God and science

[SHaYap]

Yup. panties ain't the same as loin cloth and G strings ain't panties no matter what anybody says

~

[White Crane Feather]

When it comes to God and science we should be less concerned about how they are related or not and instead look towords logic and deduction. We may not get all the right answers with logic, but it’s a start. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[psyche101]

17 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

When it comes to God and science we should be less concerned about how they are related or not and instead look towords logic and deduction. We may not get all the right answers with logic, but it’s a start. 

???? 

Logically the universe existed for over 13 billion years just fine, then between 5 to 30 thousand years ago, in an effort to understand the universe around a developing intelligence, mankind invented God as a childishly simple explanation for creation and existance. Basically 'magic'. Eventually we challenged this benchmark, and much to the horror of those supporting that ancient childishly simple guess we have learned the universe is natural. 

That's the answer logic provides. 

 

I honestly wonder sometimes if Jesus (if he actually existed) was just a clueless hippie making up crap as he went along, just like those here who BS everyone with claims of 'esoteric knowledge'. 

Maybe Jesus was just a bent hippy that revised old ideas from earlier ideas (such as Gilgamesh) like those who support UB rehash on religious views. His open approach of accepting slaves and women at the time was probably quite revolutionary and gave him the numbers needed for a good support base to supersede most other religious ideals during the time frame. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by psyche101

[White Crane Feather]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

???? 

Logically the universe existed for over 13 billion years just fine, then between 5 to 30 thousand years ago, in an effort to understand the universe around a developing intelligence, mankind invented God as a childishly simple explanation for creation and existance. Basically 'magic'. Eventually we challenged this benchmark, and much to the horror of those supporting that ancient childishly simple guess we have learned the universe is natural. 

That's the answer logic provides. 

 

I honestly wonder sometimes if Jesus (if he actually existed) was just a clueless hippie making up crap as he went along, just like those here who BS everyone with claims of 'esoteric knowledge'. 

Maybe Jesus was just a bent hippy that revised old ideas from earlier ideas (such as Gilgamesh) like those who support UB rehash on religious views. His open approach of accepting slaves and women at the time was probably quite revolutionary and gave him the numbers needed for a good support base to supersede most other religious ideals during the time frame. 

Let me ask you something psyche. Do you know the difference beteeen space and the vacuum? How exactly do you define “ The universe.”

Edited January 9, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[psyche101]

41 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

Let me ask you something psyche. Do you know the difference beteeen space and the vacuum?

Yeah sure. 

 

Space is simply a large unoccupied area, and a vaccum is and area devoid of all matter. 

If you add the 4th dimension of time, you get spacetime, a single four-dimensional continuum. 

41 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

How exactly do you define “ The universe.”

Where all space and time exists. 

[White Crane Feather]

16 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Yeah sure. 

 

Space is simply a large unoccupied area, and a vaccum is and area devoid of all matter. 

If you add the 4th dimension of time, you get spacetime, a single four-dimensional continuum. 

Where all space and time exists. 

Welllllll there is no 4th dimension.

at least what you would call time. It’s a human construct to define different configurations of matter relative to each other. There may be actual other dimentions as defined by string theory, but time isn’t one of them. Spacetime is merely a physical reference that it takes all the mini clocks inside of us to tick slower the more we move. The math of  C stops anything from traveling faster than it, so everything moving has to be slower to complete a “tick” if it’s moving. It’s pure logic and isn’t complicated given C is a constant.  

Good. So where all what exists? We don’t need time.  The space between things? Or the vacuum? There is a distinction. 

The reason I’m asking is because you seem to be lumping the vacuum and “space” together and giving an estimated age of the “universe.” 

Maybe all tthe “space” between things THAT WE CAN SEE poped out during a rare quantum fluctuation 13 bullion years ago because there were not things to measure distance against, but there is no evidence that someone the vacuum itself came from such an event, and according to current calculations the vacuum is flat... or at least no curvature can be detected within our limits to detect it.

Gotta go to sleep, I’m dozing off.

 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Welllllll there is no 4th dimension.

at least what you would call time.

I'm using the standard definition in physics. It's measurable therefore dimension. I have no idea what you mean by 'what I call time'. Unless you have another point of reference that makes no sense. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s a human construct to define different configurations of matter relative to each other.

So are length breadth and height. I don't see your point here. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

There may be actual other dimentions as defined by string theory, but time isn’t one of them.

Its a continuum. Imperceptible. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Spacetime is merely a physical reference that it takes all the mini clocks inside of us to tick slower the more we move. The math of  C stops anything from traveling faster than it, so everything moving has to be slower to complete a “tick” if it’s moving. It’s pure logic and isn’t complicated given C is a constant.  

Not sure how this applies to the discussion? 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Good. So where all what exists?

Around us. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

We don’t need time. 

We don't get a choice in that. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

 The space between things? Or the vacuum? There is a distinction. 

Yes, I defined them. Second sentence of my previous post. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

The reason I’m asking is because you seem to be lumping the vacuum and “space” together and giving an estimated age of the “universe.” 

Where did I give an estimate on the age of the universe? Not that it's been discussed, but I have no problem with current predictions. 

Go back to the second sentence of the previous post. 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Maybe all tthe “space” between things THAT WE CAN SEE poped out during a rare quantum fluctuation 13 bullion years ago because there were not things to measure distance against, but there is no evidence that someone the vacuum itself came from such an event, and according to current calculations the vacuum is flat... or at least no curvature can be detected within our limits to detect it.

Its by far the most sound and supported explanation to date. Virtual particles explain enough for us to grasp the beginning 9f the Universe 

1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

Gotta go to sleep, I’m dozing off.

 

Sleep well. 

[ChrLzs]

WCF, as psyche states above, the reference to time being a fourth dimension is universal.  With good reason.

Think it through.  If you want to measure something's length (let's call it X), what do you do?  You position a ruler next to it, with the end or zero or reference point at one end and then you read off the number....  In other words you *must* choose a reference point in one direction.

It is then very obvious that in a similar way, you need 2 more reference points for the width (Y) and breadth (Z).  Similarly to specify a point in space, relative to another point (or frame of reference) - we obviously need those 3 dimensions....

But it should then be just as obvious that if we shift our object, then its distance from a particular point will have changed.  For example, let's say we look at where the earth is relative to the Sun, to use our solar system as the reference frame - over time that changes.  So to nail something down we also need to know when it is/was being measured.  Time.  The 4th dimension.

And if all that wasn't enough, when you learn about relativity you will discover that time and those other 3 dimensions are linked intrinsically and provably.

You can't just re-define it because you may not like it...

[GoldenWolf]

On 1/8/2019 at 9:55 PM, psyche101 said:

Yeah sure. 

 

Space is simply a large unoccupied area, and a vaccum is and area devoid of all matter. 

If you add the 4th dimension of time, you get spacetime, a single four-dimensional continuum. 

Where all space and time exists. 

You're a pretty smart person, I've noticed a pattern between space-time and the Golden Ratio, wanna try to figure it out?

Edited January 10, 2019 by GoldenWolf

[StarMountainKid]

I think time is a sort of mystery for us because we don't experience time itself, we experience interval between events. 

This interval we usually call time. But what is this interval? 

[+Liquid Gardens]

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

So to nail something down we also need to know when it is/was being measured.  Time.

And aren't there some rather basic scientific measures that rely on time?  How do things have a speed/velocity without time since it's part of the unit of measure?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

How do things have a speed/velocity without time since it's part of the unit of measure?

I don't believe that speed/velocity would exist in that case as both necessitate time. I'm not sure what it would be called, but taking time out of the equation for each would make it something completely different. Interesting question.

[ChrLzs]

Time: Nature's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen at once.

[ChrLzs]

3 hours ago, GoldenWolf said:

You're a pretty smart person, I've noticed a pattern between space-time and the Golden Ratio

Oh, you tease...

3 hours ago, GoldenWolf said:

, wanna try to figure it out?

No.

[ChrLzs]

And may I add my short summary dissertation on dimensional existence...

If the Universe was one dimensional, we would merely be a point on a straight line, and life would be unchanging.  Almost pointless, one might say!  {groan}

Two dimensional? - life would be very flat indeed, and again, unchanging.  A static Flatland.

Three dimensional? - Well, life would be solid, colorful, pretty, but again, completely unmoving.  Like a statue, only.. without time, no-one could create (or destroy) anything.  Empty unchanging space.

Four dimensional?  - The addition of time means things can unfold, change, be created, be destroyed (well, as far the laws of physics allow..).

I'm quite glad we live in that 4D (+?) Cosmos.  I think we are incredibly lucky to be sentient and aware, and able to marvel at this Cosmos.

 

From a personal perspective, I believe in 'balance', so I figure that there is an 'anti' universe that balances ours.  I think it's a fascinating question as to what caused the Big Split, but maybe when it comes down to stuff like that, it doesn't need a cause - it just is.  And I suspect we will never know - it's the Big Unexplained Mystery...

 

[Will Due]

Quote

 

Space Respiration

11:6.1

We do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration; we merely observe that all space alternately contracts and expands. This respiration affects both the horizontal extension of pervaded space and the vertical extensions of unpervaded space which exist in the vast space reservoirs above and below Paradise. In attempting to imagine the volume outlines of these space reservoirs, you might think of an hourglass.

11:6.2

As the universes of the horizontal extension of pervaded space expand, the reservoirs of the vertical extension of unpervaded space contract and vice versa. There is a confluence of pervaded and unpervaded space just underneath nether Paradise. Both types of space there flow through the transmuting regulation channels, where changes are wrought making pervadable space nonpervadable and vice versa in the contraction and expansion cycles of the cosmos.

11:6.3

“Unpervaded” space means: unpervaded by those forces, energies, powers, and presences known to exist in pervaded space. We do not know whether vertical (reservoir) space is destined always to function as the equipoise of horizontal (universe) space; we do not know whether there is a creative intent concerning unpervaded space; we really know very little about the space reservoirs, merely that they exist, and that they seem to counterbalance the space-expansion-contraction cycles of the universe of universes.

Link

 

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Link

 

What does that mean in your own words Will?

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What does that mean in your own words Will?

 

That the universe is in motion more ways than one. It respirates and breathes which keeps everything alive and in balance.

But that doesn't mean it still isn't an unexplained mystery. 

 

 

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

That the universe is in motion more ways than one. It respirates and breathes which keeps everything alive and in balance.

But that doesn't mean it still isn't an unexplained mystery. 

 

 

So you have some sort of evidence for this? 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So you have some sort of evidence for this? 

 

Not really.

But at the end of our noses.

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Not really.

But at the end of our noses.

 

 

Eh? 

Edited January 10, 2019 by Nuclear Wessel

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Not really.

But at the end of our noses.

 

 

So you wholeheartedly agree with the quoted comment you made with zero proofs. Yet your ok to present it as matter of fact?

Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

The first or second line indicates that the author has observational evidence to support that space contracts and expands. Does it?

 

 

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

So you wholeheartedly agree with the quoted comment you made with zero proofs. Yet your ok to present it as matter of fact?

Does that not seem disingenuous to you?

The first or second line indicates that the author has observational evidence to support that space contracts and expands. Does it?

 

 

 

I have no way of knowing for sure.

Maybe when we get to Paradise we can observe the evidence the same way they do.

 

 

[ChrLzs]

Will, plucking some whacko blog entry out and posting it here as if it is 'authoritive' is, don't you think, a very lazy way to treat a discussion?

Did you actually ask yourself the really obvious question, namely, what is the evidence for this supposed 'breathing' effect?

And you've now answered that question with "No, Not Really"

May I correct that to NO, NOT AT ALL.  That stuff is unsupported garbage.  Please don't post it and waste our time..

[Will Due]

 

@danydandan some things just can't be proven. But that doesn't mean they're not real or true. Do you agree?