A finely tuned universe that points to a God.

[Kylie]

That wheels analogy is kind of silly. We are talking about the big bang or proof of galactocentrism(sp?). So we are looking a the center point of an explosion. Do you know what a single explosion in empty space would look like? Unless you are claiming multiple big bangs then obviously that would be a far more complex thing.

Except the explosion analogy doesn't apply to the universe. Three dimensional space is a property of the universe. Thus if you imagine the universe expanding INTO a three dimensional space, then you are wrong.

As for a non religious scientific site for this, you wont find any, as there is bias from the creationist side there is bias on the "atheist" side as well that doesnt subscribe to the norm. Which is sad really. So really all we can do is look at the data and judge for ourselves.

Yah huh. And you are biased, aren't you? Science, by its very definition, is not.

 

[Damian79]

Except the explosion analogy doesn't apply to the universe. Three dimensional space is a property of the universe. Thus if you imagine the universe expanding INTO a three dimensional space, then you are wrong.

I do not understand where you are coming from. Are you implying matter was always in the outer reaches of the universe? Then we are arguing a static universe. I do know the universe is flat. But the explosion analogy still holds in a flat universe, so i am a little confused.

Yah huh. And you are biased, aren't you? Science, by its very definition, is not.

Yes i am biased, everyone is. I said atheists are biased aswell as creationists. And i never said science is biased.

 

[Kylie]

I do not understand where you are coming from. Are you implying matter was always in the outer reaches of the universe? Then we are arguing a static universe. I do know the universe is flat. But the explosion analogy still holds in a flat universe, so i am a little confused.

You really need to learn the basics of cosmology. The Big bang is not an expansion into the universe. It IS the universe.

What you are doing is like an ant who is inside an inflating balloon, unable to comprehend that there is an outside of the balloon. And he'd ask, "So is the balloon expanding into the inside of the balloon?" He can't grasp that the inside of the balloon is not expanding into the same sort of thing as the inside of the balloon.

Yes i am biased, everyone is. I said atheists are biased aswell as creationists. And i never said science is biased.

Then why don't you go with what the science says? You do realise that bias is an impediment to finding the truth, don't you?

 

[Damian79]

You really need to learn the basics of cosmology. The Big bang is not an expansion into the universe. It IS the universe.

What you are doing is like an ant who is inside an inflating balloon, unable to comprehend that there is an outside of the balloon. And he'd ask, "So is the balloon expanding into the inside of the balloon?" He can't grasp that the inside of the balloon is not expanding into the same sort of thing as the inside of the balloon.

So the space outside of the universe is not the universe. That is like stating the obvious. I am confused why you thought i didnt understand this?

Then why don't you go with what the science says? You do realise that bias is an impediment to finding the truth, don't you?

I dont go with science that isnt testable. Especially if there are better theories available that stand up to scrutiny better.

EDIT: Actually it would be easy to prove if dark matter exists or not.

 

[Kylie]

So the space outside of the universe is not the universe. That is like stating the obvious. I am confused why you thought i didnt understand this?

Because you said:

Do you know what a single explosion in empty space would look like?​

The universe is not expanding into space, because space is a property of the universe. Space cannot exist outside the universe.

I dont go with science that isnt testable. Especially if there are better theories available that stand up to scrutiny better.

Got a source that says that the Big Bang is not testable? Or any part of widely accepted science?

Also, would you care to show that the Big Bang does not stand up to scrutiny? And would you care to propose AND explain an alternate theory, showing in detail how it explains the evidence we have better than the Big Bang explains it?

Finally, would you care to explain to me what your qualifications in cosmology are and why I should go with your claims rather than the claims of the many highly trained and experienced scientists who study this stuff for a living?

EDIT: Actually it would be easy to prove if dark matter exists or not.

Then why don't you go and do it?

Or even explain how you would go about doing it.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

If you'd actually bothered to understand what I am saying, it was that the universe was not fine tuned to support the life that would come later. It was that life evolved to be able to survive in the pre-existing conditions. Simply put, life evolved in a way that could survive in the universe because any attempt to evolve in a way that couldn't survive simply would not have survived. All the evidence we have supports this idea. So how is it a straw man?

Seriously, how is this a hard concept to grasp?

And yet you are going on with the universe being an embryo and other stuff that sounds like new age hippy speak.

Pre-existing condition that have to be just right all together for even a single atom to remain stable, let alone life. And here we are.

Your argument is a straw man because the puddle is not the whole container in which there can be no water outside of...like the universe. Water can fit into any shaped container. Life cannot.

The universe produces biology as a natural process forming DNA like structures in nebular clouds full of amino acids through circularly polarized light. As it does this through many perfectly balanced physics constants as the entire container, the reasonable conclusion is that the universe is biological in ultimate nature. Life produces life.

Cosmic Explanation for Life's 'Left-Handed' Amino Acids - Astrobiology



In addition, the team has presented the first systematic survey of a combination of linear and circular polarimetry in nine star- and planet-forming regions. As the results of statistical analysis of observations of various star-forming regions, CPs were detected in nine star- and planet-forming regions. Putting it differently, it can be said that CP is a universal feature of star- and planet-forming regions. The team's findings enable us to obtain information about magnetic fields of circumstellar structures around protostars, which is difficult to obtain using existing methods.
There is a hypothesis that large CP causes homochirality (Note 3) of amino acids and that left-handed amino acids come from outer space. The team's findings imply an extraterrestrial origin of homochirality of life, from the universality of CP detected in star- and planet-forming regions.

Life on Earth is made of "left-handed amino acids (L-amino acids)". The question of why organisms on Earth consist of L-amino acids instead of D-amino acids or consist of D-sugar instead of L-sugar is still an unresolved riddle. In other words, a major mystery of life on Earth is that organisms are exclusively made up of left-handed amino acids. Therefore, the effort to solve this problem is one of the biggest in research into the origins of life, a subject that remains enveloped in mystery.

What kind of mechanism causes the selection of all L-amino acids? One of the mainstream hypotheses today is this: photolysis of one enantiomer of a racemic amino acid with circularly polarized light, transfer of chirality from enantioenriched amino acids to proteinogenic amino acids, and aqueous amplification of one enantiomer with preferential dissolution. Thus, how the circularly polarized light physically works is important in determining the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin of homochirality or the origin of abiogenesis on Earth. For the hypothesis of an extraterrestrial origin, CP of synchrotron radiation in neutron stars has emerged as a candidate for extraterrestrial sources. Recently, CP detected in the Orion nebula has been mentioned as the strongest candidate, as originally suggested by Jeremy Bailey at The University of New South Wales and his collaborators. On the basis of such a hypothesis, the scenario below can be conjectured.

"Above all, organic material such as amino acids is made in a molecular cloud. Next, any initial surplus of L-amino acids is initiated by CP. The L-amino acids are transferred to parent meteorites or comets when the solar system is formed, and they are eventually transported to Earth. In the prebiotic sea, a small amount of surplus of L-amino acids is amplified by an amplifying action such as a Soai response. At the end of such a process, life is born with homochirality of amino acids."

 

[KCfromNC]

I do not understand where you are coming from. Are you implying matter was always in the outer reaches of the universe?

Yes. Granted in the early in the universe, the outer reaches of the universe weren't nearly as far apart.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I do not understand where you are coming from. Are you implying matter was always in the outer reaches of the universe? Then we are arguing a static universe. I do know the universe is flat. But the explosion analogy still holds in a flat universe, so i am a little confused.


Yes i am biased, everyone is. I said atheists are biased aswell as creationists. And i never said science is biased.

New data: Universe appears negatively curved.

Is the universe saddle shaped? - physicsworld.com

The geometry of the universe is "open" or negatively curved like a saddle, according to a new model proposed by researchers in Europe who have studied anomalies in the cosmic microwave background radiation. The anomalies were first detected by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) in 2004 and were confirmed earlier this year by the European Space Agency's Planck space mission.




If you extrapolate the negative curve, you get a torus...a doughnut. The apparent concentric rings of poly galactic structure could be the cross sections of the doughnut and not a spherical shell.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Space can and does exist outside the universe, only it is not void like it is inside the universe. The is void space inside each of the infinite universes and saturated space between the universes. All universe are the same size and not expanding.What is expanding are the bends of space-time within a universe. All 6 of them. We are directly within one of them. That is why the universe is embryonic. The regions will combine laws, space, and information as pressure differentials are reached and surpassed within the fixed volume "cosmic egg". This is the enter reason for all past and future prophesy.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Because you said:

Do you know what a single explosion in empty space would look like?
​

The universe is not expanding into space, because space is a property of the universe. Space cannot exist outside the universe.



Got a source that says that the Big Bang is not testable? Or any part of widely accepted science?

Also, would you care to show that the Big Bang does not stand up to scrutiny? And would you care to propose AND explain an alternate theory, showing in detail how it explains the evidence we have better than the Big Bang explains it?

Finally, would you care to explain to me what your qualifications in cosmology are and why I should go with your claims rather than the claims of the many highly trained and experienced scientists who study this stuff for a living?



Then why don't you go and do it?

Or even explain how you would go about doing it.

How about every scientific showing and most every one of your imaginings about the Big Bang are logically incorrect. We are shone and imagine it from a point of perspective outside the singularity, in an imagined space that does not, by definition, exist. The only valid point of real perspective is from inside the singularity...and there is no imaginary nothing space outside.

The singularity state is infinite. Void space is contracted out of the infinite singularity to "expand" a universe.If you were on the surface of a balloon, there is no way to tell the difference between expansion by increase of external pressure (big bang) or decrease in external pressure (great contraction). I propose a great contraction model that is orders of magnitude more accurately predictive than the big bang theory.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

From the University of Oregon physics department on the untestability of the big bang: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Birth of the Universe :

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Space can and does exist outside the universe, only it is not void like it is inside the universe. The is void space inside each of the infinite universes and saturated space between the universes. All universe are the same size and not expanding.

This is based on....what observations?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Damian79]

Because you said:

Do you know what a single explosion in empty space would look like?​

The universe is not expanding into space, because space is a property of the universe. Space cannot exist outside the universe.



Got a source that says that the Big Bang is not testable? Or any part of widely accepted science?

Also, would you care to show that the Big Bang does not stand up to scrutiny? And would you care to propose AND explain an alternate theory, showing in detail how it explains the evidence we have better than the Big Bang explains it?

Finally, would you care to explain to me what your qualifications in cosmology are and why I should go with your claims rather than the claims of the many highly trained and experienced scientists who study this stuff for a living?



Then why don't you go and do it?

Or even explain how you would go about doing it.

We should be able to find out if dark matter really exists or not since it i sin our own solar system.
[1211.0903] Dark matter chaos in the Solar System

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

This is based on....what observations?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Based on no observations.

Based on: unification, spacetime foam, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.





Based on it yields a holographic (all the same) metaverse (infinite universes) where all universes have a max expansive constant (dark energy) of 74%. All of them are "finely tuned" for life in the exact same manner, all with a dark matter influence ratio about 5.5 times that of visible matter.

It gives me an expanding space time ring within a universe that specifically patterns for an atom with 1st density quarks, an interior positive charge and an exterior negative charge (us). In total there are 6 "cupping rings" (super-strings) like nested Russian dolls, 3 on top and 3 on bottom of a sphere. This gives me 3 quark density level of matter and 3 of antimatter. Standard model particle generation families.


Among many other things, it eliminates the "magic bubble metaverse" conjecture where we just happen to be in the perfectly randomly tuned universe for life to appear, it does not violate laws of motion or thermodynamics, and it does not resort to a magic "minute greater amount" of matter created at the big bang to be left over after super symmetric matter/antimatter annihilation.


In other words it is a better Occam's razor by orders of magnitude.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

What is being called Dark Matter is a rotational influence thought to be caused by a "shadow" mass.

Galaxies and super clusters rotate more or less as a whole body. The rotation by gravity of accounted for mass alone should make the inside spin much faster and the outside much slower....like the planets around the sun. It does up to a certain point then rotation tends towards uniformity like a connected body.


I imagine this is where the EU guys would chime in...

 

[Damian79]

Sad thing is that there are theories that dont need dark matter for atheists and Christians alike yet we are bullied into accepting the dark matter model. If went up to someone and said that God was there in physical matter in front of him yet he cannot touch him or feel him they will laugh at me and rightly so. Yet the same thing doesnt happen with dark matter.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Based on no observations.

Correction: Based on that the Great Contraction model predicts all current observations and solves all current "dark head scratchings".

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Sad thing is that there are theories that dont need dark matter for atheists and Christians alike yet we are bullied into accepting the dark matter model. If went up to someone and said that God was there in physical matter in front of him yet he cannot touch him or feel him they will laugh at me and rightly so. Yet the same thing doesnt happen with dark matter.

What they are calling "dark matter" is a rotational influence that keeps structures larger than galaxies in general homogeneous spin. The fact that they are looking for "matter" to be the cause is the reason they do not find it. It is not caused by matter but the influence is still very much there.


Similar to how we used to think light was attracted by gravity, now it's understood to be bent by passing through the compressed space-time medium like a prism.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

A finely tuned bunch of crickets, this is....

 

[rush1169]

A finely tuned bunch of crickets, this is....

FYI - from the peanut gallery, I'm enjoying reading your posts. I like the fresh perspective and look forward to more details.