Bright flash of light as life begins.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Let's leave relative out of it BBY! [/COLOR]I am convinced that when my homo-sapient ride on a spinning 1000 mph mudball; circumnavigating a sun; in a spinning galaxy; in an expanding universe is blessedly over...all will B manifestly made clear on a 'need 2 know' basis...

LOL careful you are speculating and that might get burned at the stake around here.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

LOL careful you are speculating and that might get burned at the stake around here.

Speculation is a great thing. It's where all the best fantasy and science fiction comes from. Speculation isn't the problem - calling speculation fact is the problem.

Oh, and I'm curious about what seems to be going undiscussed. What's the story on the "flash of light" that started this thread? Have there been other observances?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

A scientific theory is confined to things for which evidence exists. No evidence exists for multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery.

Therefore, nothing said about any of them merits the distinction of being called a theory. Theories are explanations of a collection of evidence, not speculation based on imaginative fantasies. Elevating imaginative fantasies to the status of theory would be the end of science.

Just to give you one example of why these fantasies don't deserve to be called theories, a theory, in order to be called such, must be falsifiable. If you posit the theory that the force of gravity between two objects is related to the sum of the masses and the distance of their centers of mass, then merely showing one example where that is not true is enough to falsify that theory. The theory was built on evidence and it will die by evidence.

But there is no evidence of the list above, multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery. Therefore they are not falsifiable. Therefore they are not theories. Well, maybe on-time mail delivery can be falsified.

I understand what you're saying. Look, I may not agree with Multi Universe Theory and I don't. But I do from time to time read the oppositions paper. When say I Ive read about it and that I have but a feeble underatanding of it. Rest assured I dont need to be chastised over the deffenition of what a theory is, for the simple reason I am not the one who said it was a theory, the theoretical physicists and centers of education who came up with this idea did. This why I dont understand your argument with me. If you want to call it speculation or foolishness go ahead call it what you want. The fact remains people have suggested it and did the math. Right or wrong wrong what I truely admire is the brains that can come up with things like this.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I read Dawkin's God-Delusion book and liked it - but also his book on evolution, The Selfish Gene. He knows his stuff as a biologist. The first book is a battleground, obviously, and it is intended to be that, but his Selfish Gene is different but brilliant from an academic POV. There is a reason why it gets predominantly extremely positive reviews only - from 30 years back until today. Don't take him as a light-weight, he isn't. There are a few more books by him as well, popular science books.

I'll be honest Skybird, I have preconceived notions. 60 years ago it was thought the universe was eternal then two fellas Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered echos of a big bang. Now for the last fifty years or so science is, I think, in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Something a 3000 year old book had already stated.

Also, one of the reasons I disagree with Multi Universe Theory it is used in an attempt to deny the universe has a beginning and direction that it is just one big random chance or fluke. And it just doesnt matter to me if we evolved from the simple to the complex. What matters for me is today.

What I want to know, is the brain a function of the soul or is the soul a function of the brain that needed to interpret the energy surrounding us in this dimension of space time and matter. Why are we sentient self aware capable of emotion thought amd feelings when the matter of the universe that from which our bodies come from is not.

Though this too was written some 2-3 thousand years ago. Will this be the next big discovery?

...and breathed into his nostils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. [And the Adam became a soul of life.]. - Targumin Onkelos

Anyway as for my intial post I found the flash of light at conception just reminded me of the intial intense light at the beginning of the universe which eventually became time space matter.

And I will try to find a used book of Dawkins and give it a go.

[Betonov]

I like the multiverse theory.
It means there's somewhere a me that didn't turn out a complete looser.
Then again there's somewhere a me that turned out a complete looser and does not realise it.
And then again, there's somewhere a me that was allready killed.
A me that has normal blood pressure and a me that has a brain tumor.
A me that won the lottery and a me that lives in a cardboard box.
A me that never tried pot and a me that got addicted to it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I'll be honest Skybird, I have preconceived notions. 60 years ago it was thought the universe was eternal then two fellas Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered echos of a big bang. Now for the last fifty years or so science is, I think, in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Something a 3000 year old book had already stated.

Also, one of the reasons I disagree with Multi Universe Theory it is used in an attempt to deny the universe has a beginning and direction that it is just one big random chance or fluke. And it just doesnt matter to me if we evolved from the simple to the complex. What matters for me is today.

What I want to know, is the brain a function of the soul or is the soul a function of the brain that needed to interpret the energy surrounding us in this dimension of space time and matter. Why are we sentient self aware capable of emotion thought amd feelings when the matter of the universe that from which our bodies come from is not.

Though this too was written some 2-3 thousand years ago. Will this be the next big discovery?

...and breathed into his nostils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. [And the Adam became a soul of life.]. - Targumin Onkelos

Anyway as for my intial post I found the flash of light at conception just reminded me of the intial intense light at the beginning of the universe which eventually became time space matter.

And I will try to find a used book of Dawkins and give it a go.

Well, we can make clear statements about that the Big Bang is the most likely scenario indeed, the hints and evidence is all around us and is overwhelming, it radiates right through us while sit here and talk. Its a theory - but a damn well proven one by now, and thus the by far dominant paradigm. But then the question is: why did a Big Bang happen? And where did it take place when time and space did not exist? This is where cosmologists today try to give answers. Inflation of the universe also is an observation that you cannot deny currently: we know, by all reason, that the universe is constantly inflating/expanding, we know it for sure, we have proven it, the evidence is not objected by anyone: and we know that thus objects like other galaxies do race away from us the faster the further away they are - by this phenomenon even the speed of light in the future will be broken. The analogy often used here is that of rosins in a cake dough that is working and expanding. You mentioned that book, the Bible. But the Bible gives no explanation on the mechanism described by modern astronomy and cosmology, and many fundamental Christians take form that book that Earth is just 6000 years old and that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs - while science knows and can prove so much better that Earth is several billion years old, 4.8 I think, and that the Big Bang is 13.72 billion years ago. Finally, attributing the cause of existence to a deity, like the Bible does, does nothing for me, because then the next question is: where did ''God come from, where did he exist, how did it/her/she come into being?" Same question like about the Big Bang, only that science tries to answer this question about why there was a Big Bang, where as fundamentalist believers simply chose to see "Its the deity!" as the absolute, penultimate answer to these questions. You understand that I cannot share your attempt therefore to link science and religion here. They are no companions, but antagonists, and they always have been and they always will and must be - necessarily.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

I like the multiverse theory.
It means there's somewhere a me that didn't turn out a complete looser.
Then again there's somewhere a me that turned out a complete looser and does not realise it.
And then again, there's somewhere a me that was allready killed.
A me that has normal blood pressure and a me that has a brain tumor.
A me that won the lottery and a me that lives in a cardboard box.
A me that never tried pot and a me that got addicted to it.

Report back at the end of time once you are finished.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Report back at the end of time once you are finished.

Somewhere there's a me that invented immortality and used the extra eternity to make a time machine so he came back from end times and reported it.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Well, we can make clear statements about that the Big Bang is the most likely scenario indeed, the hints and evidence is all around us and is overwhelming, it radiates right through us while sit here and talk. Its a theory - but a damn well proven one by now, and thus the by far dominant paradigm. But then the question is: why did a Big Bang happen? And where did it take place when time and space did not exist? This is where cosmologists today try to give answers. Inflation of the universe also is an observation that you cannot deny currently: we know, by all reason, that the universe is constantly inflating/expanding, we know it for sure, we have proven it, the evidence is not objected by anyone: and we know that thus objects like other galaxies do race away from us the faster the further away they are - by this phenomenon even the speed of light in the future will be broken. The analogy often used here is that of rosins in a cake dough that is working and expanding. You mentioned that book, the Bible. But the Bible gives no explanation on the mechanism described by modern astronomy and cosmology, and many fundamental Christians take form that book that Earth is just 6000 years old and that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs - while science knows and can prove so much better that Earth is several billion years old, 4.8 I think, and that the Big Bang is 13.72 billion years ago. Finally, attributing the cause of existence to a deity, like the Bible does, does nothing for me, because then the next question is: where did ''God come from, where did he exist, how did it/her/she come into being?" Same question like about the Big Bang, only that science tries to answer this question about why there was a Big Bang, where as fundamentalist believers simply chose to see "Its the deity!" as the absolute, penultimate answer to these questions. You understand that I cannot share your attempt therefore to link science and religion here. They are no companions, but antagonists, and they always have been and they always will and must be - necessarily.

Im not Christian so I got that going for me Many unanswered question in this universe so many great minds postulating ideas and food for the mind.

But lets think about the word deity.

What is the scientific thoughts on what created the universe? If you look at NASA website it says identifies something called quantum fluctuation which is; Not physical, Acts on the physical, Created physical from nothing, Predates universe.

Now What is the biblical definition of God? Not physical, Acts on the physical, Created physical from nothing, Predates universe.

Now Skybird Im not trying to preach or convert. Its just where my thoughts are at the moment. As I said Im not Christian I dont believe in human sacrifices, or a place where devils with pirchforks torment you if you dont believe in mens idea of who God is.

Me, Im just wandering, wondering, seeking, its what we do.

[Oberon]

I wonder when it was that the religious establishment gained the reputation of hindering science rather than promoting it, it was, after all, the scientific leader for many centuries. Was it when Copernicus came up with his Heliocentric theory? However I believe that Pope Clement VII was interested in the theory rather than enraged. Perhaps it was Pope Paul V, who took a harder approach to Catholic diplomacy, and his cardinals who sought to condemn Galileo for following the Copernican position.
In short, then it must be at the dawn of the Renaissance that science left the bosum of the religious establishment and sought to make its own way in the world.
Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion.

NONSENSE: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/MayorFFH2011.pdf Being a tad Titanic we could relate to this! Of course there were two zinc flashes when I came along...

"Before there were any humans on Pallene, the story goes that a battle was fought between the gods and the giants. Traces of the giants' demise continue to be seen to this day, whenever torrents swell with rain and excessive water breaks their banks and floods the fields. They say that even now in gullies and ravines the people discover bones of immeasurable enormity, like men's carcasses but far bigger."
--Greek historian Solinus, c. AD 200
The ancient Greeks told stories of giants, describing them as flesh-and-blood creatures who lived and died--and whose bones could be found coming out of the ground where they were buried long ago. Indeed, even today large and surprisingly human-like bones can be found in Greece. Modern scientists understand such bones to be the remains of mammoths, mastodons, and woolly rhinoceroses that once lived in the region.
But ancient Greeks were largely unfamiliar with these massive animals, and many believed that the enormous bones they found were the remains of human-like giants. Any nonhuman traits in the bones were thought to be due to the grotesque anatomical features of giants...

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/greek-giants/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

What is the scientific thoughts on what created the universe?

None. True science isn't about thinking (as in speculating, not considering), it's about discovering. Individuals can speculate, but that's not scientific method, just guessing.

If you look at NASA website it says identifies something called quantum fluctuation which is; Not physical,

Okay

Acts on the physical,

How, exactly? Do they explain this process, or is it more guesswork?

Created physical from nothing,

How would they know this? Looks like more guesswork to me.

Predates universe.

Again, how would they know this? Speculation applies what we want to think onto what we know. Science looks for more data until there is enough to form a viable theory, then looks for evidence to the contrary.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I wonder when it was that the religious establishment gained the reputation of hindering science rather than promoting it, it was, after all, the scientific leader for many centuries. Was it when Copernicus came up with his Heliocentric theory? However I believe that Pope Clement VII was interested in the theory rather than enraged. Perhaps it was Pope Paul V, who took a harder approach to Catholic diplomacy, and his cardinals who sought to condemn Galileo for following the Copernican position.
In short, then it must be at the dawn of the Renaissance that science left the bosum of the religious establishment and sought to make its own way in the world.
Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion.

My thoughts are division came when great minds nolonger saw church leaders as an authority and as the church leaders began to see their authority diminish.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

None. True science isn't about thinking (as in speculating, not considering), it's about discovering. Individuals can speculate, but that's not scientific method, just guessing.


Okay


How, exactly? Do they explain this process, or is it more guesswork?


How would they know this? Looks like more guesswork to me.


Again, how would they know this? Speculation applies what we want to think onto what we know. Science looks for more data until there is enough to form a viable theory, then looks for evidence to the contrary.

Prove you exist.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Prove you exist.

I can't. I can only fall back on Descartes' first principle, and even then I accept the concept that I may be wrong.