Trust us Aussies to blow a hole in the Big Bang Theory:
Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe. A paper being published in a US physics journal suggests it may be possible to view "cracks" in the universe that would support the theory of Quantum Graphity - considered to be the holy grail of physics. The team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and RMIT say instead of thinking of the start of the universe as being a big bang, we should imagine it as a cooling of water into ice.
"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.
"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.
"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form." Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, like atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen. Mr Quach says the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needs to be rewritten. He hopes experimentalists will be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.
"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says.
"At the bang, physics breaks down.
"The model cannot make any predictions at what occurs at the big bang. You can't use any of the mathematics (or) any of the theories." Mr Quach and his fellow researchers theorise that if Quantum Graphity "cracks" do exist, they will bend or reflect light, which, if observed through a telescope would support their predictions.
"If they prove my predictions that's really good evidence for the condensed matter model of quantum graphity in which case you can throw out all the other attempts."
I believe it is very important to separate 'religion' from 'faith'.
Faith is very personal, and to a large extent you either have it, or you don't. You can have faith that the airflow over a wing will keep your aircraft flying or that your wife will be faithful to you, and sometimes that faith can be explained by science (as in the case of airflow over a wing) and sometimes it cannot. I cannot explain why my wife loves me, when sometimes I find myself quite unloveable and my behaviour intolerable?
I don't understand the theory of fluid dynamics with regard to wing-design even though some people do understand it, but I have faith that it works.
I have a personal faith in God, creation, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is coupled with that verse many people know so well (John 3:16): For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life, and is followed by a verse not so many know: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
I don't believe God so 'reasoned with' or 'argued with' or 'convinced' the world - He loved.
But just as there are crooked politicians, untrustworthy trade union officials, dishonest policemen, firebug volunteer firefighters etc etc, so 'belonging' to a group does not guarantee purity of purpose or action from everyone in that group. Indeed, some 'join up' specifically to further their 'wrong' motives. And churches and organised religion are not exempt.
And I respectfully suggest that if anyone would like to assess whether someone is a true Christian - a follower of Christ - apply the test that Jesus himself set in John 13:33 and 34: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Reading these pages has been very interesting. I was thinking though that it was time somebody mentioned the person who Christians follow.
Although I do have faith, it's faith I think well grounded in boring reason & logic. There's a reasonable body of evidence that Jesus almost certainly existed and that he almost certainly said much the same things as the gospels say he said. Uniquely in messiah-movements or cults before & since, his followers had quite radical lives & deaths afterwards indicating that they believed him too, a little bit before he died and totally afterwards.
So for me, faith is not at all necessarily faith that is blind to the historical facts.
But whether that floats your boat or not, I'm happy to be judged by the words of Jesus who I claim to follow, as david1300 has said better than I can.
jbmack, I wholeheartedly agree that there are differences, however having considered this fact I felt to open discussion on the differences would detract from the core of the thread and thus dilute it. It is not that I deny the differences, it is more, as you say, that I view all faith as blind.
What interests me is how some can have faith in something there is no proof of and mostly very little 'evidence' of. I find it fascinating that it is so. Furthermore I wonder what is at the route of such faith and why these individuals have a need for their chosen belief.
David1300 John 3:16 was my late father's favorite passage in it's entirety...
Thankyou for sharing the Word...it's nice to see PPRuNe has advanced to the level where this important discussion can be had...I really wish I had more time...I hope that even non-Christrians can see how different 'reading the Bible' and receiving the Word truly is...
It's hard to convey the peace the New Testament can bring to Christians, who truly can see the love of God, and why we do have such peace despite adversity at times...I wish that I had more time to participate in this discussion, now that it seems some of the[albeit understandable at times] predjudice, steroetyping and intolerance has been broken down...I hope some of your message also is received by the atheists, not to change their minds, just to allow them to understand why we don't change our minds...I've said the Our Father Prayer numerous times... the passage means different things to me, at different times...so even though the litteral writings of the Bible don't change; the Word, does...and for Christians -only through acceptance of Christ as our saviour and having a personal relationship with God can we receive the Word each and every time
I'd never thought I'd be brave enough to ever write these thoughts down on PPRuNe
Thanks for your reply. I do not mean to come off as aggressive. I think my belief in God comes from my anecdotal experience and how I interpret science. I can only speak for myself, but I have experienced God in my life and then have seen God in my own studies as well. Can I say here is God or there is God... no, but I see evidence through many things.
I have absolutely no problem in people believing in intangible entities influencing/controlling events. Just as long as they don't try and enforce their belief, lifestyle or rules on those who don't.
Unfotunately, regardless of their protestations, they all invariably do when they form the majority. For the good of your immortal soul of course, with the best of intentions.
I'm NOT bragging but I have 'science' very well condensed in my head to the point where nothing, if I should, take the time to learn is difficult, for me..when I was in molecular biology research I found the atmophere slow in limiting; I wanted to cure disease and fix things with it, i.e be more of a molecular engineer...
I look forward to the new advances in physics that will elucidate more of the mysteries of the universe...but science's limitations are very, very clear to me...
...and...
We as humans have difficulty with [outside of mathematics] with the concept of infinity[and nothing, i.e zero]... when questioning where does it all end? or all begin? and in order to even begin to try to prove the various hypotheses in physics relating, to these questions we must use the tools given to us... i.e ancient light, or various particle accelerators etc, otherwise these will remain purely speculative mathematical hypotheses...
As a result of our aforementioned experimental limitations; we can try perhaps to connect the many unknowns through a series of differential equations in attempt to reconcile our lack of knowledge concerning the beginning and the end with the inconcievable concepts of nothing and infinity
In the endless theory diferential equations, in order to relate [theoretically] any two items..we need to have at least one common variable between the items that we are trying to relate to one another...but since for certain items...we physically can not run the experiment [such as probing beyond the universe] in order to find connecting variables...in this case a variable that connects the known and, at least, finite and observable universe with infinity...we can never really grasp the infinite nor probe nor relate it to our finite world with equations as that's impossible...i.e reconconcile the first and the last the beginning and the end, the finite and the infinite...i.e...the last great questions in theoretical physics, more or less...
The only variable, the only hypothesis that gives humanity hope for solving this theoretical and non-existant differential equation is God because that's all we have that can explain the connection between the finite and infinite
so, even scientifically we can not really probe the infinite, becuase of our limitations of direct observation, without at least including God...one may wish to think of the variable as just a factor, as an atheist might do...but all along the faithful have been calling the variable that connects the finite and the infinite, the beginnings with the end, 'God' just without all of the fancy math...therein lies one, not proof, of faith or God, but one very good reason to at least try to include God, in the mix in terms of coming to any hope of parsimony as far as dealing with the age old conundrum of finite and time limited with infinite and timeless...
just a more 'scientific' view of things
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 23rd Aug 2012 at 09:21.
Why doesn't God (or his equivalent in other religions) reveal himself to today's world in a more obvious form than elliptical ancient scriptures written by ignorant people or 'visions' experienced by isolated individuals in obscure locations?
<<Is there a God for Jesus to be son of? And who created God? And who created the person who created God? If someone created the universe they made a pretty crap job of it. What's the point of having diseases? Why do people get dozy as they get older? Why can't people get smarter and healthier instead? Why do people have to die anyway? What's the point of earthquakes and droughts and floods? Why are so many grown-ups so miserable or so shitty? It's true, you know. You never get children who are as miserable or as shitty as grown-ups. Mrs Bellwood gets annoyed when you say this stuff. She says you have to have faith in God. Doesn't seem like much of a deal to me. The best way for God to make you believe in him would be to beam down to earth in the middle of the World Cup final. You couldn't argue with that.
Charlie doesn't believe in God. She says why do people use the Bible to tell us what to do when it was written 2000 years ago by people who thought the earth was flat and floods were God's punishment for being bad. But Martin says some people need God to help them when they're unhappy and it's wrong to tell these people that God doesn't exist.
Charlie reckons religion is a con trick. You tell people to put up with being poor or having a shitty life because when you die you go straight to heaven and live happily ever after. She says that religion is used as political control but I don't really know what that means. She laughed when I told her what Bob Hollis said about more people have been killed in the name of God than any other reason. My Dad says Mr Hollis is a subversive. I think that's like a boat that can go under water like a small submarine. I can't see the connection myself.>>
The news that the Australian team are proposing "a phase transition" analogue for the 'big bang' (how Fred Hoyle might laugh that his scathing terminology is still popular flavour de jour) is an interesting one.
Unfortunately (but typically) the popular press have missed the essence of the proposed theory.
Very few proponents of the view that an expanding (and open) universe emerged from a singularity (with all the mathematical contradictions and breakdowns that occur due to infinity at that point) would not be interested in this proposed model seeing that the Australian team are attempting to integrate quantum gravity (or graphity to be precise) within a coherent testable model.
In fact the theories are not mutually exclusive and the fact that the popular media latch on to sound bites like 'Big Bang' or 'Big Chill' tells us more about the popular media than they do about the underlying theories.
Is infinity in fact an inconceivable concept? If space is not unending, then what is it?
That's the problem..we're not sure are there many universes? is there infinite matter and energy also if not is there, nothing? but nothing must be something right? in a similar way that we can use multivariable calculus to go beyond three mutually orthogonal axes..we can not graph such a function we only have x,y,z plane but we can go beyond that limitation up until infinity actually...but only with symbols...similar with +/- infinity or the thru concept of nothing we can deal with it mathematically, but we can not draw it or really form a true mental picture...without mathematics we'd be blind to these concepts...therefore a true extension of that to physical reality is truly inconceivable...i.e no real mental picture can be drawn outside of a broad conceptualiztion...makes sense?
as far as the query below yours I also have my opinion, but I need to have coffee, before I write that...
Caco the problem with these hypotheses is that without, serendipitously i.e the exact right beam of ancient light hitting us, we can't say for sure complex math can fall like a house of cards...
And yes, not that we don't know this alread,...the media is largely comprised of muppetty air heads blabbering without any research or aforethought
Bring Back Ted Koppel!!!...
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 23rd Aug 2012 at 10:37.
Great discussion, PA, and great also that you feel comfortable enough to talk about these quite personal things.
A couple of comments from the opposing viewpoint, if I may:
Quote:
It's hard to convey the peace the New Testament can bring to Christians,
Fair enough. Non-Christians, though, are able to experience some pretty profound feelings of peace as well - I'd nominate an early morning camped on the banks of some outback river with the mist rising and the world slowly waking as about the most peaceful experience one can have, and whether that world was made or arose by chance is immaterial;
Quote:
The only variable, the only hypothesis that gives humanity hope for solving this theoretical and non-existant differential equation is God because that's all we have that can explain the connection between the finite and infinite
Do we particularly need to explain the unexplainable? We can try, and the quest to do so seems to yield some pretty useful and edifying results, but if I can't get my equations to work without introducing a God factor, the universe will still continue to work in its wonderful way.
Fair enough. Non-Christians, though, are able to experience some pretty profound feelings of peace as well - I'd nominate an early morning camped on the banks of some outback river with the mist rising and the world slowly waking as about the most peaceful experience one can have, and whether that world was made or arose by chance is immaterial;
Arm out the Window
Oh I definitely agree I was expressing why I have found faith in Christianity
but as I've said I believe that God has presented himself to all humankind just in different ways...I've seen people who receive their word through Islam, or Budhism, or Judaism..people who do have a personal relationship with God...In fact this extends to atheist and agnostics, and I'm sure even the ancient polytheistic religions or the naturalistic concepts of Native Americans...in fact the general themes of faith are represented with in all concepts of God [even faith in science]...the book by late, great sociologist Joseph Campbell details these matter much more precisely than I can ever hope to...I don't feel Christians own God or Faith or Enlightenment, per se...
In fact...that is one of the root causes of so much strife in the world...I receive my word through Christ, it not so simplistic, but I feel the Word is out there for everyone to recieve-I'm not the type who thinks all Non-Christians are going to hell, you could interpret things superficially in the Bible as such,and many unfortunately, do but that's why it's important to meditate on Faith of anykind...to receive the word for you...meditiation can be communal [as in a religion] but of course we as humans with our follies and vices can distort all of that, just as science can be distorted..but I'm happiest recieving my word through Christ...but we Christians don't own God...Humanity owns him...God is quite litterally found in our DNA and from the DNA somehow gets into our brains in one form or another...that's my view hence my ecumenical standpoint; I feel it's no contradiction at all to being a good Christian to realize some may also be a good Budhist there exists among all faiths the truly enlightened...
and yes the universe would continue on it's own but what fun is that...we're too curious too leave these questions alone, that's why science and faith truly exist they're just not mutually exclusive concepts..as so many are lead to believe...IMHO
Caco..so many of the greats saw the same road Gibbs, Maxwell that's why i like engineering, if you see math that is too hard and you don't like ,you can just cross it all out...
as far as my next opinion why is there bad if there's a God? and why do the word in these old book seemingly contradict scientific reality?...well in the next post i can't type too much at once so that, as Koppel, used to say on Nightline ---that conversation when we return
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 23rd Aug 2012 at 11:52.
So when a major natural disaster claims the lives of thousands of men, women and children alike, in some far flung country which is staunchly Islamic, what sould the "correct" reaction of the survivors be ?
Should they weep and wail, searching through the carnage looking for relatives to bury.
Or
With the firm and unrefutable belief that everything that occurs is "God's Will" should they not celebrate the great act of their creator.
After all, their "God" willed the great event to take place, Who are they to question ?
That sort of argument is silly and unhelpful. It is perfectly reasonable in my (non-Believer's) view for people to subscribe to a religion which believes that all things, good and calamitous, are the work of their god. That does not mean that they cannot and should not mourn their dead and injured in such a calamity.
Last edited by Sunnyjohn; 23rd Aug 2012 at 14:27.
Reason: typo
I feel that William Blake sums up some of this stuff the best...
To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour.
A robin redbreast in a cage Puts all heaven in a rage.
A dove-house fill'd with doves and pigeons Shudders hell thro' all its regions. A dog starv'd at his master's gate Predicts the ruin of the state.
A horse misused upon the road Calls to heaven for human blood. Each outcry of the hunted hare A fibre from the brain does tear.
A skylark wounded in the wing, A cherubim does cease to sing. The game-cock clipt and arm'd for fight Does the rising sun affright.
Every wolf's and lion's howl Raises from hell a human soul.
The wild deer, wand'ring here and there, Keeps the human soul from care. The lamb misus'd breeds public strife, And yet forgives the butcher's knife.
The bat that flits at close of eve Has left the brain that won't believe. The owl that calls upon the night Speaks the unbeliever's fright.
He who shall hurt the little wren Shall never be belov'd by men. He who the ox to wrath has mov'd Shall never be by woman lov'd.
The wanton boy that kills the fly Shall feel the spider's enmity. He who torments the chafer's sprite Weaves a bower in endless night.
The caterpillar on the leaf Repeats to thee thy mother's grief. Kill not the moth nor butterfly, For the last judgement draweth nigh.
He who shall train the horse to war Shall never pass the polar bar. The beggar's dog and widow's cat, Feed them and thou wilt grow fat.
The gnat that sings his summer's song Poison gets from slander's tongue. The poison of the snake and newt Is the sweat of envy's foot.
The poison of the honey bee Is the artist's jealousy.
The prince's robes and beggar's rags Are toadstools on the miser's bags. A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so; Man was made for joy and woe; And when this we rightly know, Thro' the world we safely go.
Joy and woe are woven fine, A clothing for the soul divine. Under every grief and pine Runs a joy with silken twine.
The babe is more than swaddling bands; Every farmer understands. Every tear from every eye Becomes a babe in eternity;
This is caught by females bright, And return'd to its own delight. The bleat, the bark, bellow, and roar, Are waves that beat on heaven's shore.
The babe that weeps the rod beneath Writes revenge in realms of death. The beggar's rags, fluttering in air, Does to rags the heavens tear.
The soldier, arm'd with sword and gun, Palsied strikes the summer's sun. The poor man's farthing is worth more Than all the gold on Afric's shore.
One mite wrung from the lab'rer's hands Shall buy and sell the miser's lands; Or, if protected from on high, Does that whole nation sell and buy.
He who mocks the infant's faith Shall be mock'd in age and death. He who shall teach the child to doubt The rotting grave shall ne'er get out.
He who respects the infant's faith Triumphs over hell and death. The child's toys and the old man's reasons Are the fruits of the two seasons.
The questioner, who sits so sly, Shall never know how to reply. He who replies to words of doubt Doth put the light of knowledge out.
The strongest poison ever known Came from Caesar's laurel crown. Nought can deform the human race Like to the armour's iron brace.
When gold and gems adorn the plow, To peaceful arts shall envy bow. A riddle, or the cricket's cry, Is to doubt a fit reply.
The emmet's inch and eagle's mile Make lame philosophy to smile. He who doubts from what he sees Will ne'er believe, do what you please.
If the sun and moon should doubt, They'd immediately go out. To be in a passion you good may do, But no good if a passion is in you.
The whore and gambler, by the state Licensed, build that nation's fate. The harlot's cry from street to street Shall weave old England's winding-sheet.
The winner's shout, the loser's curse, Dance before dead England's hearse.
Every night and every morn Some to misery are born, Every morn and every night Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight, Some are born to endless night.
We are led to believe a lie When we see not thro' the eye, Which was born in a night to perish in a night, When the soul slept in beams of light.
God appears, and God is light, To those poor souls who dwell in night; But does a human form display To those who dwell in realms of day.
