If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 112

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Vintu, I was enunciating from the point of view of field lines and how the so called properties influence the regions of space around them





An electron has charge; it's a point particle as we know with no spatial extent. Yet, the lines of force influence the region of space around it.

My question was more related to the energy space itself has. What is the region of influence for the spatial energy? I think it gets circular to define the region in terms of the same region which has energy.

As for the cosmological constant, I think you are on the right track there even though what you said wasn't completely clear to me.

In short, I am looking into what exactly it means when someone says "vacuum energy". And what does that in turn mean in at the quantum scale.

K... 😛

Oh! Right ..So you are on about the Spatial Radius of the charge ..So I would like to believe the charge is propagated to a certain limited extent to the space around it..Though miniscule it can affect the other particles evenly or those that are oppositely charged. and this should happen because of the quantity of particles exerting the charge together ..

For instance ..One ant ..can't pull a dead bug alone ..but a 100 ants together do the trick ...Same way the humungous quantity in which the particles exist make them capable of
exerting forces beyond their individual spatial radius ..

As far as the Vacuum / dark energy is concerned I'm as much in the dark as could be ..😆
But what makes it viable for a hypothesis must be the theory that states ...the Mass / Energy density of the universe must be the same as the Critical Density ...<<<< And this is where all the matter in the Universe fall short ...That accounts only for 4 % of the Critical Density and the Dark matter adds another 22 % .. So the remaining must be that of the vacuum ..As nothing else exists ..😆 ...So obviously the vacuum has Density ..Which fluctuates to create those Virtual particles...

^^^ Now does that make sense ?

Vintu ... 😛

So at singularity, what we have is more than a unified force (or supergravity as they would like to call it).

What we had was something that gave "birth" to dark energy, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, space, time, nuclear forces (strong/weak) and, yeah, the miniscule good for nothing matter :)

Technically, we could call that something the universe itself, but somewhere in that there is the oddball consciousness that is aware of the universe. So what we have is universe + awareness / intelligence unless the awareness / intelligence could be explained in terms of the universe.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

It is possible that this is the reason space is expanding at the "outermost edges".

I think we need to separate space and energy. Space has energy is not a true statement IMO. Whatever is expanding the space is also a type of energy ("dark energy") as they put it, which means there is energy (first and foremost) and one "type" of it is responsible for "creation" of space (even though scientists deliberately avoid the word creation and prefer "expansion".

Hahaha ...😆 Yay ! ..That's why they use abstruse terminology for simple things ...I think Stretching is the right word ..Not expansion ..and I ll tell ya why .. See the matter, the galaxies in the universe are accelerating away from each other and the point of their creation ..Which means the space / vacuum between them is increasing ...But when the material universe doubles in speace ..the density of the vacuum halves <<<< Now doesn't that sound more like Stretching ? .Also the vacuum energy remains constant ..( Cosmological constant ) ..

It in turn means the universe will definitely end one day ..May be after a trillion years ..as the vacuum's density is decreasing ..as there won't be nuff dense vacuum to create anymore virtual particles ...

@ Bold: ..The density is present ( In vacuum ) ..Which is = Mass / volume ...Now what we need is the Force to cause acceleration ...for the fluctuations to take place ..and F = ma ..So the only part needed to create the force is the Acceleration ...Which is caused by the the associated Gravity ... which is also present in the case of vacuum ..

But even after this the question would remain ..what created the density ..<<<< The mother of all answers lie in that answer ...

hm ..

Vintu ...

Uh- oh ! Not celebration time yet ...😲

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Oh! Right ..So you are on about the Spatial Radius of the charge ..So I would like to believe the charge is propagated to a certain limited extent to the space around it..Though miniscule it can affect the other particles evenly or those that are oppositely charged. and this should happen because of the quantity of particles exerting the charge together ..

For instance ..One ant ..can't pull a dead bug alone ..but a 100 ants together do the trick ...Same way the humungous quantity in which the particles exist make them capable of
exerting forces beyond their individual spatial radius ..

There I knew it! With that you kicked the theory of single Electron out of the universe 😆

As far as the Vacuum / dark energy is concerned I'm as much in the dark as could be ..
But what makes it viable for a hypothesis must be the theory that states ...the Mass / Energy density of the universe must be the same as the Critical Density ...<<<< And this is where all the matter in the Universe fall short ...That accounts only for 4 % of the Critical Density and the Dark matter adds another 22 % .. So the remaining must be that of the vacuum ..As nothing else exists .. ...So obviously the vacuum has Density ..Which fluctuates to create those Virtual particles...

^^^ Now does that make sense ?

Nope ! Can vacuum have mass and without mass density? Or are you rooting for some sort of virtual mass ...

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

So at singularity, what we have is more than a unified force (or supergravity as they would like to call it).

What we had was something that gave "birth" to dark energy, dark matter, gravity, electromagnetism, space, time, nuclear forces (strong/weak) and, yeah, the miniscule good for nothing matter :)

Technically, we could call that something the universe itself, but somewhere in that there is the oddball consciousness that is aware of the universe. So what we have is universe + awareness / intelligence unless the awareness / intelligence could be explained in terms of the universe.

Right on there! The energy, force, vacuum and least of all matter so far have failed to explain the emergence of consciousness though the standard assumption in neuroscience is that consciousness is a byproduct of the operation of the human brain. This needs some critical unbiased re-assessment.

Originally posted by: _Angie_

Uh- oh ! Not celebration time yet ...😲

Angie ...WTH ..😆 ..And I came prepared for a fiesta ..That ll last eternally ..I attired flamboyantly ...Stole the best of the thread and some exy champagne from the neighborhood stores ..to rejoice our win 😛 ...This is crazy ..I hope the cops don't bail me up again ..at least before we find the God ..

Nope ! Can vacuum have mass and without mass density? Or are you rooting for some sort of virtual mass ...

Haha ..That's why I associate vacuum with my notion about you ..It's just as occult and prolific as you ..😛 ...Something that's actually nothing but creates everything ...<<< 😆

On a serious note: It has virtual particles which has been proven by the Casimir effect ...Or should we call that the Angie effect ? 😆 Yay ! ..That sounds more apt ..I bet ..I bet ..

Right on there! The energy, force, vacuum and least of all matter so far have failed to explain the emergence of consciousness though the standard assumption in neuroscience is that consciousness is a byproduct of the operation of the human brain. This needs some critical unbiased re-assessment.

^^^ Exactly my point ..Even K and Birdie would concur ...The consciousness it is ..everyone fails to explain ..Even if its a by product of the brain ..The credit goes to someone who created / designed the brain ..and everything else ...that works so wonderfully well ..

I guess we must not limit our view to a observable Universe ...I bet we are in a Multiverse ..

as the Brane cosmology suggests ...and someone who is conscious ...or himself is consciousness monitors everything quietly ...Impeccably ...

This is why I once said ..We must know the age of the Electrons ..as they don't decay ..May be we ll know some might have existed even before the (So called ) Big bang ...may be we have come from another universe that was Open / Flat ..after escaping it's event horizon..All conjectures I say ..The reality is as obscure as someone's vision after a few nasty pegs ..😆

Something which only the God can tell ! 😆

Do we agree that one or a combination of these are the only possible resolutions to the question of how our universe came about?

• Universe is the observed; there is a Conscious observer observing the universe
• Universe came about because of random fluctuations owing to probability
• Universe is a Simulation
• God created the Universe
• There is not just one universe but a Multiverse (or the somewhat related many worlds)
• Everything is unreal / Maya / Illusion

If yes, then it's time to pick what's the best resolution of all. If not, please add to the list.

If picking one (or a combination) it's best to provide reasons why the others are being eliminated.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Do we agree that one or a combination of these are the only possible resolutions to the question of how our universe came about?

• Universe is the observed; there is a Conscious observer observing the universe
• Universe came about because of random fluctuations owing to probability
• Universe is a Simulation
• God created the Universe
• There is not just one universe but a Multiverse (or the somewhat related many worlds)
• Everything is unreal / Maya / Illusion

If yes, then it's time to pick what's the best resolution of all. If not, please add to the list.

If picking one (or a combination) it's best to provide reasons why the others are being eliminated.

^^ No, that's fine! But if you are eliminating, I would like to see you eliminate them scientifically / mathematically, rather than by the cliched/tiresome "no proof"method.

For example, what is the probability of quantum fluctuations producing an insanely complex entity such as the human brain, when it takes extraordinarily high amounts of directed energy to produce one Higgs Boson that too for the tiniest of the tiny seconds, so fleeting as to be governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for its brief existence and for these fluctuations to remain stable enough to produce matter particles that somehow arrange themselves in patterns and can start contemplating about how they and the rest of the universe came to be?

In other words, I would like to see some heavy-duty science/math/logic when adopting / refuting a resolution :)

Okay let's resort to the Math to see if we can garner any clues from that ..

cos(x) + i*sin(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2 + i*(e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i) = (2*e^(i*x))/2 = e^(pi*x)

^^^ We know that cos(x) = (e^(i*x) + e^-(i*x))/2 AND sin(x) = (e^(i*x) - e^-(i*x))/(2i)

Which means

e^(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x), ...Now as we replace X with Pi ( To indicate the rotational motion )
e^(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i*sin(pi) = -1 + i*0 = -1

So ... e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 = G ☺️

^^^^^ Hahaha ...That's the grandeur of the God ...the mighty entity that regulates everything ..even the math ..even before humans had discovered that ... 😛

Ps : That's Euler's equation ...And even if one solves that with Maclaurin series with complex numbers


Vintu ...

^^

A beautiful equation indeed! Alas, it's beauty would be lost on 99.99% of the folks anywhere in this world let alone this forum so I am inserting a link here for those interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity#Mathematical_beauty

What Euler did in his equation is LINK five fundamental mathematical constants, namely, 0, 1, p, e, and i.

0 is the additive identity, 1 is the multiplicative identity, p is the circular constant, e is the base of the natural logarithms and i is the imaginary unit. There is absolutely no reason for these numbers to be related but they are in such an elegant manner all thanks to Euler.

One more reason why we should focus on Math if we truly want to understand nature. Science is just a clumsy way of explaining the underlying Math.