Discovery Channel's "Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?"

[buffalo]

Interesting! And surprising, since I thought that I was the only one left alive who still insisted that the aether exists, despite Michelson-Morley. It is well integrated into my theories and formally proposed in the penultimate chapter.

However, as with all terms, discussing the aether is like discussing God— the properties of each are relevant to the discussion. I could not find much meat on the referenced website and am not willing to cough up $70 for another hypothetical physics book again, without some certainty that it contains something I want to know. The website was annoying, cluttered with ads and irrelevant links. I have it bookmarked and will return for another information search when I have more time.

Its version of the aether is clearly quite different from mine, as its interpretation of physics, which I found a bit disappointing. I’m pursuing matter-wave theory and non-existent time because it seems more consistent with my understanding of the aether.

Different opinions are important in any search for truth, I’m delighted to find that others are engaged in the pursuit of a better understanding than that offered by current physics doctrine. Thank you!

I agree about the clutter. The site could do better with the presentation.

If the aether exists it is a game changer.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m delighted to find that others are engaged in the pursuit of a better understanding than that offered by current physics doctrine. Thank you!

What is your definition of aether then, and do you have any evidence for its existence?

Does non-existent time exist? I don’t know what it is in " physical existence" that you could possibly be referring to. Do i have to cease to exist to experience non-existent time?

 

[Simpleton]

http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/6/6b/Atheism.jpg

:bowdown:Oh great atheism jpg which came forth from nothing for no purpose, we are not worthy.

 

[rel1]

I have a panthiestic view of the universe and I believe that what is in existence has ALWAYS been in existence. Therefore a creator god is nonessential and meaningless. Everything in existence is essentially energy in eternal motion and change. Life=death=life (continuous cycle). There is no cause without an effect and visa versa. They are one in the same. In absolute terms there is nothing in existence that is discrete or static and all is one and one is all. If you can think of anything that can survive by itself without a continuous energy suppy please let me know. There would be no NOW without it and no future. The way I view the universe is that of an rolling and continuous tide in an ocean of energy and everything in existence consumes and transfers energy.

 

[lemondiesel]

But the TV discussion included no such insights— just a couple of party-line theologians who seemed to be on the program mainly to show how weak the case of a Creator is, compared to science. IMO it was a set-up job all the way.

Welcome to the wonderful creation of ‘mainstream media’

 

[greylorn]

I have a panthiestic view of the universe and I believe that what is in existence has ALWAYS been in existence. Therefore a creator god is nonessential and meaningless. Everything in existence is essentially energy in eternal motion and change. Life=death=life (continuous cycle). There is no cause without an effect and visa versa. They are one in the same. In absolute terms there is nothing in existence that is discrete or static and all is one and one is all. If you can think of anything that can survive by itself without a continuous energy suppy please let me know. There would be no NOW without it and no future. The way I view the universe is that of an rolling and continuous tide in an ocean of energy and everything in existence consumes and transfers energy.

There is one little glitch in your system.

If we live in a cause-effect universe, which seems to be the case, what is the cause which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and makes interactive forms of stuff (matter, charge, radiation, etc.) from energy?

Put in non-physics terms, the universe is clearly an effect. What is its cause?

 

[buffalo]

There is one little glitch in your system.

If we live in a cause-effect universe, which seems to be the case, what is the cause which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and makes interactive forms of stuff (matter, charge, radiation, etc.) from energy?

Put in non-physics terms, the universe is clearly an effect. What is its cause?

The “breath of God”.

 

[greylorn]

What is your definition of aether then, and do you have any evidence for its existence?

The definition requires a fair amount of background development— hence the book.

I have mostly the same evidence as anyone else who can read a physics book, but I interpret it differently. For example, lightspeed is entirely a function of the media through which it propagates. It doesn’t accelerate or decelerate. Light striking a windowpane immediately passes through the glass at a reduced velocity which is a function of the permittivity and permeability values for the glass, and upon emerging back into air, returns to its original velocity.

This demonstrates that a medium is essential for em wave propagation. There must be a medium which allows light to pass through “empty” space.

For a more rigorous explanation, pick up a copy of John Schulenberger’s 1980 paper, Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether.

Does non-existent time exist? I don’t know what it is in " physical existence" that you could possibly be referring to. Do i have to cease to exist to experience non-existent time?

Your questions are improperly phrased, coming from the persistent perspective that time must exist. Consider the relevance of time from the perspective of a state machine, such as a clock or a computer. That may help.

 

[greylorn]

The “breath of God”.

Except that God needs no lungs. You’ve introduced a Hindu concept into this discussion. Does it apply, except symbolically?

 

[greylorn]

I agree about the clutter. The site could do better with the presentation.

If the aether exists it is a game changer.

It does exist. The game is not only changed, it moves onto a different kind of playing field, one in which physics is as intimately integrated with our concept of God as is space with our concept of time.

 

[JHow]

…There must be a medium which allows light to pass through “empty” space…

I play and build guitar amplifiers on an amateur level. Are my beloved “vacuum” tubes really “aether” tubes?

 

[greylorn]

I play and build guitar amplifiers on an amateur level. Are my beloved “vacuum” tubes really “aether” tubes?

I’m impressed! That kind of work is as much art as engineering. And, fun question.

Technically they are, but do not need to be. The electrons emitted from the cathode in your triodes and pentodes (which are actually just big transistors with a heater to keep the beta up) may not need the aether contained within the tube in order to reach the anode, since they seem to be matter-waves rather than e/m waves. Unless they make a different use of it.

If the aether could be removed without the tube imploding, electrons would get to the anode a tad faster. It probably would not make a difference in an audio amp, maybe needing a bit less capacitance in the grid circuits, but I’m not enough of an engineer to guess what other tweaks might be needed. (That’s a probably irrelevant side topic.)

 

[buffalo]

Except that God needs no lungs. You’ve introduced a Hindu concept into this discussion. Does it apply, except symbolically?

It is symbolic. It is a mystery how God transmits information and sustains the universe. It is not Hindu as God breathed life into Adam.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The definition requires a fair amount of background development— hence the book.

I have mostly the same evidence as anyone else who can read a physics book, but I interpret it differently. For example, lightspeed is entirely a function of the media through which it propagates. It doesn’t accelerate or decelerate. Light striking a windowpane immediately passes through the glass at a reduced velocity which is a function of the permittivity and permeability values for the glass, and upon emerging back into air, returns to its original velocity.

This demonstrates that a medium is essential for em wave propagation. There must be a medium which allows light to pass through “empty” space.

For a more rigorous explanation, pick up a copy of John Schulenberger’s 1980 paper, Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether.

Your questions are improperly phrased, coming from the persistent perspective that time must exist. Consider the relevance of time from the perspective of a state machine, such as a clock or a computer. That may help.

It seems to me that the result of any physics theory of G-d makes Him something less than G-d . It makes Him dependent on something else, beholden to some law greater than He and thereby cannot be G-d in any way that is worthy of worship. I would not worship the most powerful being in the universe because it would just be another being no different than kind than I. The god you refer to must be a very small thing.

 

[greylorn]

It seems to me that the result of any physics theory of G-d makes Him something less than G-d . It makes Him dependent on something else, beholden to some law greater than He and thereby cannot be G-d in any way that is worthy of worship. I would not worship the most powerful being in the universe because it would just be another being no different than kind than I. The god you refer to must be a very small thing.

You have confused my God-concept with your mind.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have confused my God-concept with your mind.

So you accede to the argument that any such god concept as may be derived from the physical laws is an inadequate concept for actual worship? If so, it would seem that you have found a theology for which there is no market.

 

[greylorn]

So you accede to the argument that any such god concept as may be derived from the physical laws is an inadequate concept for actual worship? If so, it would seem that you have found a theology for which there is no market.

The Creator-concept derived from my theories is not that of a lonely, narcissistic entity so deprived of companionship that he created the intellectual equivalent of fruit flies to worship him.

About twenty years ago I realized that there was no market for my ideas, except perhaps among a tiny handful of individuals who have made an honest study of the mystery of the beginnings and come to the logical conclusion that neither the dogmas of science nor religion provided adequate answers.

Of late I realized another facet of my theories which will greatly limit their marketability. They demand absolute personal responsibility. One reason that I write is to take personal responsibility for my beliefs, including paying for their publication.

So I do not write to get rich. Should that happen, the money will come too late to be of any use to me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Creator-concept derived from my theories is not that of a lonely, narcissistic entity so deprived of companionship that he created the intellectual equivalent of fruit flies to worship him…

Yet it is beholden to some other laws right? Just as we are and therefore it cannot be a god anymore than we are. No matter how how powerful a being in this universe may be, it is no different in kind than we. Further, at some point in the chain it seems that you must assert that this higher law is logically necessary, yet, I can see no logical contradiction formed by the negation of any being short of Actus Purus, which is already what we call G-d. It seems to me that it might be intellectually or psychologically satisfying to assert a kind of grand unified theory of G-d, bringing together the various disciplines. Yet, if in doing so one formulates a mere caricature of G-d, something less than a truly authentic and absolute G-d, one has missed the point. G-d must be absolute and primary, whatever else might be, it cannot be called a god in any sense more meaningful than Zeus, Odin, or Osiris. The modern man bowing to the ancient “gods”, in an attempt to be scientific seems to be an action at odds with itself.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The link you’ve offered is of little value unless one is looking for all the possible evidence that supports Big Bang dogma. IMO the BB theory is utter bunk, on the simple grounds that neither its entity nor its cause of origin can be explained in either math or ordinary language. Fundamentals are important, really.

To quote from my coming book, with permission: *…the cover of the April 2011 issue of Scientific American describes its lead article thusly—

“Quantum Gaps in Big Bang Theory—
Why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed— or replaced.” *

Not every science camp follower is riding the Big Bang’s bandwagon. You might consider reading the article.

Understood however that wasn’t my point. The Point is that what is known about the BB could in fact take us to the drawing board starting from scratch. Which the article states.

Peace

 

[rel1]

There is one little glitch in your system.

If we live in a cause-effect universe, which seems to be the case, what is the cause which violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and makes interactive forms of stuff (matter, charge, radiation, etc.) from energy?

Put in non-physics terms, the universe is clearly an effect. What is its cause?