THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:51 pm

THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/
==..
God is dead. God remains dead.
And we have killed him.
Yet his shadow still looms.
/ Friedrich Nietzsche /
==..
Every generation of people kills God but “his shadow still looms”
Why?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler 6 November 2014
==..
The universe is flat and why that's important
. . .
That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing.
Everything that exists, from stars and galaxies to the light we see them by,
must have sprung from somewhere. We already know that particles spring
into existence at the quantum level, so we might expect the universe
to contain a few odds and ends. But it takes a huge amount of energy
to make all those stars and planets.
Where did the universe get all this energy?

(, . . . . . . . from NOTHING . . . .
NOTHING is ITSELF some kind of INFINITE ENERGY. )
/ Israel Socratus /

As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make
it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing –
- no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all
===.
My conclusion.
If everything was created from a Nothing then this Nothing can be some
kind of God. The God can be the scientific Nothing.
Different people in different places gave to Nothing different private names.
But Nothing doesn’t have private name.
The Nothing has only one private formula.
And this private formula of Nothing is T=0K. (!)
================…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========…

Reflex
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by Reflex » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:58 pm

Good post.

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by Cerveny » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:59 pm

As for the "nothing", note please Hegel's concept: being = nothing. Both are not determined by any way, both are totally general category. The generality of the "nothing" follow from the fact that it does not specify of lack of anything. Is the idea the nothing? Is no energy the nothing? Is no mass the nothing? Where no mass? Nowhere? Can be anything nowhere?

The "nothing" is as common, as general, as undetermined, uncertain category as the common being is. (Sorry bad English)

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6346
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:36 pm

socratus wrote:Where did the universe get all this energy?
Good question.
(, . . . . . . . from NOTHING . . . .
NOTHING is ITSELF some kind of INFINITE ENERGY. )
This is a contradiction: "energy" is not, by definition, a "nothing."
As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make
it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing –
- no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all
Krauss cheats. He doesn't actually mean "nothing" when he says "nothing." He talks about "particles and antiparticles," and about the pre-existence of some kind of "space-time" generator. Those are not, by definition, "nothing." He only means, "Not things we conventionally think about," not an actual "nothing."

Since he's already taking for granted the existence of these "things," then even if his unproven theory turned out to be right, he would still only be accounting for the second-stage mechanics of the assembling or eruption of things, not for their true origin. To describe the true origin of things from "nothing," he would have to start with "nothing." That's basic.

But let's be kind, and say he was only being hyperbolical, seeking to choose a stimulating and provocative title for his article, so that people would read it. Fair enough: people do that sometimes. But if we look for actual delivery of what he promised, we shall be disappointed.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========…
And to you.

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:18 am

We are surrounded by THINGS (as outside in nature as inside in our brains)
and we don’t leave place for NOTHING and it is a pity because NOTHING
can tell us something important about THINGS.
============…

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:25 am

socratus wrote:THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/
===.
My conclusion.
If everything was created from a Nothing then this Nothing can be some
kind of God. The God can be the scientific Nothing.
Different people in different places gave to Nothing different private names.
But Nothing doesn’t have private name.
The Nothing has only one private formula.
And this private formula of Nothing is T=0K. (!)
================…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========…
What is your "T=0K"? temperature at 0 kelvin?

I've been spreading my take on religious origins being derived from secular philosophic/rational thinking.

Get this: "Nun" is the name of the god of water and "Nut" to the sky. Think "none" and "nothing".
Most of the Middle Eastern ancient religions originated from these two. The reason they included water is that they originally treated only solids as technically all that "matters" (and why our word for matter). To Genesis, the waters below and above are of this Egyptian origin and actually meant 'fluids'. Since you couldn't hold water without a solid (cup) and it derived life from fish eggs that come from apparently no where in a cyclic way, live was often assumed to derive from it more than to the sky. The invisible air is the Nut (acts literally as a shelled nut canopy representing the sky, and possibly the reference to the Milky Way.

The Greeks borrowed this simultaneous to those of Judaism and used "Chaos" as the origin in a similar way to 'fluidity'. This has become our word, "gas".

Also, "the Spirit of God Hovered above the waters" was to reference the way air has an essential magic that is necessary for life. This would have been the interpretation of our necessity to breathe it. Fire and smoke too provided these as "spirit" because they go up and disappear many burned things into the sky.

YHWY was "the source" or "the oval/ovum" to which it became "ineffible" to name. But this 'ineffible' factor was likely to those who may have treated "God" as an absolute Nothing. So it wasn't originally a mysterious curse to speak his/its name, but to this likely interpretation of a source. "What is your God?" can be reworded as "Where are you from?" (your source) But since absolute nothingness is hard if not possible to point at specifically, it makes in unable to be spoken of as many treat Nothingness.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
socratus wrote:Where did the universe get all this energy?
Good question.
(, . . . . . . . from NOTHING . . . .
NOTHING is ITSELF some kind of INFINITE ENERGY. )
This is a contradiction: "energy" is not, by definition, a "nothing."
As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make
it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing –
- no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of."
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all
Krauss cheats. He doesn't actually mean "nothing" when he says "nothing." He talks about "particles and antiparticles," and about the pre-existence of some kind of "space-time" generator. Those are not, by definition, "nothing." He only means, "Not things we conventionally think about," not an actual "nothing."

Since he's already taking for granted the existence of these "things," then even if his unproven theory turned out to be right, he would still only be accounting for the second-stage mechanics of the assembling or eruption of things, not for their true origin. To describe the true origin of things from "nothing," he would have to start with "nothing." That's basic.

But let's be kind, and say he was only being hyperbolical, seeking to choose a stimulating and provocative title for his article, so that people would read it. Fair enough: people do that sometimes. But if we look for actual delivery of what he promised, we shall be disappointed.
I figured a similar thing after initially thinking he was deriving this philosophically AND scientifically. He basically means a vacuum. But within physics there are proposals that there are various 'depths' to some of these in a 'negative' way.

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Fri Oct 14, 2016 3:50 pm

Rereading: Why is there something rather than nothing?
By Robert Adler 6 November 2014

“Here, then, is how everything could have come from nothing.”

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all
========…
My opinion.
a) Everything was created from a infinite Energy of Nothing: T=0K..
b) Infinite Energy - Nothing is a flat continuum.
c) Infinite Nothing is filled by so-called “ virtual particles”.
d) Infinite Nothing created these “potential virtual particles” in His own
flat image (!). From all flat images (!) the geometrical form of circle
is most perfect form: c/d=pi=3,141592 . . . . . . ..
e) “ These so-called virtual particles don't last long enough to be
observed directly, but we know they exist by their effects.”
f) By their effect the “virtual particles “ can become real quantum
particles ( E=h*f) and create not only “space and time” but everything
in the Universe.
===========…
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
==============.. .
Attachments
pi - day.jpg
pi - day.jpg (59.41 KiB) Viewed 2317 times

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:13 pm

Who is the greatest mathematician?

Scientists discuss “ the three body problem” of motion and
GOD solved the problem of eight planets and their satellites
movement in our solar system.
Conclusion:
We still don’t grow enough to understand God and His mathematics.
============…
Attachments
God is deist.jpg
God is deist.jpg (9.24 KiB) Viewed 2314 times

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by OuterLimits » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:20 pm

If matter "comes from X" does this mean time and space do? How about cause and effect? If God is a label for some primal cause, what is the best label for whatever caused this situation to be so (that God is a primal cause).

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by OuterLimits » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:24 pm

What is energy? Is it an accounting concept like momentum? It sure looks like it. A moving rock in space has zero momentum if you are traveling with it, and zero kinetic energy. If you are in some other frame, it has both momentum and energy. What does it mean then to say that something in the universe is "pure energy" ?

User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 824
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:46 pm

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by TSBU » Fri Oct 14, 2016 10:26 pm

What did you smoke? What did you drink? I want it.

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Sat Oct 15, 2016 2:19 pm

a) The source of everything is an infinite Energy of Nothing: T=0K..
b) Infinite Energy - Nothing is a flat continuum.
c) Infinite Nothing is filled by so-called “ virtual particles”.
d) Infinite Nothing (T=0K) created these “potential virtual particles”
in “His/Her/Its” own flat image (!). From all flat images (!) the
geometrical form of circle is most perfect form: c/d=pi=3,141592 . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . .
=============…
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive of
as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground state,
coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. /
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18 ... everything
=====================…
Attachments
nothing-is-real.jpg
nothing-is-real.jpg (45.54 KiB) Viewed 2293 times

User avatar
socratus
Posts: 628
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:00 am
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by socratus » Sun Oct 16, 2016 2:46 pm

Why is nothing would be something?
#
a) We cannot reach T=0K.
b) We cannot reach the density of “virtual particles” –E=Mc^2
c) It means it is impossible to observe them directly by scientific tools
and therefore T=0K and –E=Mc^2 are “nothing” for scientists who want
observe these parameters by tools, but after they say:
“ . . . . we know they exist by their effects.”
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106 ... ist-at-all

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Q ... simir.html

So, nothing became not- nothing, nothing became something . . . . things.
#
On the other hand, . . . . if observation is scientific doctrine for check the
truth of theory, then why did they accept the quark and string theories?
There are no facts of their observation; there are no facts of their effects,
there are only their mathematical interpretations, mathematical play.

========…

osgart
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: THE SCIENTIFIC GOD. /by Socratus/

Post by osgart » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:31 am

this is crossover junction
spiritual with a mindless existence
come on now it takes intellect to create a being. We are more than this worm flesh that bares our spiritual likeness.
Death is the illusion of finality. The mask this universe puts on us.
Now word to the mother ship
beam us off this dead rock. Suck us right through that wormhole and back to normal spiritual existence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests