• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

scientific word for Biblical Filament in Genesis 1: Universe in the Nutshell

cladking

Well-Known Member
Well, one obvious aspect is that if they were hunter-gatherers, they would want flexibility to follow the herds. This means not settling down and tying themselves to a piece of land. So, we don't expect to see agriculture developed until they domesticate some animals to provide a consistent food supply.

I believe domesticating animals is part of the invention of agriculture. I believe it requires theory to invent anything at all. Bees didn't suddenly stumble into the waggle dance nor beavers inadvertently build a dam. It required understanding derived from theory and a model of reality itself. We wholly and utterly misapprehend the nature of life and humanity because we are so far removed from it and this is caused by the analog programming of the digital brain that we call modern language.

The other, less obvious, reason is that settling down to do agriculture is actually a *bad idea*. For most early agriculturalists, the overall nutritional level went *down*. The variety of foods went *down*. The amount of work went *up* significantly.

A farmer could grow enough food to feed two or three people. This allowed the invention of cities and freed people up to pursue other things that could improve everyone's lives. Today only 1% of the population is involved in the production of food. It's still job #1 for the human race but we seem to have forgotten it.

If you can gather enough wheat for your meal by simply walking through a field and gathering what you want, why plant, tend the fields, etc?

Life is more fragile for nomads. It's hard to carry plenty of food and water from resource to resource. Miscalculations can be fatal.

It was only when the climate went drier and the natural fields started to decrease that we see the rise of agriculture, settled communities, etc. That happened about 10,000 years ago.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it was coincidental.

It seems more likely that drying conditions were simply the impetus to invent agriculture rather than anything else. Necessity is the mother of invention. But theory is necessary.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
And you know that how?
It is based on Graham Hancock conspiracy theory.

His background is that of journalist for tabloid papers.

Hancock was never a archaeologist, historian or translator.

He cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs or Mesopotamian cuneiform, so how do we know what he write in his pseudoscience and pseudo-archaeology books, his claims about these civilizations are correct.

He isn’t an archaeologist, so he isn’t expert in understanding the purpose of the archaeological sites, artifacts or any ancient languages.

So anything Hancock have to say about the ancient Egyptians, their customs, their writings and the construction of the pyramids, lack credibility.

As to the Homo omnisciencis, it is something that he has made up, again it is something that I cannot take seriously...which mean I cannot take you seriously whenever you bring up H.o.
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
I believe domesticating animals is part of the invention of agriculture. I believe it requires theory to invent anything at all. Bees didn't suddenly stumble into the waggle dance nor beavers inadvertently build a dam. It required understanding derived from theory and a model of reality itself. We wholly and utterly misapprehend the nature of life and humanity because we are so far removed from it and this is caused by the analog programming of the digital brain that we call modern language.



A farmer could grow enough food to feed two or three people. This allowed the invention of cities and freed people up to pursue other things that could improve everyone's lives. Today only 1% of the population is involved in the production of food. It's still job #1 for the human race but we seem to have forgotten it.



Life is more fragile for nomads. It's hard to carry plenty of food and water from resource to resource. Miscalculations can be fatal.



Perhaps. Or perhaps it was coincidental.

It seems more likely that drying conditions were simply the impetus to invent agriculture rather than anything else. Necessity is the mother of invention. But theory is necessary.

Necessity is the mother of invention, It was also the Father of many mixed breeds in the out back, in the old days. Even between Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
As to the Homo omnisciencis, it is something that he has made up...

No, it is something I made up out of the evidence I've presented here and logic.

No matter what you call it or how you spell it ancient Egyptians thought nothing at all like Egyptologists. For every practical purpose they were a different species that shared nothing but our vocabulary.

They didn't think at all and had no beliefs. Egyptologists think reality is determined by vote of the peers and modern science isn't necessary to understand stinky footed bumpkins.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Necessity is the mother of invention, It was also the Father of many mixed breeds in the out back, in the old days. Even between Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man.


I'm sure we have a long way to go to understand the nature and ancestry of modern humans. Just as everything in nature is interrelated and dependent on initial states we are interrelated and the product of initial states often derived from individual decisions.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Necessity is the mother of invention
Well, that’s a surprise.

It is something that I can agree on. :)

But it’s just the one sentence... :frowning:

...oh, well...it’s a start. Baby steps. :p

Invention is not the only thing that occur.

Not only that, “necessity” also result incremental refinement, not just invention.

The stone tools found in specific location and time, can also reveal modification and improvements in the industry culture nearby, but in different time.

Sometimes, improvements on tools and how they make tools, allow archaeologists these note the changes and assign different cultures, to distinguish between the old and the new.

Khufu’s pyramid is neither the oldest, nor the most original. What make Khufu’s pyramid “unique” was the sheer size, larger than his father’s pyramid in Dahshur, and the design perfected his father’s first true-shaped pyramid, Sneferu’s Red Pyramid.

And the Red Pyramid of Sneferu, true pyramid design was based on his 3rd dynasty’s step pyramid design, with Djoser’s Step Pyramid (located in Saqqara) being the oldest of all pyramids.

Djoser’s Step Pyramid, looked like the a pile of mastabas, stacked on top of each other.

The mastaba-type tomb looked like a bench or table top.

From mastabas to step pyramids to true pyramids, demonstrate how tomb building changed over time.

It is called progress. But for every peaks in civilizations, there are also declines and instability.

Later dynasties in the Old Kingdom (hence the 5th and 6th dynasties, as well as the dynasties of the 1st Intermediate Period and of the Middle Kingdom) constructed smaller pyramids, or reverted to building and using mastabas, because the kingdom was in decline.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No, it is something I made up out of the evidence I've presented here and logic.

No matter what you call it or how you spell it ancient Egyptians thought nothing at all like Egyptologists. For every practical purpose they were a different species that shared nothing but our vocabulary.

They didn't think at all and had no beliefs. Egyptologists think reality is determined by vote of the peers and modern science isn't necessary to understand stinky footed bumpkins.

You are going to keep using this BS strawman (“stinky footed bumpkins”), again and again, are you?

You don’t have evidences for this nonsense about Homo omnisciencis or for the Ancient Language, or in the other thread Ancient Reality, with the same conspiracy theory crap.

Fine...I have wasted another time here.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
... with the same conspiracy theory crap.

What conspiracy is that? What makes you believe there is a conspiracy or do you believe I believe in a conspiracy you can't identify?

Do you even realize I can make a case that "firmament" or "vault" etc all go back to the concept that we call a "rainbow"? Why do believers in "science" almost invariably ignore the arguments? You'd think in light of the fact that it's almost impossible to win an argument against science that believers would be more willing to discuss the actual points. You might not win but you probably won't lose very often. Instead we hear about peers and expert opinion.
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
A: On the way down it was transformed into literal water. It is like Dark Matter -- Baryon Matter transition, which can solve the Cosmology Crisis, about which is the video in the thread. Remember how Jesus turned water into wine? Basically, He created wine from nothing.

Q: i.e. it is magic and will magically be whatever you want it to be without any reason? This is why religious nonsense has no place in rational debate.


You might want to consider that, with observer affect in physics, the viewing of atoms changes their behavior. Since everything is atoms, is it not possible that someone could scientifically change matter through observation?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
If you are referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is this: he position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory.

But this uncertainty is only significant for exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If you are referring to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, it is this: he position and the velocity of an object cannot both be measured exactly, at the same time, even in theory.

But this uncertainty is only significant for exceedingly small masses of atoms and subatomic particles.

At the Quantum level at planc scale.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
At the Quantum level at planc scale.

The Planck scale is much, much smaller than the quantum scale. Atoms are small enough for quantum effects to be dominant. The Planck scale is much smaller than a proton. The Planck scale is where quantum gravity becomes relevant.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You might want to consider that, with observer affect in physics, the viewing of atoms changes their behavior. Since everything is atoms, is it not possible that someone could scientifically change matter through observation?

Nope. It doesn't work like that. Quantum effects like what you mention are only relevant on the scale of atoms. Once you get a large population of atoms, especially at 'ordinary' temperatures, the quantum effects average out.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I believe domesticating animals is part of the invention of agriculture. I believe it requires theory to invent anything at all. Bees didn't suddenly stumble into the waggle dance nor beavers inadvertently build a dam. It required understanding derived from theory and a model of reality itself. We wholly and utterly misapprehend the nature of life and humanity because we are so far removed from it and this is caused by the analog programming of the digital brain that we call modern language.



A farmer could grow enough food to feed two or three people. This allowed the invention of cities and freed people up to pursue other things that could improve everyone's lives. Today only 1% of the population is involved in the production of food. It's still job #1 for the human race but we seem to have forgotten it.



Life is more fragile for nomads. It's hard to carry plenty of food and water from resource to resource. Miscalculations can be fatal.



Perhaps. Or perhaps it was coincidental.

It seems more likely that drying conditions were simply the impetus to invent agriculture rather than anything else. Necessity is the mother of invention. But theory is necessary.

Bedouin always had symbiotic relationships with extended family in towns and villages.

Agriculture in Palestine dates back to 10,000 BC..... chickpeas for instance.

Around Sumer agriculture was settled and thriving long before Adam and Eve or Noah's flood.

These days scholars think the rapid spread of organized agriculture came about because of the Black Sea breech and rising water levels around the Sea that caused people to move their families and livestock to higher ground.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The Planck scale is much, much smaller than the quantum scale. Atoms are small enough for quantum effects to be dominant. The Planck scale is much smaller than a proton. The Planck scale is where quantum gravity becomes relevant.
Disagree. I believe plank scale is the realm of Quantum Mechanics.

Trom: Planck units - Wikipedia

In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of natureand not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.

The term "Planck scale" refers to the magnitudes of space, time, energy and other units, below which (or beyond which) the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theoryand general relativity are no longer reconcilable, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. This region may be characterized by energies around 1.22×1019 GeV (the Planck energy), time intervals around 5.39×10−44 s (the Planck time) and lengths around 1.62×10−35 m (the Planck length). At the Planck scale, current models are not expected to be a useful guide to the cosmos, and physicists no longer have any scientific model whatsoever to suggest how the physical universe behaves. The best known example is represented by the conditions in the first 10−43 seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

The five universal constants that Planck units, by definition, normalize to 1 are:

Each of these constants can be associated with a fundamental physical theory or concept: c with special relativity, G with general relativity, ħ with quantum mechanics, ε0 with electromagnetism, and kB with the notion of temperature/energy (statistical mechanics and thermodynamics).
 

The Anointed

Well-Known Member
That’s why worm hole falls under the theoretical category in physics.

The worm hole is mathematically feasible, but not factually, meaning no evidences to support the worm hole model, which is why worm hole is a scientific method.

Maths alone, isn’t enough to verify it is true.

The model has to falsifiable (meaning testable) and tested (actual evidences that can be observed, tested and verified) BEFORE it can be scientifically accepted as true.

The only place the worm hole model have succeeded, are in the realms of fiction like sci-fi and in the nonfiction pseudoscience popular science.

Another universe may have preceded ours, study finds. May 14th, 2006. Courtesy Penn State University and World Science staff.

Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking. To arrive at their pre-existing universe finding, Ashtekar’s group used loop quantum gravity, a theory that seeks to reconcile General relativity with quantum physics.

These two seemingly fundamental theories are otherwise contradictory in some ways. Loop quantum gravity, which was pioneered at Ashtekar’s institute, proposes that spacetime has a discrete “atomic” structure, as opposed to being a continuous sheet, as Einstein, along with most us, assumed. In loop quantum gravity, space is thought of as woven from one-dimensional “threads.” The continuum picture remains mostly valid as an approximation. But near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn so that it’s discrete, or quantum, nature becomes important. One outcome of this is that gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive, Ashetkar argued; the result is the Big Bounce.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research “Supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time.” The universe “may have undergone one or more bangs in its past history,” he added. Steinhardt and colleagues have also proposed a bounce of sorts, but it’s different. It could turn out that the two scenarios are equivalent at some deep level, but that’s not known, he added. Steinhardt‘s scenario makes use of string theory, another attempt to reconcile General Relativity with quantum physics. Some versions of string theory portray our visible universe as a three -dimensional space embedded in an invisible space having more dimensions.

Our zone, called a braneworld [the word comes from its similarity to a sort of membrane] could periodically bounce into another, parallel braneworld. Such an event might look to us, stuck in a few dimensions as we are, as a Big Bang. “I don’t know if Ashetkar’s case translates into a bounce between braneworlds like we are describing,” Steinhardt wrote. But by his estimate, this cataclysm won’t take place for another roughly 300 billion years—so there is hopefully plenty of time to answer the question.

Just as the Big Bang theory has been evolving over the years and is continuing to evolve as new data becomes available, these big Crunch theories that are just beginning to emerge are still in their infancy.

There are as many if not more theories as to the origin of this universe as there are religious groups, such as Christianity, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhism, etc, etc.

Cosmological theories are formulated by scientists, and theories by definition, are the unproven hypothesis, suppositions, and opinions of those scientists.

Here is but one of many theories as to the creation of our three-dimensional universe. This one is by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, who proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, like in our universe---only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a three dimensional event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a fourth dimensional black hole. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

If I were to wait for every scientific theory to be proven to be an undeniable fact, I would believe NOTHING.

So I will continue to believe by faith, that the universe is naught but a living evolving mind and the collective consciousness of all that it has become.

Believing that the first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed. So it would seem to me, that if energy cannot be created, then it always was, and If it can never be destroyed, it always will be.

Therefore, according to this law, energy must be eternal, having neither beginning or end. Energy can be and is converted to that which we perceive as matter. In fact, this material universe at the time of the Big Bang was pure electromagnetic energy, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter only to be reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

As I cannot believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then I must accept that it is the eternal energy which has neither beginning or end, that has become this material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] or God has become.

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an eighth day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one eon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are born again into the endless cycles of physical manifestation, or rebirths.

A Universe that is in the constant state of evolution, with each generation of the universe, occupying its own position in space time.

Do you have any belief as to the origin of this generation of the universe? Do you, for instance believe that all that exists, was once compressed into an infinity dense, infinity hot, infintesimally small, singularity, which was spatially separated spewing out electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of Degrees, from which Energy this supposedly physical universe came into being.

Or do you believe as I do, that the plasma like energy from which this generation of the Universe was formed, came from a White Hole at the end of a Massive Black Hole, into which our parental universe fell as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth, and was torn apart molecule by molecule, atom by atom, sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle, and accelerated along the worm Hole at speeds far, far in excess to the speed of Light, only to be spewed out somewhere beyond the visible horizon of this eternal and boundless Cosmos, as a super-hot liquid like plasma in the trillion and trillions of degree, to which position, the light from parent universe would take billions upon billions of years to reach us?

Or are you going to wait until your scientists have proven beyond any shadow of doubt, exactly how this universe was created?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Do you have any belief as to the origin of this generation of the universe? Do you, for instance believe that all that exists, was once compressed into an infinity dense, infinity hot, infintesimally small, singularity, which was spatially separated spewing out electromagnetic energy in the trillions and trillions of Degrees, from which Energy this supposedly physical universe came into being.

Or do you believe as I do, that the plasma like energy from which this generation of the Universe was formed, came from a White Hole at the end of a Massive Black Hole, into which our parental universe fell as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth, and was torn apart molecule by molecule, atom by atom, sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle, and accelerated along the worm Hole at speeds far, far in excess to the speed of Light, only to be spewed out somewhere beyond the visible horizon of this eternal and boundless Cosmos, as a super-hot liquid like plasma in the trillion and trillions of degree, to which position, the light from parent universe would take billions upon billions of years to reach us?

Or are you going to wait until your scientists have proven beyond any shadow of doubt, exactly how this universe was created?

The article was interesting but this ending was a bit bizzaro and confusing.
 
Top