What is God?

[PsychoSarah]

Did you not read the statement by the university of Oregon department of physics that the beginning condition of the universe is untestable? And that confidence is placed in theories that are more simple, aesthetic and accurate predictive of later universal phenomenon?

What hope can machine based evidence science alone ever have for understanding what is beyond the CMB and before the inflation of the universe? It cannot and will forever remain in the dark because it is not equipped to handle these things. It is fundamentally tied to the effects of causes and does not address the causes themselves.

So I chose the theory that is not only consistent with most all ancient sciences and religions (a division of an infinite) but gives me a dark energy value within .3% of modern estimates and a dark matter value within .6%. I chose it because it predicts all the subatomic particle/boson spin/charge relationships and explains why we and everything around us is made of the lightest type of matter charge atoms. 1 of 6 types the universe is capable of rendering stable. All of this by self relative geometry alone.

I chose it over a very recent theory (big bang) that has little to no historic corroboration, that turns all physics and mathematics into nonsense when man tries to smash all space-time and matter into an infinitesimally small finite point.

So either all physics and mathematics are wrong, or the fundamental premise, that by science's own definition is unfalsifiable and untestable (big bang theory) is wrong.

Every time you have been shone the "Big Bang" you have been lied to. The nothing space that the singularity is always shone to expand/explode into by the logic of the theory does not exist. There is no space outside the singularity, the only valid point of perspective is inside it. And it is not finite, it has no border.

The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe

Although space may have been concentrated into a single point at the Big Bang, it is equally possible that space was infinite at the Big Bang. In both scenarios the space was completely filled with matter which began to expand.


Expand how? A single void space bubble universe? What's to stabilize it and keep it from collapsing back into not existing? The universe is not created ex nihilo, it is the nihilo created in a very specific, very logical, very geometric mathematical way. As a waveform expression of the original infinite "particle" as a self limiting, holographic, cavitational wavefront. Look up "sono-luminescence" for the testable physical mechanism.

If you need evidence in order to start thinking logically and mathematically to see for yourself how all current scientific evidence lines up and most current scientific mysteries very elegantly and simply answered with this theory, then I cannot help you.



You know that whole "imagination is more important than knowledge" quote by Einstein? Read it again.

Can you maybe summarize this text wall? My ADHD is in full swing today

 

[Davian]

Can you maybe summarize this text wall? My ADHD is in full swing today

Let me do that for you.

I asked for him to explain how the contents of his post (#46) are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

His first response completely evaded my request.

His next attempt (post #60) breaks down thusly:

- Red herring (the beginning condition of the universe is untestable)
- Non sequitur (science cannot see past/before the CMB)
- Straw-man (misrepresents the big bang theory)
- Blame shift (If you need evidence in order to start thinking logically and mathematically to see for yourself how all current scientific evidence lines up and most current scientific mysteries very elegantly and simply answered with this theory, then I cannot help you.)
- Einstein Fallacy (quote something from Albert Einstein, as if this lends credence to your claims)

Unsurprisingly, he did not address my request.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Can you maybe summarize this text wall? My ADHD is in full swing today

The beginning state of the universe is untestable. Theories are accepted based on simplicity, aesthetics, and predictability of later phenomenon.

The big bang theory is only a statement on the inflation of void space-time and distribution of matter. It is equally accepted in the logic that the singularity before inflation could be spatially infinite.

A spatially infinite singularity cannot expand everywhere all at once unless matter disappears. And for what ever space you expand in it, you have to account for the compression of the substance of the singularity outside the space.

If you divide the original infinite by it's own self relationships (waveform expression) you get a self limiting holographic stack of spherical universes. This accounts for the dark energy constant and the initial rapid inflation followed by slow expansive plateau...as the spheres border and limit the further growth of each other.

The contraction of the original substance between the spheres, organized by their contact points, accounts for all subatomic boson relationships.



The great contraction theory of an infinite singularity is more simple, elegant and more predictive of found scientific evidence than the big bang theory of a finite singularity.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Let me do that for you.

I asked for him to explain how the contents of his post (#46) are testable and falsifiable, and not simply unevidenced assertions.

His first response completely evaded my request.

I explained the unworkability of your request.

His next attempt (post #60) breaks down thusly:

- Red herring (the beginning condition of the universe is untestable)
- Non sequitur (science cannot see past/before the CMB)

Both of these are answered quit simply by the fact that no instrument of science can physically see beyond/before the CMB event horizon. This is a wide acceted fact of observational science.

- Straw-man (misrepresents the big bang theory)

Exactly how?

- Blame shift (If you need evidence in order to start thinking logically and mathematically to see for yourself how all current scientific evidence lines up and most current scientific mysteries very elegantly and simply answered with this theory, then I cannot help you.)

Yes, you will understand when you have enough data points to see the pattern of the whole. You will never find the whole pattern in singular data points. If you cannot follow the logical steps of the theory, what it predicts and the evidence already found by scicne to support the assertions and logic, then you cannot be helped.

- Einstein Fallacy (quote something from Albert Einstein, as if this lends credence to your claims)

It come from the fact that imagination is required to synthesize knowledge into understanding and wisdom. Imagination is what many pioneers in science used to find new knowledge.

Unsurprisingly, he did not address my request.

I addressed your request, explained why it was unworkable and offered a theory and logic that is workable and who's predictions have already found and answers many remaining questions.


The great contraction theory is more simple, elegant and more comprehensively predictive of internal universal phenomenon. If you would like to present the predictions of the big bang model, please do so that they can be compared side by side.

 

[Davian]

I addressed your request, explained why it was unworkable

No, you made excuses.

and offered a theory and logic that is workable and who's predictions have already found and answers many remaining questions.

Answers that are untestable and unfalsifiable are of no significance.

The great contraction theory is more simple, elegant and more comprehensively predictive of internal universal phenomenon. If you would like to present the predictions of the big bang model, please do so that they can be compared side by side.

False dichotomies are a strong indicator of pseudoscience.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

No, you made excuses.

No, I explained the reason why your question is unworkable and posted a corroboration from the physics department of the university of Oregon. Here it is again.
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.

If you have any scientific sources that state otherwise, I'd be happy to read them.

Answers that are untestable and unfalsifiable are of no significance.


All theoretical beginning states of the universe are untestable and unfalsifiable. Does that mean it never began or cannot be reason/deduced mathematically how it began? Should we then stop ask the question because the machines and methods we use to are inadequate to answer them? Or do we try new methods and see if they very simply can explain/model all currently found evidence of the unvierse and answers the remaining questions?

False dichotomies are a strong indicator of pseudoscience.

I'm an equal opportunity cosmogenesis theory navigator, so bring your best, bring as many as you care to use: big bang, big bounce, quantum destabilization (Krause's a universe from nothing), bulk/string theory, the arrow of time, infinite universe model, many worlds multiverse, etc, etc, etc. Bring an actual counter arguement with actual geometric predictions that actually accounts for all the known laws and physical phenomenon in the universe. In other words, "put up, or shut up"

Give me one logical hypothesis that geometrically accounts for the 68% (of gravity) dark energy influence and the 28% dark matter influence within a few percent. Too hard? How about just one....within 5% percent. Surely that's not too difficult for you. Meanwhile I have a geometric model that account for DE within .3% and DM within .6% by purely mathematical self limiting spatial divisions. It directly accounts for the physical structure of DNA and explains exactly why a cooled plasma crystal cloud aboard the ISS, composed of inert dust, condenses into a double helix with horizontal rungs.

@ 4:03 in video at: Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis



Have you done any cosmological works that could be discussed, explored, and compared to all current scientific evidence about the universe?

 

[Davian]

False dichotomies are a strong indicator of pseudoscience.

I'm an equal opportunity cosmogenesis theory navigator, so bring your best, bring as many as you care to use: big bang, big bounce, quantum destabilization (Krause's a universe from nothing), bulk/string theory, the arrow of time, infinite universe model, many worlds multiverse, etc, etc, etc. Bring an actual counter arguement with actual geometric predictions that actually accounts for all the known laws and physical phenomenon in the universe. In other words, "put up, or shut up"

Give me one logical hypothesis that geometrically accounts for the 68% (of gravity) dark energy influence and the 28% dark matter influence within a few percent. Too hard? How about just one....within 5% percent. Surely that's not too difficult for you. Meanwhile I have a geometric model that account for DE within .3% and DM within .6% by purely mathematical self limiting spatial divisions. It directly accounts for the physical structure of DNA and explains exactly why a cooled plasma crystal cloud aboard the ISS, composed of inert dust, condenses into a double helix with horizontal rungs.

@ 4:03 in video at: Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis



Have you done any cosmological works that could be discussed, explored, and compared to all current scientific evidence about the universe?

Insistence on false dichotomies removes all doubt.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Insistence on false dichotomies removes all doubt.

I offered you an "octochotomy" at minimum with a triple "etc" to indicate any number of possible theories I'd be happy to explore and compare with you. You can't even seem to deal with one or engage in a normal conversation without nit picking the crap out of what ever I post. Do you "talk" to people in person this way?


Waste of time and intelligence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Guys guys, let's not bring the physics to the philosophy subforum. There is a place for evidenced based, tested theories. Philosophy is for deeply thinking and solving nothing.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Guys guys, let's not bring the physics to the philosophy subforum. There is a place for evidenced based, tested theories. Philosophy is for deeply thinking and solving nothing.

I tried that repeatedly....had to use science a physics as a last resort. It appears Davian is interested in neither.

 

[Davian]

I offered you an "octochotomy" at minimum with a triple "etc" to indicate any number of possible theories I'd be happy to explore and compare with you. You can't even seem to deal with one or engage in a normal conversation without nit picking the crap out of what ever I post.

If you were looking for an echo chamber, you should have said so.

Do you "talk" to people in person this way?

Yes, often. I have a job where I get paid to "nit pick the crap" out of things (technical systems), and then put them back together as I see fit.

Waste of time and intelligence.

Indeed. Why waste your time here when you should be blazing new trails at the more popular astrophysics forums. Or did it not go well there?

 

[Davian]

Guys guys, let's not bring the physics to the philosophy subforum. There is a place for evidenced based, tested theories. Philosophy is for deeply thinking and solving nothing.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Yes, often. I have a job where I get paid to "nit pick the crap" out of things (technical systems), and then put them back together as I see fit.

Then you should be of exemplary technical assistance.

Indeed. Why waste your time here when you should be blazing new trails at the more popular astrophysics forums. Or did it not go well there?

Because I have found that many religious thinkers are open to science while many scientists are not open to theological ideas of any kind. And I am looking for inclusive conversations.

If you have a good astrophysics forum link, I'll be more than happy to go there.

 

[Davian]

You should try to clean up your bbcode in your responses. I'm not fixing it for you.

Because I have found that many religious thinkers are open to science while many scientists are not open to theological ideas of any kind.

Theological ideas tend to be unfalsifiable by definition. They are of no scientific significance.

And I am looking for inclusive conversations.

If you have a good astrophysics forum link, I'll be more than happy to go there.

Against the Mainstream

Let's see if you do better than CF's resident panetheist, Michael.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

You should try to clean up your bbcode in your responses. I'm not fixing it for you.

Theological ideas tend to be unfalsifiable by definition. They are of no scientific significance.

Against the Mainstream

Let's see if you do better than CF's resident panetheist, Michael.

My response does not show up in the edit box, it's blank sometimes. Seems to only be on longer posts as editing worked on this one.

But important to 86% of humanity and in increasing percentage going backwards in time.

I will check it out, thank you.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Looks like a sparse and little traffic-ed forum, do you have any thing with more activity?

*edit: On deeper exploration is looks very well structured and expertly scrutinized. Thanks again for the connection!