PROOF of Nature's God

[ding]

cyclical bb, the boomerang theory- nimrod ... if it is what you need - google can help you, maybe. otherwise refute the theory.

 

[BreezeWood]

such as a black hole event and a breach expelling matter back to its origin ... is another example of the possible origination of our present universe.

maybe nite school at a local elementary can bring you up to par, couldn't hurt. unless of course if it is christian.

 

[alang1216]

Do you have any evidence that the universe ISN"T tuned for life?

Fish are tuned to live in water. Not the other way around.

So water is not tuned for fish but the universe was? Seems contradictory to me.

 

[alang1216]

The radiation was created by particle-antiparticle annihilation which were created through a quantum tunneling event. Matter and anti-matter particles are what popped into existence.

Atheists can be the biggest science deniers when the science doesn't suit them. You are proving that point now.

Are you talking about quantum foam? So the radiation was created by particles, which in turn created particles. Sounds like an endless cycle, not something from nothing. I don't deny science, I just object to its abuse.

 

[ding]

So water is not tuned for fish but the universe was? Seems contradictory to me.

That's because your analogy is flawed. The structure of matter being tuned for life is a simple fact. Apparently one that offends your sensibilities because it should be self evident that fish were tuned for water and not the other way around.

Whereas if any one of a number of physical properties of our universe were other than what it is... life would not be possible. So the structure of matter being tuned for life is a simple fact that won't be defeated by using a flawed analogy.

 

[ding]

Are you talking about quantum foam? So the radiation was created by particles, which in turn created particles. Sounds like an endless cycle, not something from nothing. I don't deny science, I just object to its abuse.

The radiation was created by particles and antiparticles annihilation. Which in turn created particles and antiparticles until eventually all that was left were particles and radiation. But it was the creation of particles and antiparticles from nothing in nearly equal amounts that began the process.

If you object to the abuse of science then maybe you should stop abusing it for no other reason than it offends your sensibilities. After all you are arguing against the theory of the big bang which is the generally accepted theory of the creation of the universe.

 

[ding]

Sounds like an endless cycle, not something from nothing.

But it isn't an endless cycle. Eventually the anti-particles were converted into radiation along with an equal amount of matter particles leaving behind only matter particles (all the matter in the universe) and radiation (CMB). At that point the creation of paired particles from radiation became conventional like what we can observe today and the chaos of anti-particle/particle annihilation dissipated.

The something from nothing was the creation of particles and antiparticles from nothing in nearly equal amounts that began the process.

 

[alang1216]

That's because your analogy is flawed. The structure of matter being tuned for life is a simple fact. Apparently one that offends your sensibilities because it should be self evident that fish were tuned for water and not the other way around.

I agree fish were 'tuned' to water but I would also say that life was tuned to our universe, not the other way around.

Whereas if any one of a number of physical properties of our universe were other than what it is... life would not be possible.

You mean life as we know it would not be possible. Same as saying if there were no water there would be no fish so the water was intended for the fish.

So the structure of matter being tuned for life is a simple fact that won't be defeated by using a flawed analogy.

 

[ding]

...life was tuned to our universe, not the other way around.

The structure of atoms would disagree.

 

[alang1216]

The radiation was created by particles and antiparticles annihilation. Which in turn created particles and antiparticles until eventually all that was left were particles and radiation. But it was the creation of particles and antiparticles from nothing in nearly equal amounts that began the process.

Can we create particles or radiation from nothing? I think your reasoning is circular.

If you object to the abuse of science then maybe you should stop abusing it for no other reason than it offends your sensibilities. After all you are arguing against the theory of the big bang which is the generally accepted theory of the creation of the universe.

I have no issue with the BB, only with your theory of what preceded it. There are other theories out there.

 

[ding]

...You mean life as we know it would not be possible....

No. Life period.

[Were any one of a number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere.] ~George Wald

 

[alang1216]

No. Life period.

[Were any one of a number of physical properties of our universe other than it is -- some of those properties basic, others seeming trivial, almost accidental -- that life, that now appears to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere.] ~George Wald

How many other universes has Wald studied?

 

[ding]

Can we create particles or radiation from nothing? I think your reasoning is circular.

Yes, we can. They pop into and out of existence leaving only radiation. Just not in the same way or scale as what happened when the universe was created. So how is that circular? And isn't you saying it's circular an example of you arguing against the generally accepted science? Especially since you don't have any strong beliefs for how the universe was created.

I have no issue with the BB, only with your theory of what preceded it. There are other theories out there.

The theory of what proceeded it is the basis for the big bang.

I would love to hear how those other theories left the signature of the CMB because that is the evidence that must be explained. Paired particle production does that.

 

[ding]

How many other universes has Wald studied?

None that I am aware of. Do you even understand the basis for his statement?

 

[alang1216]

Yes, we can. They pop into and out of existence leaving only radiation. Just not in the same way or scale as what happened when the universe was created. So how is that circular? And isn't you saying it's circular an example of you arguing against the generally accepted science? Especially since you don't have any strong beliefs for how the universe was created.

If you are talking about virtual particles, if they really do exist, they don't come from nothing, they come from the quantum field underlying space.

The theory of what proceeded it is the basis for the big bang.

That is not my understanding of the BB.

I would love to hear how those other theories left the signature of the CMB because that is the evidence that must be explained. Paired particle production does that.

I think any theory that leads to a BB will result in CMB.

 

[alang1216]

None that I am aware of. Do you even understand the basis for his statement?

Yes and I'm sure he's absolutely right. For life as we know it. For life as we don't know it, I'm not so sure.

 

[ding]

If you are talking about virtual particles, if they really do exist, they don't come from nothing, they come from the quantum field underlying space.

The quantum field is a probability wave. It does not exist as matter or energy.

That is not my understanding of the BB.

That's because you don't understand it.

I think any theory that leads to a BB will result in CMB.

I disagree. Can't get there without paired particle production.

But feel free to pick one and show how that isn't the case.

 

[ding]

Yes and I'm sure he's absolutely right. For life as we know it. For life as we don't know it, I'm not so sure.

If the structure or charge of atoms were even slightly different the universe would be devoid of all life. Period. That's how perfectly balanced the universe is for life. It's like placing a vase in the middle of a table near a busy hallway and coming back to find the vase perfectly balanced halfway on the table and halfway off the table. It's unnatural as in it's not an accident. The only way the vase gets there is if someone places it there. Same thing for this universe being hardwired for life and intelligence.

 

[alang1216]

The quantum field is a probability wave. It does not exist as matter or energy.

I think you have it backwards. All matter and energy are fields.

I disagree. Can't get there without paired particle production.

But feel free to pick one and show how that isn't the case.

Inflation

 

[alang1216]

If the structure or charge of atoms were even slightly different the universe would be devoid of all life. Period. That's how perfectly balanced the universe is for life. It's like placing a vase in the middle of a table near a busy hallway and coming back to find the vase perfectly balanced halfway on the table and halfway off the table. It's unnatural as in it's not an accident. The only way the vase gets there is if someone places it there. Same thing for this universe being hardwired for life and intelligence.

Bad analogy. In the quantum world the vase is both on the table and not on the table.