Evidence for God from Science

Mastriani wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:With the state of cosmology it's a wonder why people question biology so much.
=)

I suppose I should have qualified my previous post with, under the umbrella of general and special relativity the speed of light is beleived to be constant.

Nah, you don't necessarily need to qualify, I just look at differing aspects of current theoretical trends for my own postulations.

Here is a question, one I openly admit, I cannot rectify no matter how much I read:

If light travels in a straight line( straight relative to what aspect of what dimensional planar reality?), where does it eventually end up? Certainly at some point a photon has meandered it's way across the entirety of the universe ...... and ....... then ...... it ........ ?

It's either reflected or adsorbed.
Or adsorbed and reemitted. Making it seem reflected.
=)
Like a sound wave.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:With the state of cosmology it's a wonder why people question biology so much.
=)

I suppose I should have qualified my previous post with, under the umbrella of general and special relativity the speed of light is beleived to be constant.

Nah, you don't necessarily need to qualify, I just look at differing aspects of current theoretical trends for my own postulations.

Here is a question, one I openly admit, I cannot rectify no matter how much I read:

If light travels in a straight line( straight relative to what aspect of what dimensional planar reality?), where does it eventually end up? Certainly at some point a photon has meandered it's way across the entirety of the universe ...... and ....... then ...... it ........ ?

It's either reflected or adsorbed.
Or adsorbed and reemitted. Making it seem reflected.
=)
Like a sound wave.

If it has reached the edged of the universe, how? By what? What telemetry device could measure something that distant? What resides at the end, what material is it, can we measure it? Does planar reality stop at some point? Does time convolute or disappear?

Mastriani wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote: Nah, you don't necessarily need to qualify, I just look at differing aspects of current theoretical trends for my own postulations.

Here is a question, one I openly admit, I cannot rectify no matter how much I read:

If light travels in a straight line( straight relative to what aspect of what dimensional planar reality?), where does it eventually end up? Certainly at some point a photon has meandered it's way across the entirety of the universe ...... and ....... then ...... it ........ ?

It's either reflected or adsorbed.
Or adsorbed and reemitted. Making it seem reflected.
=)
Like a sound wave.

If it has reached the edged of the universe, how? By what?

The medium through which light travels is uncertain.

Mastriani wrote:What telemetry device could measure something that distant?

The technology we have can only measure photons heading towards us.

Mastriani wrote:What resides at the end, what material is it, can we measure it?

I don't know.

Mastriani wrote:Does planar reality stop at some point?

Again I haven't a clue.
=)

Mastriani wrote:Does time convolute or isappear?

Uncertain
=)
So many questions, so few answers.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote: Nah, you don't necessarily need to qualify, I just look at differing aspects of current theoretical trends for my own postulations.

Here is a question, one I openly admit, I cannot rectify no matter how much I read:

If light travels in a straight line( straight relative to what aspect of what dimensional planar reality?), where does it eventually end up? Certainly at some point a photon has meandered it's way across the entirety of the universe ...... and ....... then ...... it ........ ?

It's either reflected or adsorbed.
Or adsorbed and reemitted. Making it seem reflected.
=)
Like a sound wave.

If it has reached the edged of the universe, how? By what?

The medium through which light travels is uncertain.

Mastriani wrote:What telemetry device could measure something that distant?

The technology we have can only measure photons heading towards us.

Mastriani wrote:What resides at the end, what material is it, can we measure it?

I don't know.

Mastriani wrote:Does planar reality stop at some point?

Again I haven't a clue.
=)

Mastriani wrote:Does time convolute or isappear?

Uncertain
=)
So many questions, so few answers.

<sigh>Corporeal form has far too many limitations and human deduction far too many limitations and failings. I need to evolve I think.

waiting..... waiting ...... waiting ... nope, nothing yet.

Mastriani wrote:<sigh>Corporeal form has far too many limitations and human deduction far too many limitations and failings. I need to evolve I think.

waiting..... waiting ...... waiting ... nope, nothing yet.

lol

Man is like a deaf blind baby in the broad scheme of things.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Mastriani wrote: I'm sorry Mr. Zenith, but I have to disagree with that assertion based on the Planck model. Gravity does affect particle, ie. photon movement. Light can be bent, this is not a matter of curved space necessaryily. It depends upon which of the newer schools of thought you come from, foam space or string space. There is also the studies of the gravitational horizon of black holes and the effects initiated by such; again, differing schools of thought. There is also the model that light(photon) speed is not a constant dependent upon the wavelength(blue or red), heat of the particular space sector light travels through, and whether or not gravity is a pull only force, or a push-pull force. Then under push-pull theories, we could find that the "constant" speed of photons is altered within the horizon of a black hole, some gaining speed, some losing speed, and then the entirety of the model falls out. Plus the fact that photons are drawn into a black hole and destroyed or the physically observable state is altered in a way we do not understand, leads to yet another contention. Then you have to add the dark matter and antimatter arguments to the discourse as well.

I would say we have to agree to disagree, unless of course you are an astrophysicist/cosmologist.

With the state of cosmology it's a wonder why people question biology so much.
=)

I suppose I should have qualified my previous post with, under the umbrella of general and special relativity the speed of light is beleived to be constant.

i, too, was talking about the GR view of gravity. i haven't heard of it being disproven yet, so i'll stick with it for the time being.

Mastriani wrote:If it has reached the edged of the universe, how? By what? What telemetry device could measure something that distant? What resides at the end, what material is it, can we measure it? Does planar reality stop at some point? Does time convolute or disappear?

observations show evidence that the universe, or at least the space in the universe, is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, and that that rate is increasing. this would mean that light could not reach the edge of the universe. light is moving at a constant speed, in straight lines, but can be absorbed or reflected by matter. light will never reach the edge of the universe unless the rate of expansion decreases enough.

Zenith wrote:

Mastriani wrote:If it has reached the edged of the universe, how? By what? What telemetry device could measure something that distant? What resides at the end, what material is it, can we measure it? Does planar reality stop at some point? Does time convolute or disappear?

observations show evidence that the universe, or at least the space in the universe, is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, and that that rate is increasing. this would mean that light could not reach the edge of the universe. light is moving at a constant speed, in straight lines, but can be absorbed or reflected by matter. light will never reach the edge of the universe unless the rate of expansion decreases enough.

Well done Zenith.

I wonder if it is dark matter they are talking about. Very interesting. Still it adds further questions .... LOL. I'm a pain the ****, I know. Still no definition on the limits of the universe, where is it expanding too? What is this void that the universe expands into? Planar? Dimensional? It seems the only limitations in this universe were placed on my ability to lucidly discern and deduce.<sigh>

Mastriani wrote:Well done Zenith.

I wonder if it is dark matter they are talking about. Very interesting. Still it adds further questions .... LOL. I'm a pain the ****, I know. Still no definition on the limits of the universe, where is it expanding too? What is this void that the universe expands into? Planar? Dimensional? It seems the only limitations in this universe were placed on my ability to lucidly discern and deduce.<sigh>

questions are my favorite thing we really have no idea about anything 'outside' our universe, or if there even is an outside. perhaps it is just an illusion that there is expansion, or perhaps space itself is an illusion. but whatever science finds out is important because we live in that illusion, if it is true or not.

dark matter is usually attributed to the expansion of space, but, to many scientists, all that connotates is that we don't really know what dark matter is, but it must exist, or something like it must exist to account for the apparent mass and mass interactions in the universe. we really don't know much about the world around us, we don't even know what really causes inertia, a force we experience constantly.

Mastriani wrote: Still no definition on the limits of the universe, where is it expanding too? What is this void that the universe expands into? Planar? Dimensional? It seems the only limitations in this universe were placed on my ability to lucidly discern and deduce.<sigh>

Yeah, I know what you mean. People are used to dealing with conditions on earth and not questions like these. That is why human intuition (or common sense) can be so bad and awfully wrong when dealing with such unfamiliar conditions.
What I have read is that space is a property of the universe and thus does not exist outside of the universe (there is no outside of the universe). So the universe is not expanding into any kind of void, it is creating space as it expands. I imagine you have the same basic thought as I, the universe is like some ball growing in size and expanding into some empty space, but that is not what (astro)physicists say. Likewise time is supposed to be a property of the universe and (unless you do multi universes) there was no "before" the universe since time did not exist until the universe did. As in matters biological, I accept what the experts say since I certainly don't have a clue.
You can type "what does the universe expand into" into Google and gets lots of interesting websites, as I just did.
And you're hardly a pain; anyone interested in asking questions and discussing issues (meaning not just saying "I'm right and you're wrong") is an asset to this forum. And if everybody agreed on everything here, no one would learn anything.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Mastriani wrote: Still no definition on the limits of the universe, where is it expanding too? What is this void that the universe expands into? Planar? Dimensional? It seems the only limitations in this universe were placed on my ability to lucidly discern and deduce.<sigh>

Yeah, I know what you mean. People are used to dealing with conditions on earth and not questions like these. That is why human intuition (or common sense) can be so bad and awfully wrong when dealing with such unfamiliar conditions.
What I have read is that space is a property of the universe and thus does not exist outside of the universe (there is no outside of the universe). So the universe is not expanding into any kind of void, it is creating space as it expands. I imagine you have the same basic thought as I, the universe is like some ball growing in size and expanding into some empty space, but that is not what (astro)physicists say. Likewise time is supposed to be a property of the universe and (unless you do multi universes) there was no "before" the universe since time did not exist until the universe did. As in matters biological, I accept what the experts say since I certainly don't have a clue.
You can type "what does the universe expand into" into Google and gets lots of interesting websites, as I just did.
And you're hardly a pain; anyone interested in asking questions and discussing issues (meaning not just saying "I'm right and you're wrong") is an asset to this forum. And if everybody agreed on everything here, no one would learn anything.

Again, good call sandy. Asking questions is the way to learn. My only problem is that I am fairly certain my physical life is going to end far short of my final question ... LOL. Oh well, I'll keep asking anyways.

Thanks for the info, I'll keep looking into it.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:...Incorrect carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 years. And this decay is not a biological process.

How much carbon was in the pre flood world is assumed based on the present, I think? This neuters any value it has beyond the flood time, or so.

observations show evidence that the universe, or at least the space in the universe, is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light, and that that rate is increasing. this would mean that light could not reach the edge of the universe. light is moving at a constant speed, in straight lines, but can be absorbed or reflected by matter. light will never reach the edge of the universe unless the rate of expansion decreases enough.

There is no edge of the universe, just as there is no edge of the Earth's surface. The universe, like the surface of a globe, is finite, but unbounded.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Mastriani wrote: Still no definition on the limits of the universe, where is it expanding too? What is this void that the universe expands into? Planar? Dimensional? It seems the only limitations in this universe were placed on my ability to lucidly discern and deduce.<sigh>

Yeah, I know what you mean. People are used to dealing with conditions on earth and not questions like these. That is why human intuition (or common sense) can be so bad and awfully wrong when dealing with such unfamiliar conditions.
What I have read is that space is a property of the universe and thus does not exist outside of the universe (there is no outside of the universe). So the universe is not expanding into any kind of void, it is creating space as it expands. I imagine you have the same basic thought as I, the universe is like some ball growing in size and expanding into some empty space, but that is not what (astro)physicists say. Likewise time is supposed to be a property of the universe and (unless you do multi universes) there was no "before" the universe since time did not exist until the universe did. As in matters biological, I accept what the experts say since I certainly don't have a clue.
You can type "what does the universe expand into" into Google and gets lots of interesting websites, as I just did.
And you're hardly a pain; anyone interested in asking questions and discussing issues (meaning not just saying "I'm right and you're wrong") is an asset to this forum. And if everybody agreed on everything here, no one would learn anything.

I have read that also sandy, space being a property of the universe: WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? I have real issues with the whole of the cosmological discipline and you reiterated a number of them in this fine post.

If the universe is now, and has been, and it is agreed that it came from some point in time, how could there not be a "before"?

If time is also a property of the universe, it must have existed before the universe? Or is this another philosophical conundrum of the watcher being absent, so it couldn't have existed?

If there is a definable origin to the universe, there had to be an impetus for a universe to come into existence?

We have no proof of elements spontaneously forming in the universe now, so how could they just, "pop" into existence?

If space is expanding, it has to expand into something/somewhere, as is in line with known physical properties of the observed universe? What is this undefined region?

I have read that matter has an equal counterpart, antimatter, part of the balance and harmony ideology; but if both existed at the inseption of the first universal event, and we know that antimatter completely destroys matter, and it is accepted that they must have been present in equal quantities, how is it that any matter exists whatsoever now?

I know nothing. Cosmology seems to me a twisted dichotomy of mutually exclusive ideologies/theories.

Mastriani wrote: If the universe is now, and has been, and it is agreed that it came from some point in time, how could there not be a "before"?

If time is also a property of the universe, it must have existed before the universe? Or is this another philosophical conundrum of the watcher being absent, so it couldn't have existed?
...

Time as we know it is not the only time. Time in this natural universe is based on what we know, like light speed, space, etc. Time as we know it will forever disappear as the new heavens are revealed. Nevertheless, though it will be not a limoting factor then, as it now is, time will likely exist. God made the world, and we know there was at least one witness to that, as we see the lady in Proverbs 8 talk about that day! Therefore She existed before the creation of the universe, and knew what a day was! Days did not start when this universe came to be.
The light in a merged universe is also spiritual, so is not limited by our physical only universe speeds as the light here is. This is why Adam, in that merged past world, saw the light that then was from the far stars almost right away.
Time is relative. Our time we know is relative to the physical only universe. Our light is relative. It is relative to the physical universe it exists in, with it's speeds and properties. Everything is relative, but, where Einstein fell short is that everything is relative to the spiritual and physical, not just to the PO universe! He only had a part of the big picture.