A Ha

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 300 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by A Ha

• 
  136

  Sun,moon, earth and mathematics .

  by atomant in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just thought id let you all in on some info i found on northeasttruth.com.

  that magical moment where the moon blocks out the sun!

  but only just enough to perfectly cover the suns disc, whilst still allowing us to see the corona of light and other electromagnetic forces radiating from it.. this only happens because the moon diameter is exactly 1/400th the size of the suns and is positioned at exactly 1/400th of the distance between earth and the sun!so, when we see it from the surface of earth, we are in the only place this can ever be seen, at the only time it could ever happen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  Yes, it is not amazing.
• 
  148

  There is science that prove God exists

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses think that just the bible is proof that god exists but they are wrong.

  there is another mode for how he exists.

  now we all know many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  prologos, we (myself included) very often talk about the universe without differentiating--even within our own minds--just what we mean by it. Often when we say universe, we mean the observable universe (technically, the part that's inside our light cone). Other times we're talking about a larger universe which our observable "world" is a part of. There are different ways of describing a larger "Multiverse," from parallel universes, ensemble universe, "branes," superspace, bubble universes, etc. The beginning of our observable universe, at a Big Bang, isn't necessarily the beginning of all existence. This allows for the space-time of our universe to have a beginning while allowing for time in part of a larger universe.
  

  

  
  

  Two models showing our universe within a larger multiverse. Note, also, that these multiverses were not imagined to avoid the need for a god; they arise naturally from QM equations.

  on the other subject:----the moon/earth system, the Sun are waltzing, rotating along synchronized, no fairies required, obviously.

  This was my point, and it seems you agree. Just as there are no fairies required to explain the orbit of the moon, no god is required to explain any facet of the universe.

  ... at what radius in time did these pre-big bang conditions disappear?

  What pre-big bang conditions are you talking about? There are too many different models to ask a blanket question or give a blanket answer. That said, if I had to take a guess, I'd say many models don't say conditions "disappeared into" anything; they simply transitioned from one phase to another. If we're talking about a theoretical higher-entropy state to the very low entropy state of our early universe, or a fluctuation in a quantum field, there's nothing to disappear.

  ... but if they did not disappear, that energy can still be a property of the void, and is making it's constant appearance into the space that opens up in the expanding universe. That the gist of what I read. or?

  That's not my understanding. If anything, the universe would be said to be expanding into this empty space, not the other way around. More importantly, however we characterize this boundary, the cosmic background microwave radiation shows that conditions of our "local," or observable universe obtain at least to the edge of our light cone, and anything happening beyond that is impenetrable to us.
• 
  148

  There is science that prove God exists

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses think that just the bible is proof that god exists but they are wrong.

  there is another mode for how he exists.

  now we all know many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  ... dark energy is an inherent property of space, and the added space of the expanding universe increases the energy content of the universe. This explains the accelerated expansion of the universe... that dark energy is thought to be a possible feature of the pre-beginning condition too. or?

  Yes, thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I've read From Eternity to Here, so I'll have to look through it to see specifically what you're talking about, but my post demonstrates that I shouldn't comment on such dense topics when it's well past my bedtime. It's difficult to remember that the much-vaunted "conservation of energy" doesn't apply in an expanding universe (and even here I must simply accept what the experts say, as much of the physics is over my head).

  However, I don't think dark energy "is thought to be a... feature of the pre-beginning condition," since it's a property of space-time, which didn't exist until the BB. You'll note that I left out the word "possible" from my quote of you, because I think it renders your claim too wishy-washy to be useful. Anything is possible. However, I'll grant that my objection is little more than a nit-pick because you're attempting to solve a problem that I don't think exists. If we're going to posit a creator, then you don't need to explain how it did anything (including what material it might have needed to work with); whatever the physicists come up with, we can always just add, "God used that... or caused that... or created that... or transformed that..."

  Moon fairies as straw men?

  It's not a straw man because I'm not presenting it as your position. It's a demonstration that appealing to the "possibility" of something doesn't gain you much--if anything at all.
• 
  148

  There is science that prove God exists

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses think that just the bible is proof that god exists but they are wrong.

  there is another mode for how he exists.

  now we all know many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  prologs I think you are grossly misrepresenting--or misinterpreting--what is in cosmology books.

  you can not pick up a book on cosmology that does not come to terms with the fact that there are conditions that preceded the beginning of our universe,

  I have read a few books on cosmology and never read anything that presented conditions preceding the beginning of the (classical) universe as "fact." There are plenty of mathematical models that allow for various conditions before the Big Bang, but none of them are called fact. At this point, all pre-Big-Bang cosmology is speculative.

  and perhaps are still filling it with more [dark]energy.

  What book says this? I've never read a cosmology or physics book that said new energy was coming into the universe. Energy in the universe is balanced, and no new energy is being added. If it were, it would be all over the news.

  These conditions demand the existence of time, and the possibility of a creator at work.

  These conditions, if they existed (and I think they likely did), would demand that time exist before the Big Bang, but you're trying to attach "the possibility of a creator" to "conditions demand," and that is incorrect. At most, one could say it's possible for a creator to have been at work, but that is true whatever the conditions--or even if there were no conditions before the Big Bang.
  
  The Laws of Physics explain the orbits of the planets. It's also possible that Moon Fairies push the moon around its orbit while the planets follow Newtonian physics. "Possible" is not an impressive claim, especially when there's no reason to think it's the case.

  
  
• 
  49

  Sharia Law in the US, it's coming folks.

  by James Mixon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my question, why would one immigrate to the west and refuse to adopt the western cultural?.

  if you believe our way of life is so degenerated why bring your family to this place.. in a very close 5-4 vote, the city of irving ruled to back the texas state bill banning foreign.

  law from the state.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  The US flag is going to be replaced with the russian flag.

  I mean... there's nothing on the books, and the government and people of the US would never allow it, but some people somewhere want it, so that means it's coming, right?

  The Russian flag is coming, folks!
• 
  49

  Sharia Law in the US, it's coming folks.

  by James Mixon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my question, why would one immigrate to the west and refuse to adopt the western cultural?.

  if you believe our way of life is so degenerated why bring your family to this place.. in a very close 5-4 vote, the city of irving ruled to back the texas state bill banning foreign.

  law from the state.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  Passing a law against Sharia Law is a PR stunt, probably to raise money for re-election. Might as well pass a law making it illegal to grow wings and fly.
• 
  44

  Ponderings of a Worldly Person

  by Nevuela in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  35-year-old female in california here.

  never a jw, but have had bible studies and attended several meetings and even a convention once.

  i've always been agnostic with leanings toward the belief in some deity or other, although the more i learned from the jw's, the more i've learned to doubt, not just their teachings, but the fundamental teachings of all religions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  As a theory, bigfoot makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's sensible to give it credence without evidence.
• 
  84

  Why are the atheists on this site so hateful?

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  all us creationists try to do is offer true evidence that the one and only god is out there watching and looking down on us.

  we present that certain scientists know the truth about god and that he is everything that we see from trees, life, weather, the air we breath, and even the most simple molecules.

  but of course you atheists reject it because it is your nature to not be humble and see god because you want to rule your own life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  But humans have been selfish since Adam and Eve.

  I want to tell you in the most non-hateful way possible our DNA proves that there was no Adam and Eve. We do not descend from a single couple. It's obvious that you have been tricked into believing a fairy tale.

  All my non-hateful love.
  
  
• 
  148

  There is science that prove God exists

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses think that just the bible is proof that god exists but they are wrong.

  there is another mode for how he exists.

  now we all know many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  HEL why do you say gravity and light must have been made. The only honest answer is you can't say that.
• 
  148

  There is science that prove God exists

  by HopeEverLasting in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovahs witnesses think that just the bible is proof that god exists but they are wrong.

  there is another mode for how he exists.

  now we all know many scientists who are creationists now weren’t creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  A Ha

  if everything came from nothing, then what created the nothing? It's as old a question as the chicken and the egg.

  Well, it seems common sense that there is no need for "nothing" to be created, but the idea that "nothing isn't really nothing"*--at least to cosmologists--is gaining a lot of traction, so that wouldn't really answer your concern. But even if the question is valid for chickens and eggs doesn't mean it's valid for the universe as a whole.

  Why can't it come from nothing?: There is no logical or metaphysical reason that the Universe couldn't have come into existence, uncaused. It seems like it would need to, based on our experience of everyday things inside the universe, but that doesn't mean it's the case of the universe itself. The appearance of the universe could just be an uncaused event.

  Who says it isn't eternal?: Physicists are not at all convinced that the universe isn't eternal. (In fact, the most simple/best QM models are of an eternal universe, and it's what most cosmologists favor.)

  A common paper by a trio of physicists that is often misapplied by a particular apologist/debater concludes that the universe began to exist (and this is coupled with our common-sense notion that all things must begin to exist). But it doesn't really conclude that the universe began to exist, it basically assumes the universe began to exist. One of the two big assumptions of the paper is that the average expansion rate of the universe is greater than 0. If you make that assumption, than a beginning of the classical universe (the "Newtonian" universe we're all used to thinking about, not the Quantum Universe) must follow as a simple result of the math.

  But that doesn't mean the universe as a whole began to exist at the Big Bang. The Big Bang marks the expansion of the classical universe. This gets confusing, talking about the Quantum Universe vs the Classical Universe, but we have to keep in mind that Newtonian physics has severe limitations--especially at the high temp/gravity/energy state of the early universe. The Big Bang Model cannot touch the moment of the Big Bang or before it (if there was a before); that's when you need to explore QM.

  So, unfortunately, the answer to your question is "That's not a good question." It makes two big--and likely incorrect--assumptions that kind of push it toward a particular answer.

  Many physicists are talking now about the 'God particle,' subatomic anomalies that cannot be explained with current scientific models. They operate outside the known laws of physics and perhaps are doorways to other dimensions.

  "The God Particle" is the nickname given to the Higgs boson, a particle that gives all matter its mass. It was called that because it is extremely important to arriving at a complete model of reality, but it was very elusive. The Higgs boson was discovered in 2012.

  I think these "subatomic anomalies" you're talking about are fluctuations in vacuum energy, but they are explained by scientific models (however, they are unpredictable.) They don't operate outside the laws of physics and don't have anything to do with extra dimensions.

  They simply can't express that view publicly, as it would cause them to lose credibility in the scientific community.

  I know this is kind of a throwaway line, but it's a bit silly and rather offensive. If you're a good scientist, you'll have credibility. There are tons of scientists who are unabashed theists and it hasn't hurt their careers at all. This seems to me to be nothing more than propaganda started by theists to explain why most scientists (especially in the hard sciences) aren't believers. Kenneth Miller comes to mind as a scientist (biologist at Brown University) who is very vocal about his belief, and yet is very highly regarded as a biologist.

  * For a discussion of this, you can read A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss, or look for his lectures by that name on YouTube