On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:52:09 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter).

Correct.

We also know that the beginning of the creation of the universe took place
by light coming into existence at a singularity (a point with no dimension).

Incorrect.


We know that the matter of the physical universe was brought into being by
photons (little packages of light energy) which, when colliding with each
other, formed the virtually infinite number of protons, neutrons and
electrons, which in various combinations make up everything in our physical
world.

Wrong.

In essence we can now accurately say that all the matter of the physical
universe, ourselves included, is actually light slowed down.

Wrong.

We know that the space which contains our physical universe is expanding.
This is a concept so alien to human thought that until Albert Einstein
developed his General Theory of Relativity early in the 20th century it had
never occurred to any of the world's great minds, but was stated in the Qur'an
over 1400 years ago when Allah told us, "I am expanding the universe with my
power". Even Einstein was so astounded by his discovery that he falsified
his data to show a universe that was not expanding, because he well
understood that an expanding universe implies there was somewhere in the
distant past a moment of creation for the universe.

A start, not a creation.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (which he actually called his
Absolutism Theorem because he realized he had found the one thing in a
relative universe that was absolute) is about the special qualities of
light.

Nope, just its speed.

The Special Theory of Relativity allows us our first objective glimpse into
that which exists beyond the material world.

There is nothing beyond the material world.

We could have found anything once we got our first glimpse beyond the
material world, but what we did find is indeed remarkable. We find Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity showing us that the non-material existence
beyond the physical world consists only of absolutes, and some of those
absolutes are remarkably similar to what everyone's religion has considered
to be among the primary attributes of God.

Such total rubbish.

Example One: As the speed of light (300,000km per second) is approached then
time slows, and at the speed of light time does not pass. This means for a
photon of light which travels at exactly the speed of light, time does not
pass. Therefore the photon is outside of time, and ETERNAL.

Nope.

Example Two: Since no time passes for a photon of light, and that photon can
be observed at different places in space, therefore that photon of light is
simultaneously in those different places (and many other places) at the same
time, and therefore OMNIPRESENT.

Nope.

Example Three: Since every bit of matter in the physical universe is created
by the energy of light,

Wrong.

and that light energy constantly sustains and
directs the activity of every bit on matter in the physical existence,

Wrong.

then
there is no power other than the power of light,

Wrong.

light energy is all the
power that exists,

Wrong.

and therefore OMNIPOTENT.

Wrong.

Example Four: Since all knowledge that exists, that ever existed, or will
exist, is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy then
there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to light, and therefore
OMNISCIENT.

Still very wrong.

Furthermore, light does not actually exist within the physical existence
although we can somehow perceive it. As you approach the speed of light one
of the three dimensions (length, height, and width), the dimension in line
with the direction of motion, becomes progressively less, and at the speed
of light that dimension becomes zero. To determine volume we multiply height
times width times length, but if any one of those three dimensions is zero
then the volume is zero, and that thing therefore does not exist in the
material universe. Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no
existence in the physical universe.

Just how stupid can some people be?

And, while everything in the physical universe has some mass greater than
zero, which is a necessary characteristic for existence in the material
world, light has no mass at all. As you approach the speed of light mass
increases, at the speed of light mass is infinite. Regardless of how tiny
the amount of mass you begin with, that mass rises to infinity at the speed
of light. Since photons travel at the speed of light and do not reach
infinite mass it means that they had zero mass to begin with, and a light
therefore does not actually exist in the material world.

Still wrong.

In the physical existence everything is relative, the absolute existence or
non-existence of any quality is not and can not be expressed, everything
exists between those two extremes of the continuum from absolute expression
to absolute non-expression. We find, though, that beyond the material
existence all qualities either exist in an infinite state or have no
existence at all, there is nothing in between.

http://caliph.wordpress.com/articles/msfg/

The stupidity of the writer is noted. Your stupidity, as the poster,
is already well know.

--
Bob.

Sers Ye et all

Ye Old One schrieb:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter).

Correct.

No, incorrect. Nor It was "created" neither it was "nothing" before. We
just don't know what it was because our mathematics is not able to handle
the status of a singularity.

As well as Badman doesn't know how to handle science. He should avoid
anything that has to do with reason. It could kill him one day.

richie
--
Larks' tongues. Wrens' livers. Chaffinch brains.
Jaguars' earlobes. Wolf nipple chips.
Get 'em while they're hot. They're lovely.
Dromedary pretzels, only half a denar. Tuscany fried bats.

On Apr 3, 7:52*pm, "adman" wrote:
We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter).

Well, hold on here. No time, no space, and no matter does NOT mean
nothing.
Matter can be created whole cloth out of energy. There is no such law
as conservation of matter.
However, there is no absolute scale of energy, either. You can't find
a state that has absolutely zero energy. This is not because there is
always some little bit of energy left; it is because the zero point of
the energy scale is arbitrary. Moreover, time and space do not have to
pre-exist for there to be energy available in it.

It appears that the little logical circle you are going round in is
the result of some fundamental preconceptions/misconceptions of what
the laws of nature actually say. That, or you're dictating to nature
how it should behave according to what makes sense TO YOU. Either
position is ill-advised for both science and theology, and you should
know that. If you don't, then you're overdue for a pause to resume
some thinking, mixed in perhaps with a little reading.

Much of what follows below is also FLAT WRONG, though it's
understandable if you got the impression you did from coffee-table
books. It's the same issue with learning about Christianity from a
children's Bible.

If you like, I can point to the dozen or so places where you are
egregiously wrong, as well as the two dozen or so places where you are
more subtly wrong. If this is useful to you in your self-education,
then I'm happy to provide. If you're not interested in education on
anything, just let me know that, too.

PD


We also know that the beginning of the creation of the universe took place
by light coming into existence at a singularity (a point with no dimension).

We know that the matter of the physical universe was brought into being by
photons (little packages of light energy) which, when colliding with each
other, formed the virtually infinite number of protons, neutrons and
electrons, which in various combinations make up everything in our physical
world.

In essence we can now accurately say that all the matter of the physical
universe, ourselves included, is actually light slowed down.

We know that the space which contains our physical universe is expanding.
This is a concept so alien to human thought that until Albert Einstein
developed his General Theory of Relativity early in the 20th century it had
never occurred to any of the world's great minds, but was stated in the Qur'an
over 1400 years ago when Allah told us, "I am expanding the universe with my
power". Even Einstein was so astounded by his discovery that he falsified
his data to show a universe that was not expanding, because he well
understood that an expanding universe implies there was somewhere in the
distant past a moment of creation for the universe.

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (which he actually called his
Absolutism Theorem because he realized he had found the one thing in a
relative universe that was absolute) is about the special qualities of
light.
The Special Theory of Relativity allows us our first objective glimpse into
that which exists beyond the material world.

We could have found anything once we got our first glimpse beyond the
material world, but what we did find is indeed remarkable. We find Einstein's
Special Theory of Relativity showing us that the non-material existence
beyond the physical world consists only of absolutes, and some of those
absolutes are remarkably similar to what everyone's religion has considered
to be among the primary attributes of God.

Example One: As the speed of light (300,000km per second) is approached then
time slows, and at the speed of light time does not pass. This means for a
photon of light which travels at exactly the speed of light, time does not
pass. Therefore the photon is outside of time, and ETERNAL.

Example Two: Since no time passes for a photon of light, and that photon can
be observed at different places in space, therefore that photon of light is
simultaneously in those different places (and many other places) at the same
time, and therefore OMNIPRESENT.

Example Three: Since every bit of matter in the physical universe is created
by the energy of light, and that light energy constantly sustains and
directs the activity of every bit on matter in the physical existence, then
there is no power other than the power of light, light energy is all the
power that exists, and therefore OMNIPOTENT.
Example Four: Since all knowledge that exists, that ever existed, or will
exist, is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy then
there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to light, and therefore
OMNISCIENT.

Furthermore, light does not actually exist within the physical existence
although we can somehow perceive it. As you approach the speed of light one
of the three dimensions (length, height, and width), the dimension in line
with the direction of motion, becomes progressively less, and at the speed
of light that dimension becomes zero. To determine volume we multiply height
times width times length, but if any one of those three dimensions is zero
then the volume is zero, and that thing therefore does not exist in the
material universe. Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no
existence in the physical universe.

And, while everything in the physical universe has some mass greater than
zero, which is a necessary characteristic for existence in the material
world, light has no mass at all. As you approach the speed of light mass
increases, at the speed of light mass is infinite. Regardless of how tiny
the amount of mass you begin with, that mass rises to infinity at the speed
of light. Since photons travel at the speed of light and do not reach
infinite mass it means that they had zero mass to begin with, and a light
therefore does not actually exist in the material world.

In the physical existence everything is relative, the absolute existence or
non-existence of any quality is not and can not be expressed, everything
exists between those two extremes of the continuum from absolute expression
to absolute non-expression. We find, though, that beyond the material
existence all qualities either exist in an infinite state or have no
existence at all, there is nothing in between.

http://caliph.wordpress.com/articles/msfg/

On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote to alt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:



We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.


--
David Silverman D.B.E.
BAAWA
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
Holder of rights to the stage musical "The Shining".

Not authentic without this signature.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote to alt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:



We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

On 4 Apr, 14:27, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD





wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

I wondered what that stuff on my hankie was, I guess I better take
that gooey old hankie to the washing machine and clean it up. :P

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 4, 8:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.


There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

You're missing the point. The laws we understand are KNOWN not to work
in the first short time after the Big Bang. They CAN'T. What laws DO
work in that domain, we are presently oblivious to, though we are
working on several different possibilities that aren't obviously
wrong.

PD

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD
wrote:

On Apr 4, 8:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheism on 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

You're missing the point. The laws we understand are KNOWN not to work
in the first short time after the Big Bang. They CAN'T. What laws DO
work in that domain, we are presently oblivious to, though we are
working on several different possibilities that aren't obviously
wrong.

I'm missing nothing. You're re-interpreting an over-simplification.

PD

On Apr 4, 8:57*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD



wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27*am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51*am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote toalt.atheismon 04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.


Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the *thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.


When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever. There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.


There is no equivalence between the suggestions that have been
proposed by physicists which break no known scientific laws, and the
unjustified invoking of a creator or a sneezer.

You're missing the point. The laws we understand are KNOWN not to work
in the first short time after the Big Bang. They CAN'T. What laws DO
work in that domain, we are presently oblivious to, though we are
working on several different possibilities that aren't obviously
wrong.

I'm missing nothing. You're re-interpreting an over-simplification.

PD

PD wrote:
On Apr 3, 7:52�pm, "adman" wrote:
We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that
the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning -
no time, no space, and no matter).

Well, hold on here. No time, no space, and no matter does NOT mean
nothing.
Matter can be created whole cloth out of energy. There is no such law
as conservation of matter.

if no time, space and matter, than explain
your foken energy

ohh, what a fooool,

this is a keeper, tell more

thanks

it must be somthen they put in your food
and your matter, take care