand...

If you understood, you wouldn't be having this argument. Science sometimes uses words differently than non-scientific users. A theory in science, for example, is a well-established, falsifiable explanation of observations that have been verified through repeated testing. That's quite different from the non-scientific usage which is often entirely the opposite.
 
Cephus said:
If you understood, you wouldn't be having this argument. Science sometimes uses words differently than non-scientific users. A theory in science, for example, is a well-established, falsifiable explanation of observations that have been verified through repeated testing. That's quite different from the non-scientific usage which is often entirely the opposite.
Click to expand...

If you understood you'd be explaining the difference between nothing and nothing. Except you don't know what you're talking about.
 
grip said:
If you understood you'd be explaining the difference between nothing and nothing. Except you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Someone already did in this thread, I didn't think I'd have to repeat something that's already been explained.
 
Cephus said:
Someone already did in this thread, I didn't think I'd have to repeat something that's already been explained.
Click to expand...

Do you know the difference between nothing or absolute zero and an infinite, pure energy potential that has no fluctuations in it? They would appear as the same thing but if there were suddenly movement within an infinite energy well at rest, then it would produce measurable fluctuations.

Is that what you mean?
 
Cephus said:
Science sometimes uses words differently than non-scientific users. A theory in science, for example, is a well-established, falsifiable explanation of observations that have been verified through repeated testing.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, yes. But not when it comes to 'String Theory'.
 
Manny said:
Sometimes, yes. But not when it comes to 'String Theory'.
Click to expand...

Nobody even talks about string theory anymore, it's all m-theory now. And yes, these things are supported by complex mathematics, not just wild-assed guesses.
 
Cephus said:
Nobody even talks about string theory anymore, it's all m-theory now. And yes, these things are supported by complex mathematics, not just wild-assed guesses.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that's only math, not verifiable by observations and stuff. And anyway, most people would never, ever get it, even if it was explained to them. They might as well be preaching in Latin.

But we accept it as true, without understanding.
 
Manny said:
Ok, but that's only math, not verifiable by observations and stuff. And anyway, most people would never, ever get it, even if it was explained to them. They might as well be preaching in Latin.

But we accept it as true, without understanding.
Click to expand...

Math is the language of science, it can make testable predictions, which are the hallmark of science. Black holes were nothing but math for decades but they still existed, just as the math predicted that they would.

Welcome to reality.
 
Cephus said:
Math is the language of science, it can make testable predictions, which are the hallmark of science. Black holes were nothing but math for decades but they still existed, just as the math predicted that they would.

Welcome to reality.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my background is in electromagnetism so I can handle math better than some people. But the stuff these guys are talking about is like gibberish. To be well versed in the kind of mathematics of string theory etc. you have to practically be a genius.

Welcome to reality. Well earlier I mentioned quantum mechanics. It might be the underpinnings but it's nothing like the reality we experience. It's a place where common sense logic breaks down and it shows how bizarre "reality" is.
 
Manny said:
Yes I've read a book by Greene and also Hawkings books.I'm a backyard astronomer so enjoy keeping up with the science. My background is in electromagnetism.

I'm no expert on cosmology but what I'm saying is factually close enough to what the scientists say. It's not what this thread's about though, which started with me referencing to Brahma blowing bubbles in a cosmic pool of water, in which infinite universes are born.

Anyone who wants to know more about quantum stuff should google 'quantum foam big bang' or 'quantum vacuum fluctuations' or like that.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find the "theory" to which you refer has to do with quantum foam setting the stage for the structure we see in the universe - galaxies, galaxy clusters, and other large scale structures like the Great Wall. It has nothing to do with the actual beginning - the "bang" itself, only the form that came after the bang.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It has nothing to do with the actual beginning - the "bang" itself, only the form that came after the bang.
Click to expand...
That's true, nobody really knows what caused the big bang.

First link in 'quantum foam big bang'-
unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

"The actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding."

indicates it may indeed have something to do with it.
 
Cephus said:
Nobody even talks about string theory anymore, it's all m-theory now. And yes, these things are supported by complex mathematics, not just wild-assed guesses.
Click to expand...
Just an FYI - M-theory is the composite of the different forms of string theory. While they are all referred to as M-theory now, it's still string theory.
 
Manny said:
That's true, nobody really knows what caused the big bang.

First link in 'quantum foam big bang'-
unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

"The actual of the Universe probably derived from a indeterminate sea of potentiality that we call the quantum vacuum, whose properties may always remain beyond our current understanding."

indicates it may indeed have something to do with it.
Click to expand...
Here's the beginning of your quote:
One thing is clear in our framing of questions such as `How did the Universe get started?' is that the Universe was self-creating. This is not a statement on a `cause' behind the origin of the Universe, nor is it a statement on a lack of purpose or destiny. It is simply a statement that the Universe was emergent,
Click to expand...
And also:
Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe.
Click to expand...
Tyson, Neil deGrasse and Donald Goldsmith (2004), Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution, W. W. Norton & Co., pp. 84–5.

Both of these lead me to believe I have the correct interpretation, that quantum foam is most likely responsible for the structure of the universe but was not part of the bang.
 
specklebang said:
How are religious fanatics different than political fanatics? We certainly see political fanaticism right here on DP.

I have issues with all of them, so we're not really different.

Creationism in Science class? Sounds like.....Texas!:)
Click to expand...
Most political fanatics have at least some semblance of rationality behind their stance. For most religious fanatics there is no such thing as logic or rationality. To them it's Holy, Divine, whatever and that's all they need to know.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Just an FYI - M-theory is the composite of the different forms of string theory. While they are all referred to as M-theory now, it's still string theory.
Click to expand...

Not really, instead of strings, it's a cohesive membrane, but this isn't really the place to get into a comprehensive quantum mechanics discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom