The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

The use of "Infinity" in scientific theory, is just a convenient way of saying "I don't know" for scientists , and essentially a cop out. They should just flat out say, "here on earth we are trying to find smaller and smaller particles and what makes up our surroundings. But for the cosmos, they have no real clue, about age and extent of the universe. So , what they do say, is all theories, and are just as valid as a "god" theory.

For discussion's sake, I could just as well say GOD invented the universe
and of course someone will ask, "what was god floating in, before he invented the universe". "What is god, is he comprised of quarks, string or what is the physical description?"

fuck If I know. See, I'm honest. "Infinity" is another way of saying "fuck if I know".

Quote:

---

For discussion's sake, I could just as well say GOD invented the universe

---

It wouldn't much of a conversation.

We say a set is infinite if it can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. For example, multiplication by two establishes a bijection from the set of integers onto the set of even integers. Hence the set of integers is infinite. Simple stuff really.

Trish, simply, they don't know and you don't know either. Infinity is a cop out. that's why they are called theories.

If I were to challenge any scientist , to show me proof (video) of the big bang or what the universe looked like back then, they could not because they simply do not know.

Just like a person that says GOD created the universe says:
When asked: "When did god create the universe in (integers) years?"
answer: god works in mysterious ways, and I don't know if it was 18,876,838,828 years 4 months, 5 days, and 32 seconds ago, or if it was 5,000 years ago.

No one can prove how old the universe is, just as no one can prove that god does or does not exist

You can't show me video of your father's sperm penetrating your mother's egg, but that doesn't mean there's no proof it didn't happen. Hmmmm what would count as reasonable proof?

The cosmic background radiation, it's exact spectrum, the atomic abundances, the expansion and it rate over time are the early examples of the big bang's theory's success. The further we gaze into the cosmos, the deeper we peer into time. The oldest galaxies that we now have pictures of are 13.3 billion years old. We can be confident that the universe itself is around 13.7 billion years old. (You'll have to explain sometime how your pet peeve concerning infinity actually fits into the picture here).

Well if it is all total crap to you - then fine, but here's an attempt to explain the best estimate that we have for the age of the universe.

We can measure the distance of galaxies, and how galaxies are moving. Galaxies are not staying still in space, nor are they moving randomly. Some galaxies are moving towards their neighbours, attracted by their mutual gravity. But the biggest pattern seen is that galaxies are moving apart from one another. This motion is not all at the same speed; instead it follows a pattern where galaxies that are further apart are moving more quickly.
This pattern indicates the whole universe is expanding. We can see every portion of the universe moving away from us from our view point on Earth. This does not make the centre of the expansion – there would be the same view from anyway in space
We detect a galaxy’s motion by looking at its light spectrum. When a galaxy is moving by the expansion of space, its light waves are stretched out, making it appear redder (the famous red shift). The change in the galaxy’s color is called the red shift, and can be used to calculate its velocity. From the measurements of many galaxies, we can accurately measure the expansion rate of the universe as a whole.
The age of universe can be determined by imagining what the universe looked like in the past, “rewinding” the expansion. In the past the galaxies must have been closer together, and in the very distant past they would have been packed together in a tiny point. If we assume that the expansion rate is constant over time, the age for the universe as a whole is about 10 billion years. However, astronomers have been working over the last 20 years to determine how the expansion rate changes with time. We now know that early in the universe the expansion slowed down, but now it is speeding up. Using careful measurements of this change in expansion rate, the age of the universe is now estimated to be 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.



Not an infinity in sight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by my my my!

Trish, simply, they don't know and you don't know either. Infinity is a cop out. that's why they are called theories.

If I were to challenge any scientist , to show me proof (video) of the big bang or what the universe looked like back then, they could not because they simply do not know.

Just like a person that says GOD created the universe says:
When asked: "When did god create the universe in (integers) years?"
answer: god works in mysterious ways, and I don't know if it was 18,876,838,828 years 4 months, 5 days, and 32 seconds ago, or if it was 5,000 years ago.

No one can prove how old the universe is, just as no one can prove that god does or does not exist

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

Well if it is all total crap to you - then fine, but here's an attempt to explain the best estimate that we have for the age of the universe.

We can measure the distance of galaxies, and how galaxies are moving. Galaxies are not staying still in space, nor are they moving randomly. Some galaxies are moving towards their neighbours, attracted by their mutual gravity. But the biggest pattern seen is that galaxies are moving apart from one another. This motion is not all at the same speed; instead it follows a pattern where galaxies that are further apart are moving more quickly.
This pattern indicates the whole universe is expanding. We can see every portion of the universe moving away from us from our view point on Earth. This does not make the centre of the expansion – there would be the same view from anyway in space
We detect a galaxy’s motion by looking at its light spectrum. When a galaxy is moving by the expansion of space, its light waves are stretched out, making it appear redder (the famous red shift). The change in the galaxy’s color is called the red shift, and can be used to calculate its velocity. From the measurements of many galaxies, we can accurately measure the expansion rate of the universe as a whole.
The age of universe can be determined by imagining what the universe looked like in the past, “rewinding” the expansion. In the past the galaxies must have been closer together, and in the very distant past they would have been packed together in a tiny point. If we assume that the expansion rate is constant over time, the age for the universe as a whole is about 10 billion years. However, astronomers have been working over the last 20 years to determine how the expansion rate changes with time. We now know that early in the universe the expansion slowed down, but now it is speeding up. Using careful measurements of this change in expansion rate, the age of the universe is now estimated to be 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years.



Not an infinity in sight.

---

Well, they're assuming the Universe is only so big, because that's all they can see.

What about the light that has not become visible yet? There could be another 13 billion years worth of light that has not come into their visible or recordable data.

The argument Martin presented makes no presumption about seeing to the beginning. Simply run the expansion backwards and calculate the time of collision. That's the Big Bang. You do know how to divide distance by rate to get time don't you?

No cosmologist at any point said, "I can't see any further back, so that's all there is to see." You're arguing against a straw man. Besides you're the one asking for video proof, not the cosmologists.

Indeed no one can see past the decoupling horizon of which I spoke in prior posts, yet the era of nucleosynthesis took place before the decoupling.

What about the light that has not become visible yet? There could be another 13 billion years worth of light that has not come into their visible or recordable data.

I'm no physicist, not even an armchair astronomist, but the little I've read on the topic indicates that they have seen light from galaxies moving away from us at speeds faster than the speed of light, where the light was emitted from a time long ago. So although we can conclude we'll never see light from such galaxies again, we can still calculate how fast these galaxies, now invisible to us, are moving away from us. Again, I only have a degree in engineering from "long ago", so my statistics is rather rusty, but I'm guessing you can take all of such galaxies and use some sort of extrapolation technique to determine what are the galaxies furthest away from us, and from that how big and old the universe is.

EDIT: or, what Trish says above. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

A: The question for Christians like Lemaitre would be, “Why those mysteries and not the ones cherished by other religions?” Why can’t we say, “The Hindu gods exist, timelessly and without extension and are responsible for our existence?” What test can be used to determine who is more likely correct?

B: If we had a test, it wouldn’t remain a mystery.

---

The example of the Hindu gods is problematic because 'Hinduism' is not really a religion, but beliefs which are grouped together because they share some things in common. The gods in these belief systems identified with natural phenomena such as trees, rivers, animals and the climate serve a similar function as the Greek gods and are regarded by monotheism as primitive and even in a sense, juvenile. The irony is that the superiority complex of monotheism matches that of science as the source of knowledge about the creation of the world and the purpose of human life. Science, as I think you know, has often been claimed to have superseded religion as the primary source of knowledge, and it is beyond question that science in alliance with engineering and commerce has transformed the physical world we live in and given us longer lives and greater powers than existed before -although our ability to destroy our environment has been part of human history since the beginning and cannot be attributed to modernity, even if the capacity for damage is that much greater.

Science has practical, usable benefits that appear to trump religion; and yet, even the conceptual aspects of science can be as soothing to secular man as the comforts of eternal life are to a Christian, or the concept of paradise is to a Muslim. Even when those scientists are faced with problems they cannot solve. Indeed, science without problems is like Christianity without redemption, pointless. It may therefore be wrong for people with religion to consider secular mortals as spiritually arid, but it is probably just as wrong for the secular humans to regard people with faith as deluded. You often find people in both communities who love the music of JS Bach, who dedicated all his music to the glory of God.

Not a satisfactory conclusion, but it's the best I can do.

So, I'm confused, does God exist? :hide-1: