Physics Debates

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

The issue of this evidence (nothingness does not produce) is bigger than terrestrial life, so it is not related to Darwin's theory. We can summarize by saying that "the effect indicates a cause" doesn't mean that every effect indicates God directly but rather, that the chain of effects and causes must end up at an original (old, eternal, and self-existent) cause, because nothingness does not produce. This cause is God Almighty and life on this earth is just a small link in this chain. Consequently, any debate to refute this evidence must be about the origin of matter and proving that it came from nothingness, or nonexistence, This has not been proven by anyone. Actually, scientists have more or less proven that the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe. As a matter of fact, there was a cause behind the big bang. As such, the sequence of causes will continue after it until they end at the original cause, which is God Almighty. God willing, we will discuss next the standard model or the big bang, and how it demonstrates the existence of God.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins

Traduire

Afficher les 11 commentaires

Albert Ripple (“bort”): the individual events that actually occur are not predetermined by rules. it is the set of possible events that is subject to law. that's how things work when they are dictated by probability.
also, it is faulty to presume that only an entity can put an order in place. what controls that entity's actions?, and if nothing does, why can't non-entities lack external causes? if it is ok for a legislator's choices on physical law to not themselves be dictated by some other causal law, then it is perfectly reasonable for physical law to exist only in and of itself: the legislator is superfluous.
the purpose of this community is the advancement of science, but it is obvious that you care not for this purpose, that you would rather appear scientific to serve an ulterior motive (that being to attempt to tear down atheism with in esse cosmological arguments, which btw you fail to do). i am considering modifying the rules to require posts to be in line with the community's purpose.

Andreas Geisler: +Evolution is purposeful Quantum events do not seem to be governed by rules.
They just happen.

Trying to presuppose an "aware legislator" is just stupid, by the way.

Evolution is purposeful: +Albert Ripple As we can't believe the absence of legislator of the streets and traffic lights , we cant believe the rules while we don't believe the legislator
Read chapter 4 Delusion Atheism

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

طالع مشرق

Physics Debates Debate Center

5 sem.

Traduire

Albert Ripple (“bort”): (post moved from unsorted to debate)

Albert Ripple (“bort”): the text of this post is identical to the text here:
plus.google.com - The issue of this evidence (nothingness does not produce) is bigger than terr...
in future, all duplicate posts, where at least one of the posts is from the account of the post linked here, will be removed from the community, no matter which was posted first.

Post partagé.

Evolution is purposeful

Physics Debates Debate Center

10 sem.

Initialement partagé par The Genetic Plan

Moreover, Hawking's hypothesis for the universe to begin and be self-sufficient by rolls of the dice from within, as he likes to call it, would require the prior availability of space, no matter how infinitely small-and even if only a singularity like in the other hypotheses-in order for us to achieve quantum fluctuations that bring the universe into existence. This moves the question from being about the beginning to being about what preceded this space. It is either that this initial universe (space and quantum fluctuations) is a creation (meaning someone brought the universe into existence, and the universe is not self-sufficient), or that the universe is old but simultaneously a place for creation, which is impossible. What is a place for creation is a creation it self. Thus, the hypothesis of a god is still necessary as per the aforementioned, and a lord is still needed. Even if this need is not on the level of energy and cosmic matter, it is still on the level of the cosmic space that is qualified for the appearance of quantum fluctuations therein, no matter how infinitely small this space is.This is in addition to the fact that these quantum fluctuations are not explained; their existence is only decided by the uncertainty principle without knowing their cause and source. Even if we do not find a source for them, that does not mean they are not explained. All there is to it is that their source can be from outside our universe-an issue we have previously discussed, explaining that the multiple universes hypothesis is the correct one.
For more and detailed information on this, we recommend you to read the Atheism Delusion written by Ahmed Al-Hasan.
Read online: www.saviorofmankind.com/Atheism_Delusion
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Ahmed.Alhasan.10313
Facebook: www.facebook.com/The.Atheism.Delusion
Website: www.saviorofmankind.com
book introduction :www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRTd_PAckw&feature=youtu.be #atheism #Ahmed_Alhasan
#savior_of_mankind
#science
#God
#Hawking
#Dawkins

Traduire

Afficher les 6 commentaires

Evolution is purposeful: +Albert Ripple Yes, life has come from chemicals, but is the correct sequencing of amino acids and nucleotides completely random in terms of probability and for the formation of the first replicator?And also to learn about the purposefullness of evolution read chapter 4

Albert Ripple (“bort”): +Evolution is purposeful your manner of phrasing is a bit hard for me to understand, so if my interpretation of what you say is wrong then please correct me as to what you meant, but at any rate:
firstly, you must prove that time is created, not merely assume it.
secondly, it sounds like you recognize that there is structure and consistency to the physical realm, and you then attribute those physical laws to your god, on the basis of the concept that order requires design. again, this is presumptuous, to believe in that requirement. what prevents order from initiating or sustaining without a creator?
thirdly, you seem to be trotting out the old argument that the existence of human consciousness, and the existence of a universe that allows for that consciousness to form, requires some supernatural creator. this is sorted out by the weak anthropic principle, wherein we exist in this universe because we happen to be the sort of thing that can exist in this universe, that it is not the case that the universe is suited to us because it has a creator that needed us to exist. this counterargument is strengthened if we assume that our specific universe exists as part of more general and less attuned multiverse where there are a variety of physical constants between different universes, heightening the chance that there is at least one universe capable of supporting a kind of life and consciousness, rather than the less likely case where there is only a single universe and it happens to be supportive of our life, or the even more unlikely case where some pre-existing intelligence forces the universe to conform in a way that allows the development of more intelligences.

Evolution is purposeful: +Albert Ripple
as the primitive discipline and the current discipline of the universe, is purposeful needs an aware creator , and this is a matter of rational evidences because the discipline اhas a moderator and the moderator is aware

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

11 sem.

12 months, 24 hours , 6 quarks , 6 leptons , charge - 1/3 - 2/3 , E = M C 2
A noticeable synchronicity

Traduire

The bigbang re – modeled and reinvented

bigbangevolution.com

Albert Ripple (“bort”): having not read your linked article, i have this counter-statement to the text of your post:
the fact that we have chosen 24 hours is completely arbitrary.
there being 12 months is somewhat less arbitrary, as there are roughly 13 lunar cycles in a solar year: 12 is pretty close to 13, and is much more useful due to its better divisibility, hence why we chose it.
as for the 6 quarks and leptons: well they come in pairs (up/down, electron/electron-neutrino), and so far we've found 3 of these pairs for each of the two types of matter, each with more mass than the last; there may be 4th pairs too massive for our current instruments to create, or the possibility for more mass happened to end at 3, instead of 2 or 4.
the most interesting point is the relation between the electric charges of quarks versus of leptons: while they are described as - 1/3, +2/3, - 1, and 0, this is because we first discovered the electron and the proton, the latter being composed of quarks, so we could instead describe these as 1, - 2, 3, and 0 charges, in which case it's just the old question of why it stops at 3 instead of 2 or 4. in this case however, there may be an answer: it turns out that quarks always combine such that the sum of their electric charges is an integer amount of the electron's electric charge, and the reason for this appears to be the strong force which has 3 color charges (as opposed to the EM force which has 2 electric charges), and probably for the same reason the leptons (which have 0 color charge) have 0 or 3 (or - 3/2) times the electric charge as the quarks. now why baryons (3 quarks or antiquarks) have whole electric charges is obvious, but a careful look explains why mesons (1 quark and 1 antiquark) also always have integer electron charges: either the 2 quarks have the same charge, coming out to zero: (- 2)x( - 1/3 + - (- 1/3) ) ; or they have different charges, which add up to a whole: +/- ( 2/3 + - (- 1/3) ) . so the true question is, why isn't there a fundamental force with 4 charges?
i think the answer to this and the 6 quark question may well just be that 3 is a small number, and the universe was not going to have a lot of varieties of each thing that exists. besides which, the universe is a lot messier than it at first appears; for example, just as how the electromagnetic force is mediated by the photon, the strong nuclear force is carried out by a number of gluons: each state that a gluon could have has 1 color charge and 1 anticolor charge, so you would think there'd be 9 gluons, but in fact there are only 8 of them: gluons only exist as complex combinations of these states, which you can read about in their wikipedia article.
the point is, yes, there are several 3s in our universe, but to focus on them would be to ignore all the 1s (such as the single photon), 2s (such as the number of electric charges), 4s (such as the 4 electroweak bosons), and even higher numbers (such as the theoretical 5 types of higgs bosons) in our universe.

[edited to correct formatting errors]

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

13 sem.

Evidence based ; a new approach of E = MC2 / Mind and body spiritual connected with reality

Traduire

The missing bridge between quantum mechanics and relativity.

bigbangevolution.com

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

19 sem.

A.Einstein / N. Bohr 1925

Dark Matter 25%? Dark Energy 70%?

Crisis in physics. Time for radical solutions! !

Traduire

There is a crisis in physics.

bigbangevolution.com

Balder Oddson: I just shared my idea to explain this above, and am in need of people willing to look into it. To be specific, dark energy and inherent expansion the rotation and growth of black holes gaining dark matter in the form of quark gluon plasma in a fold in space-time, likely being rotated in a straight line due to not being able to move in more than one direction in that state. putting severe constraints and an interplay between the shape of the galaxy and distribution of dark matter. Also explaining quasars/pulsars as the maximum size supermassive black holes due to the balance of energies inside and outside of the singularity.

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

19 sem.

A.Einstein / N. Bohr 1925

Dark Matter 25%? Dark Energy 70%?

Crisis in physics. Time for radical solutions! !

Traduire

There is a crisis in physics.

bigbangevolution.com

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

37 sem.

Gravity does not fit with in quantum mechanics. 95 % of the universe ???

Traduire

95% of universe ?? dark matter ?? Solutions yes !!

bigbangevolution.com

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

39 sem.

The big bang, in my opinion, does not mark the absolute beginning of the universe.

Traduire

The big bang reinvented and rewritten

bigbangevolution.com

Albert Ripple (“bort”): ok, what does, if anything? and if not, then how are things as they are now? what shortcomings do you see in the big bang theory

Ruud Bakker: There were several bigbangs in order to fine tune The richt mix of nature constants and laws

Albert Ripple (“bort”): +Ruud Bakker the [] big [bounce] theory? our current universe is ripping apart to[o] fast to crunch again, but with different constants it could have crunched and rebounded in the past

Ce post a une pièce jointe.

Ruud Bakker

Physics Debates Debate Center

41 sem.

12 months, 24 hours , 6 quarks , 6 leptons , charge - 1/3 - 2/3 , E = M C 2
A noticeable synchronicity
with E 3/3 = Matter 1/3 + Spirit 1/3 + Anti Matter 1 /3

Traduire

intriguing relationship between timetables / quark properties and the big bang

bigbangevolution.com

Afficher les 5 commentaires

Albert Ripple (“bort”): +Ruud Bakker is it analogous to physical energy? at any rate, this theory needs some degree of rigid framework in order to remain within the realm of the sciences and not fall into philosophy. what exactly does this tissue do, how might we try to measure or otherwise observe it?

Ruud Bakker: The observer ( spirit ) causes relativity and The measurement problem with in The Q.M. IT is part of all systems. For instand The entanglement of particles with in The whole universe. Without observer No relativity and Q.M.

Albert Ripple (“bort”): +Ruud Bakker hm, interesting concept. so, it governs when waveform collapse occurs, and governs where relativity and quantum mechanics get applied?

Veuillez patienter pendant le chargement des autres posts.

Appuyez sur le point d'interrogation pour voir les raccourcis clavier disponibles.