Let me clarify... For every one particle in the universe today, there were 1 billion matter particles that annihilated 1 billion anti-matter particles and those 1 billion matter/anti-matter collisions which annihilated each other produced radiation which is the cosmic background radiation in the universe that we can see today.
Zone1 How would you feel about God if he
- Thread starter Hurricanelover
- Start date
Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 61,300
- 46,476
- 3,615
Well, that's the theory, but we don't know that.
We can only create tiny amounts of antimatter. It doesn't exist naturally in the known universe.
And from those tiny amounts we know how they behave. So that's how we know what created the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The heavens and earth being created and then let there be light is technically correct.
- In the early universe, matter and anti-matter were being created equally out of the radiation
- pair production
- pair production is the production of matter and anti-matter in pairs
- two photons can produce a pair
- particle-antiparticle annihilation (the reverse process) is also possible
- pair production
- Anti-Matter
- What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
- A type of matter which has the same mass as normal matter, but opposite charge
- particlecharge of particleanti-particlecharge of anti-particleprotonpositiveanti-protonnegativeneutronneutralanti-neutronneutralelectronnegativeanti-electron or positronpositive
- What is anti-matter (anti-particles)?
- Matter and anti-matter can be created in pairs from energy (or electromagnetic radiation)
- E = m c2
- E = energym = massc2 = speed of light squared (here just a constant of proportionality)
- For example
- energy -------->proton + anti-protonenergy --------> electron + positron
- OR matter can annihilate in pairs
- proton + anti-proton ----------> energyelectron + positron (anti-electron) ---------> energy
- E = m c2
I'm starting to get back into How the Universe Works. I saw some shit last night that tells me you don't know what you are talking about. Just speculating. You're probably way off on your conclusions. They were talking about how each galaxy is getting farther and farther away. In the future we won't even be able to see other galaxies. And the expansion is going faster than the speed of light? So we know so much more about our universe and it is mind blowing. But there's also so much we don't know. You need to watch How the Universe Works. You'll see how much you don't know, how much we don't know and how we will never know. So that guy in the video is just spitballing. And he never made the conclusion you made. Why not?
I'm convinced there is live in Pluto and Europa. My guess is Tardigrades are inside them.
How exactly is what you saw last night telling you I don't know what I am talking about when I am reciting to you the mainstream science on how the universe began?
I know but what did he conclude? He didn't say what he believes to be true means a god exists. Come on if you are proving something it should be obvious to both of us. What did that guy prove?
Remember I'm not a scientist but neither are you. All I can do is take what you say, see if it's true or not, and then determine if it proves what you think it proves.
The DATA proves the universe began. The DATA proves the universe was not created from pre-existing matter. The DATA proves the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created. The DATA proves the universe was created in an unnatural way. The DATA proves a life filled universe is implausible.
You would like to believe all these things are just coincidences but the implausibility of it all doesn't allow for that. A universe being hardwired to produce intelligence popping into existence had to be intentional.
I don't know about coincidence or intentional.
What does the data say about before the universe began?
It didn’t occur in an already existing space. Rather, it initiated the expansion—and cooling—of space itself.
The theory accounts for the creation of the lightest elements in the universe—hydrogen, helium, and lithium—from which all heavier elements were forged in stars and supernovas.
So the universe started off as hydrogen, helium and lithium gases. They exploded in the size of a needle pen and created the universe. Then later heavier things were forged in the stars that were created by the initial hydrogen,helium and lithium.
What made that explosion? Who knows? What was here before? Not this universe.
I agree the laws of nature existed before our universe existed. Infinite.
We were created in a unnatural way? Explain that.
The entire question of the existence of God hinges on intentionality. The "explosion" began as a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production with matter/anti-matter pairs annihilating each other and releasing massive amounts of energy as per e=mc^2 which provided the force for expansion. There should have been no matter left over and the universe should have been filled only with radiation as paired particle production should have created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But there weren't equal amounts. That there weren't equal amounts of matter and anti-matter shows intentionality.
You should post on Quora
If by this, do you mean that the universe was created by intention rather unintentionally, then I would say unintentionally. If one says that the universe was created by intention, then we haven’t really ‘solved’ the problem of how the universe came to be (if that fact requires explanation is another issue). If we say the universe was created, then we have simply pushed back the problem one more step: if the universe had a creator, who created the creator. If that is a fair question to ask of the universe, it is just as fair when applied to the alleged creator.
Positing an intelligent (or even an unintelligent) creator resolves nothing, it only pushes back the problem another step without resolving the question that started the inquiry. But more fundamentally, it assumes something about the universe *(which for me means literally, ‘all that which is’).
If the universe is ‘all that which is’, then there is no place outside of the universe to seek an explanation for that which is within its bounds. If the universe refers to everything, then it is everything, and there is no place else to retreat for explanations. That would be the metaphysical issue.
Then there is the epistemological issue. When we explain something, anything, in fact, we explain one thing in terms of another. When we attempt to explain mankind, in science, we reach to the earlier primates from which we evolved to search for explanation; then we look to the changes in our mitochondrial DNA, and to the biological markers in our DNA that show our biological history. We can even reference ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, wherein the embryo goes through its phylogenetic history during ontogeny - including developing such things as pharyngeal gill slits.
What we look for are explanations within the universe of things. To explain the tigon or the liger, we must understand the lion and the tiger in order to comprehend the origin of their offspring. In other words, explanations are drawn from within the universe and not from beyond it - an imaginary realm of which we have no evidence. There is nothing we can know beyond the bounds of the universe because we have no means of knowing it.
When early human beings looked for explanations of things in the universe, they first looked to themselves and saw that the creator of the table was the carpenter, and that a key element of that creation was the carpenter’s intention to create it. When our ancestor’s looked at the arrow, and asked from whence it came, they would say, why, the intention of the fletcher. So when they looked at the sky or the sea, or the earth, and asked from whence it came, they assumed a creator and an assumed that everything that existed must be created. But as our ancestors, such as Aristotle began to explore the universe scientifically, they began to learn that not everything came about because of intentional acts.
But to see intentionality in things is natural for children, because from the earliest moments they see connections between their behavior and things happening. For instance, their cries bring mother with food, or to rub a bellyache, or to grant comfort, or to change their perceptual vista. As they get a little older, they begin to notice that the movement of their leg or arm can move another object, and they connect their motion to the motion of the thing moved. Children are identifying causation from the earliest moments of life. But they view themselves as the prime mover - it is their movements and their cries that cause changes in the world. It is later that the child learns that not everything is explained by his actions - which is about the time that temper tantrums begin in earnest. For some people those tantrums last a lifetime of requiring other people to bail them out when they screw up.
Is the universe intentional or non-intentional?
Answer (1 of 6): If by this, do you mean that the universe was created by intention rather unintentionally, then I would say unintentionally. If one says that the universe was created by intention, then we haven’t really ‘solved’ the problem of how the universe came to be (if that fact requires e...
He should probably address the implausibility of a matter filled universe capable of producing life. Because that is the proof of intentionality.You should post on Quora
If by this, do you mean that the universe was created by intention rather unintentionally, then I would say unintentionally. If one says that the universe was created by intention, then we haven’t really ‘solved’ the problem of how the universe came to be (if that fact requires explanation is another issue). If we say the universe was created, then we have simply pushed back the problem one more step: if the universe had a creator, who created the creator. If that is a fair question to ask of the universe, it is just as fair when applied to the alleged creator.
Positing an intelligent (or even an unintelligent) creator resolves nothing, it only pushes back the problem another step without resolving the question that started the inquiry. But more fundamentally, it assumes something about the universe *(which for me means literally, ‘all that which is’).
If the universe is ‘all that which is’, then there is no place outside of the universe to seek an explanation for that which is within its bounds. If the universe refers to everything, then it is everything, and there is no place else to retreat for explanations. That would be the metaphysical issue.
Then there is the epistemological issue. When we explain something, anything, in fact, we explain one thing in terms of another. When we attempt to explain mankind, in science, we reach to the earlier primates from which we evolved to search for explanation; then we look to the changes in our mitochondrial DNA, and to the biological markers in our DNA that show our biological history. We can even reference ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, wherein the embryo goes through its phylogenetic history during ontogeny - including developing such things as pharyngeal gill slits.
What we look for are explanations within the universe of things. To explain the tigon or the liger, we must understand the lion and the tiger in order to comprehend the origin of their offspring. In other words, explanations are drawn from within the universe and not from beyond it - an imaginary realm of which we have no evidence. There is nothing we can know beyond the bounds of the universe because we have no means of knowing it.
When early human beings looked for explanations of things in the universe, they first looked to themselves and saw that the creator of the table was the carpenter, and that a key element of that creation was the carpenter’s intention to create it. When our ancestor’s looked at the arrow, and asked from whence it came, they would say, why, the intention of the fletcher. So when they looked at the sky or the sea, or the earth, and asked from whence it came, they assumed a creator and an assumed that everything that existed must be created. But as our ancestors, such as Aristotle began to explore the universe scientifically, they began to learn that not everything came about because of intentional acts.
But to see intentionality in things is natural for children, because from the earliest moments they see connections between their behavior and things happening. For instance, their cries bring mother with food, or to rub a bellyache, or to grant comfort, or to change their perceptual vista. As they get a little older, they begin to notice that the movement of their leg or arm can move another object, and they connect their motion to the motion of the thing moved. Children are identifying causation from the earliest moments of life. But they view themselves as the prime mover - it is their movements and their cries that cause changes in the world. It is later that the child learns that not everything is explained by his actions - which is about the time that temper tantrums begin in earnest. For some people those tantrums last a lifetime of requiring other people to bail them out when they screw up.
Is the universe intentional or non-intentional?
Answer (1 of 6): If by this, do you mean that the universe was created by intention rather unintentionally, then I would say unintentionally. If one says that the universe was created by intention, then we haven’t really ‘solved’ the problem of how the universe came to be (if that fact requires e...www.quora.com
- Though it makes up about 26% of the Universe, we cannot see dark matter. But we know it's there because we can see its effects.
- Not all astrophysicists agree. Some argue that dark matter doesn't exist; instead, our understanding of the laws of physics needs to be modified.
- Evidence that once favored the "modified physics" hypothesis is now seen to be more consistent with the dark matter explanation.
Modern astronomy makes an extraordinary claim. While powerful observatories, like the Hubble Space Telescope and the newer James Webb Space Telescope, can see billions of stars and galaxies, those breathtaking pictures are just a small fraction of the matter in the Universe. In addition to the glowing stars and invisible clouds of gas that exist in the space between them, most astrophysicists believe that the cosmos is filled with a substance called dark matter that neither emits, nor absorbs, light.
It should not come as a surprise, then, that dark matter has not been detected directly; it only can be observed by its gravitational effect on visible matter. According to the theory, dark matter is about five times more plentiful than ordinary matter.
And you think you've got this all figured out? What a joke.
However, a minority of scientists reject the dark matter hypothesis as implausible. Instead, they believe that the accepted laws of physics are incorrect. According to them, either the laws governing the motion of astronomical objects are wrong, or our theory of gravity doesn’t work on galactic scales. For both conjectures, these researchers have developed an array of new physics theories, governed by different equations than those taught in physics classes.
Both camps — the dark matter proponents and the modified physics community — point to different sets of astronomical data to support their position. And both groups can point to observations that support their conjectures and disfavor the other. While most astronomers embrace the idea of dark matter, there has been one observation that is extremely difficult for the dark matter camp to explain: the distribution of small galaxies surrounding bigger ones.
These smaller galaxies are called “satellite galaxies.” The two explanations — dark matter and modified physics — make different predictions about how satellite galaxies should be arrayed around galaxies like the Milky Way. For the past half century or so, astronomers have known that the observations favor the modified physics camp.
The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, which means it looks a little like a spinning disk, about 100,000 light-years across and 12,000 light-years thick — essentially a cosmic pizza pan. This is the shape of the visible stars and galaxies. However, dark matter theory says that dark matter is essentially a big, spherical cloud, maybe 700,000 light-years across, with the Milky Way located at the center. Because dark matter is important in galaxy formation, dark matter theory suggests that the satellite galaxies of the Milky Way should also be spherically distributed around it.
On the other hand, if dark matter isn’t real, and the correct explanation for speedily rotating galaxies is that the laws of physics must be modified, scientists predict that the satellite galaxies should orbit the Milky Way in roughly the same plane as the Milky Way — essentially extensions of the Milky Way itself. When astronomers measure the location of the 11 known satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, they find that they are located in the plane of the Milky Way. Furthermore, the observed configuration is very improbable from a dark matter point of view. So, this is a win for the modified-gravity crowd.
Another win for dark matter
In other words, when the over-emphasis on the Leo satellite galaxies caused by the algorithm is taken into account, along with their temporary alignment in the galactic plane, the observations of the Milky Way’s satellite galaxies are now totally consistent with the dark matter hypothesis.
Granted, a single measurement is not enough to definitively decide the debate. However, it appears that one of the strongest examples of data favoring modified physics and disfavoring dark matter no longer has the impact it once had. Given the broad support by other data for dark matter, this paper has strengthened the case for it.
BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 19,315
- 1,590
- 85
bb is cyclical - the galaxy's expelled from the same origin have identical finite trajectories and will reemerge. and at the same time converge together to begin the new recompaction into pure energy.
all matter is traveling on a finite angle of trajectory that will separate in unison the greatest distance possible, the apex of the initial origin - then along the same trajectory without changing direction begin returning to the origin where the galaxies will again come into focus to eventually crash into themselves beginning the the compaction back to energy and a new moment of singularity.
boomerang theory of perpetual motion.
How do all the planets, moons, meteors, comits turn back into gases? They say the big bang started from gasses.
Maybe when they condense they crush all the matter so that all the matter left can fit in the pin of a needle?
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
I have always said that if I was given irrefutable proof that gods exist. I still would not worship any gods.
You need to watch How the Universe Works so you realize how little we know. Too little for you to be coming to the conclusions you are coming to. It's what our ignorant ancestors did.
Dark Matter is thought to be the cosmic glue that holds the universe together, yet the search for it continues to eluded scientists today.
New evidence gathered from the latest NASA missions offers fresh leads to experts investigating the mysteries of Pluto and other alien dwarf planets; what they've found is changing everything we know
We don't yet know where the edge of the universe is or what happens there; but thanks to cutting-edge technology and new discoveries, experts might finally reveal the secrets of the phenomena that can be found in deepest reaches of the cosmos.
NASA's Juno spacecraft is part of a cutting-edge mission to explore the mysteries of Jupiter; as this mighty probe is pummeled with deadly radiation, it gathers new data that could change everything we
The universe's stars are dying off faster than new ones are born; using the latest technology, experts investigate the secrets of the last stars of the cosmos and what this stellar apocalypse means for life
I would thank them for starting the universe that led to me being born. What a gift.
But what would someone who died in the Holocaust say to this god in their last year on earth?
What if they have a heaven for people who believe? And a hell for people who refuse to worship them?
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
Any immortal omnipotent omniscient beings that would be so peeved that a mere mortal refused to worship them that they would punish and torture anyone in a place like hell does not deserve to be worshipped do they?
Dark matter and dark energy are more reasons to believe in the universe was created intentionally. Apparently it's the glue that holds the universe together as it is constantly changing but only affects gravity.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Zone1 Joe Biden said only God could get him to drop out of the presidential race- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 0
-
