Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,162,992 members, 7,852,350 topics. Date: Thursday, 06 June 2024 at 04:41 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. (14370 Views)
SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT '' THANKING GOD HEALS '' / A Graduate Student Disproves Gay Marriage Scientifically. / Graces Derived From Assisting At Holy Mass (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ... (18) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 10:42pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Gggg102: This is English bro. In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force The expansion of the singularity IS THE BIG BANG |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 10:44pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: and they do believe. could implies possibility. so it CAN happen. assumption doesn't imply possibility. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 10:49pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Gggg102: Assume does imply possibility. assume verb suppose to be the case, without proof. take or begin to have (power or responsibility). begin to have (a specified quality, appearance, or extent) That's why the words in bold in your comment said, Such a superposition, however, has not been considered in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics since the theory always assumes a definite causal order between events," It means it ALWAYS results in a definite causal order between events. The word to watch is ALWAYS. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 10:51pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all-81844b973333&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjZu5yvoL3aAhWSUlAKHVusCLwQFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3d4_8PJfB-R25W70kG2TAp https://www.google.com/url?q=https://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/21/did-the-universe-begin-with-a-singularity/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwi1j_Gsor3aAhXRsKQKHamcCSYQFjAJegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2h8osdS8tFP2kFTYy3-V2X |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 10:55pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Gggg102: He said so and then in trying to explain why this inflation would even occur after the bang he had to make reference to what triggered the bang and thus he said In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force This was the only plausible explanation to what could have made inflation possible |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 10:58pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Lalasticlala and mynd44 we need more contributions can this thread be taken to the front page please? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:01pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: Alan Guth's big bang does not occur at the singularity. Alan Guth's big bang was caused by the inflation. Alan Guth made no mention of singularity. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by wirinet(m): 11:02pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: What are you now yapping about? You claim the escape velocity of the earth from the solar system is lower than the velocity the earth is travelling around the sun, and should fly of from orbiting the solar system. I corrected you that the escape velocity of the earth is 42.1km/s as against the velocity of the earth velocity of 29.78km/s and you now started yapping about escape velocity of objects from earths gravity being 11km/s. It seems you do not understand the difference between the earth's escape velocity and the sun's escape velocity. I am really tired of senseless arguments. 2 Likes |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:06pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 11:10pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
wirinet: Where did you get this nonsense you are typiñg? I compared the escape velocity or orbital velocity OF A SPACE ROCKET from the earth and the size of the space rocket to the earth and also compared the orbital velocity of the earth to the sun and also the size of the earth to the sun and showed that the escape velocity of a space rocket with a much smaller size to the earth, wen also comparing the earth to the sun per size is much lower than that of the earths orbital velocity. If you do not understand then do not type. Na by force to tyoe when you are completely lost? You are typing senselessly and still claiming right. The orbital velocity of the earth Is about 30km/sec and the orbital velocity of a space rocket is 11km/sec . When now comparing the size of a space rocket to the earth and the size of the earth to the sun you discover that even though the space rocket is much smaller by comparison, it easily breaks free at 11km/sec while the earth cannot achieve this at about 2 and half that velocity despite being much bigger by comparison |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 11:10pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Gggg102: Ogbeni the big bang is the inflation of the singularity |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 11:19pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:33pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: last explanation I'm giving on this. when the big bang theory was first proposed, the bang was said to have happened at the singularity. however there were problems with the theory. Alan Guth came up with the inflation theory to solve this problem. in this inflation theory, after the expansion of the singularity and inflation occurs which led to another round of expansion; the new big bang. Alan's new model solved the problem of the old model. but the new model suggested that we can't know what exactly happened between the first expansion(old bang) and the inflation because the laws of physics were not in place. in the new theory, we can't know if there was actually a singularity for sure because we cannot go back beyond the inflation which would have happened 1*10^-36 seconds after the inflation if it actually happened. because our laws of physics started at the inflation. the theories of relativity used as the basis of the old theory did not take into account quantum mechanics. also the big bang wasn't even an explosion. it was an expansion. the term big bang was created as a derogatory term by an opposing scientist to the theory. if you look at everything together (including the singularity which cannot be investigated using our laws of physics) in Alan's theory we have: expansion(singularity/old big bang)- inflation- expansion(new big bang). which eventually led to us. again the old big bang occurs beyond our laws of physics so we can't investigate it. it is a possibility that is not necessary in Alan's model. Alan's model can do without the singularity and he doesn't even mention it in his paper. leaving the expansion after the inflation as the big bang. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by wirinet(m): 11:35pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: It seems pride is preventing from learning or accepting your ignorance. Escape velocity has nothing to do with size. If you can throw a stone above 11km/s, it will escape the earths gravity. If you project the same stone from the earths orbit at 42.1km/s, it will escape the sun's gravity. Viking 2, a probe the size of a small bus that was launched in 1979 is about escaping the sun's gravity now. 2 Likes |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:36pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: from the article: But when inflation came along, all of that changed. No longer could we extrapolate all the way back to a singularity. If we wound the clock of the Universe backwards , we would discover something remarkable. At some point, about 10 -30 seconds before we would anticipate running into that singularity, the Universe instead would undergo inflation (in reverse, if we’re looking backwards), and we have no evidence for anything that came before it . the inflation happens 10^-36 seconds before we would run into the singularity if it existed, but there is no evidence for anything before the inflation because our laws of physics don't apply before the inflation. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:42pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: from the article: The Big Bang, instead of being a singularity, is the set of initial conditions of an extremely hot, dense, expanding Universe that exists immediately after the end of inflation. Was there a singularity before inflation? Possibly, but at this point, we have no way of knowing. Inflation is the first thing we can say anything definitive about, but it definitely comes before what we traditionally call “The Big Bang”. So maybe I should admit that Starts With A Bang isn’t really the starting point of everything, after all, just the start of where our observable Universe comes from. But the answer to our Q & A for today? Yes , inflation happens before the Big Bang, and ever since its acceptance, has removed the necessity of a singularity at the start. if the singularity exist, it is before the inflation which is before the big bang. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 11:54pm On Apr 15, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: the singularity(if it exists) is before the inflation. alleged singularity(old big bang) that can't be proven because our laws don't apply - inflation(which occurs at 10^-36 seconds after this alleged singularity)-expansion(new big bang) - universe as we know it. *singularity*/expansion - inflation - big bang/expansion - universe as we know it. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 12:00am On Apr 16, 2018 |
wirinet: You are the one extremely ignorant. There is no such thing as throwing a stone ABOVE 11km/sec but there is something like throwing a stone AT THE SPEED OF 11km/sec. Also it is the VOYAGER 2 That is about to escape the suns orbit and not the VIKING 2. Also its escape velocity is not 42km/sec but actually 15.4km/sec and that is because it is travelling through the heliosheath. The true escape velocity from the suns gravity itself is 618km/sec At a distance of 117 AU (1.75×1010 km) from the Sun as of March 17, 2018,[6] Voyager 2 is the fourth of five spacecraft to achieve the escape velocity that will allow them to leave the Solar System. The probe was moving at a velocity of 15.4 km/s (55,000 km/h) relative to the Sun as of December 2014 and is traveling through the heliosheath.[6][7] Upon reaching interstellar space, Voyager 2 is expected to provide the first direct measurements of the density and temperature of the interstellar plasma.[8] The previous ones are pioneer 10, pioneer 11, voyager 1 and new horizons. There is no viking 2 Do you see how ignorant you are? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 12:03am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: This was why I told you that Alan Guth in an attempt to explain the cause of the inflation said AN IMMENSE ENERGY SOURCE CAUSED THIS INFLATION TO OCCUR as that was the only thing capable of reversing gravity as theorised in particle physics. This was applied by NASA in their diagram. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 12:21am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: where did he say this? |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 12:49am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: In late 1979, a Stanford physics postdoc named Alan Guth offered an explanation for the explosive force behind the Big Bang. Guth’s intellectual leap stemmed from theories in particle physics, which held that at extremely high energies — far higher than could ever be reached in a laboratory — a special state of matter would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a repulsive rather than an attractive force |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by keentola(m): 2:02am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo:The first time? scientifically time did not exist in the beginning of the universe. moreover, it could have been happening for repeatedly before big bang happened |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 6:56am On Apr 16, 2018 |
keentola: Assumptions! Unless you wish to also assume there were many singularities back then and if this were to be the case why do we not have other universes which emerged from these other singularities no matter how warped they may be or deformed? And what I said was FIRST TRY and not FIRST TIME. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 9:03am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: first cause god is also an assumption. you made your assumption, he made his assumption. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 9:13am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: 1.first cause God is not based on verifiable science. 2.first cause God is only an assumption also. 3.science says the extraordinary amount of energy acted 10^-36 seconds after the singularity allegedly expanded. science says we can't know what happened before this point. 4.no one knows that, you assume. 5. so is the first cause God. 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 9:28am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: From my OP 2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality Was a problem created with the appearance of our universe? What we began to see rather was order which brought about scientific laws to back them up. We also see relationship of the means to the end. Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end. Did unntelligence cause this? 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 9:32am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: or it could happen by chance. by an unintelligent creating force. the 'outside universe magnet' randomly 'throwing balls' and eventually one of these 'balls' landing in the 'cup' causing the Universe as we know it. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 9:36am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: Read what you responded to again
Was a problem created with the appearance of our universe? What we began to see rather was order which brought about scientific laws to back them up. We also see relationship of the means to the end. Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end. Did unntelligence cause this? 1 Like |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 9:38am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: again it could. the unintelligence could cause order by a stroke of luck. |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 9:44am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: I do not think you understood what you read. We have been down this road before |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Gggg102(m): 9:52am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Butterflyleo: when we were down this road before, you circled around it by saying chaos began after the big bang. I told you that it was because our science does not investigate before the big bang. science began after the big bang. I told you my 'outside earth magnet ' was outside the universe before science began. so the randomness can still happen. you said that it was an assumption and I had entered the realm of science fiction. since the randomness happened after science. then I told you that since the magnet is outside science, and is a science fiction assumption because science cannot cover it, then first cause god is also a science fiction assumption for the same reason. both are possible assumptions outside science. 3 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Proof Of God. Scientifically Derived. by Butterflyleo: 9:55am On Apr 16, 2018 |
Gggg102: I never circled. I corrected your error because you were the one talking about throwing balls in an unplanned and disorderly manner which despicted chaos and I told you that chaos was not there before the big bang but came after and I showed you proof of that so why do you now twist it ? Chaos cannot bring the following 1) order 2) a means to an end 3) consistency 4) Gains from the means 5) harmony All these we see in our universe. Chaos and unintelligence cannot get all five right. 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) ... (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) ... (18) (Reply)
Happy Ash Wednesday / Spiritual Reasons And Solutions For Delay in Marriage Among Christian Singles / Is Holy Ghost Fire Prayer Biblical?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 102 |