Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Glenn101

Scientists Conclude That We Shouldn't be Here

Recommended Posts

The New York Post currently has an article about one (of many) very puzzling problems with the current main stream theory of the creation of the universe. According to their calculations, matter and ant-matter should have been created symmetrically, i.e in equal amounts. And that being, the two should have immediately destroyed each other ending the creation of the universe before it really began.

I don't know any of the math they are using to explore this idea, but the idea seems rational, except that the theory makes our actual existence irrational. So, is belief in a divine creator all that irrational?

Glenn

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The New York Post currently has an article about one (of many) very puzzling problems with the current main stream theory of the creation of the universe. According to their calculations, matter and ant-matter should have been created symmetrically, i.e in equal amounts. And that being, the two should have immediately destroyed each other ending the creation of the universe before it really began.

I don't know any of the math they are using to explore this idea, but the idea seems rational, except that the theory makes our actual existence irrational. So, is belief in a divine creator all that irrational?

Glenn

The entire "nebular hypothesis" has some serious problems with it, the evolution of the planets, the existence of all of the heavier than iron elements on earth, the stability of our sun, the "fine tuning" of the universe....all of it clearly points to a creator......so belief in a creator is much more rational that believing this happened by chance. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The entire "nebular hypothesis" has some serious problems with it, the evolution of the planets, the existence of all of the heavier than iron elements on earth, the stability of our sun, the "fine tuning" of the universe....all of it clearly points to a creator......so belief in a creator is much more rational that believing this happened by chance. 

Alma put it this way:

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator. (Alma 30)

Edited by Bobbieaware
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

People often come up to me just to say "You shouldn't be here." So I think there could be something to this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The idea that all the antimatter was annihilated is speculation. For all we know half the Universe is antimatter.

Just do not go over there and touch it to find out. That would end badly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with the result isn't that the physics of the Standard Model of Particle Physics was wrong. The problem is that the theory is more correct than physicists hoped for. The new measurements are about 100x more precise than previous results on the magnetic moment of antimatter.

Here is a brief explanation of the baryon asymmetry problem: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-31-why-are-we-made-of-matter-537d06075bae.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

......................................................

I don't know any of the math they are using to explore this idea, but the idea seems rational, except that the theory makes our actual existence irrational. So, is belief in a divine creator all that irrational?..............................................

In an entirely natural universe (without supernatural beings of any kind), it is entirely rational to posit advanced beings who are able to create life and to cultivate and populate planets.  

The late astrophysicist Carl Sagan "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." He affirmed that a new civilization is formed just in our galaxy every 10 years. "There are a million technical civilizations in the [Milky Way] galaxy," he believed.

Famed scientist Richard Dawkins likewise argued  that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are godlike creatures."  See Tom Bethell, “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Search for God.” American Spectator, Nov 2011, online at  http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In an entirely natural universe (without supernatural beings of any kind), it is entirely rational to posit advanced beings who are able to create life and to cultivate and populate planets.

There are Mormons who take this idea and run with it.

Quote

We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end. (https://transfigurism.org/)

I like some of the ideas but for some of the speculations I am personally more hesitant and more agnostic (and politically more conservative than most of those who identify with Mormon transhumanism).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Gray said:

People often come up to me just to say "You shouldn't be here." So I think there could be something to this.

My first snorting belly laugh of the day. Thanks! :D

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The New York Post currently has an article about one (of many) very puzzling problems with the current main stream theory of the creation of the universe. According to their calculations, matter and ant-matter should have been created symmetrically, i.e in equal amounts. And that being, the two should have immediately destroyed each other ending the creation of the universe before it really began.

I don't know any of the math they are using to explore this idea, but the idea seems rational, except that the theory makes our actual existence irrational. So, is belief in a divine creator all that irrational?

Glenn

Incorrect. Current scientific theory is that there was a very slight bias(Less than a fraction of 01%) towards matter at the Big Bang. whether God was was involved is not a scientific question.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Nofear said:

There are Mormons who take this idea and run with it.

I like some of the ideas but for some of the speculations I am personally more hesitant and more agnostic (and politically more conservative than most of those who identify with Mormon transhumanism).

Most Mormons are unaware that Mormonism is a fully naturalistic and humanistic religion -- indeed, that that is its strength.  Instead,  most Mormons erroneously see their faith as a species of normative Protestant Christianity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, snowflake said:

The entire "nebular hypothesis" has some serious problems with it, the evolution of the planets, the existence of all of the heavier than iron elements on earth, the stability of our sun, the "fine tuning" of the universe....all of it clearly points to a creator......so belief in a creator is much more rational that believing this happened by chance. 

IOW I don't know what it is so it must be God. :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nofear said:

The problem with the result isn't that the physics of the Standard Model of Particle Physics was wrong. The problem is that the theory is more correct than physicists hoped for. The new measurements are about 100x more precise than previous results on the magnetic moment of antimatter.

Here is a brief explanation of the baryon asymmetry problem: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-31-why-are-we-made-of-matter-537d06075bae.

Thanks for the link. If I understand the article correctly, with the new level of precision now obtainable, the chances of baryon asymmetry are reduced greatly. 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for the link. If I understand the article correctly, with the new level of precision now obtainable, the chances of baryon asymmetry are reduced greatly. 

Glenn

Correct. There is, and really has been for decades now, talk of extensions to and/or modifications of the Standard Model. Unfortunately, one by one these competing candidates fail. But we know that there has to be something more than the Standard Model (for more than one reason). But definitive observations of violations of it remain elusive. This latest result is one example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Mormons are unaware that Mormonism is a fully naturalistic and humanistic religion -- indeed, that that is its strength.  Instead,  most Mormons erroneously see their faith as a species of normative Protestant Christianity.

Your interpretation brother, it is not an "obvious fact". Robert, how did Jonah survive after being swallowed by a large fish?  How did Jesus resurrect from the death?   

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Your interpretation brother, it is not an "obvious fact". Robert, how did Jonah survived after being swallowed by a large fish? 

For a fundamentalist evangelical it just has to be supernatural.  For a believer in a naturalistic universe, it has a rational explanation.  For an ignorant savage, all things digital are magic, while a modern technician has no problem understanding electronic marvels.  A yokel falsely believes that the sun rises each morning, while the physicist knows that the Earth is spinning on its axis as it orbits the sun.  It is a point of view about reality.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

For a fundamentalist evangelical it just has to be supernatural.  For a believer in a naturalistic universe, it has a rational explanation.

What is the rational explanation? Again I am not Evangelical, I am the total opposite of an Evangelical. I am nowhere near being an Evangelical.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that all the antimatter was annihilated is speculation. For all we know half the Universe is antimatter.

True, it is just an assumption. Please ask Robert Smith what he thinks about assumptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

What is the rational explanation? Again I am not Evangelical, I am the total opposite of an Evangelical. I am nowhere near being an Evangelical.  

Then show how much rationalism plays a part in your conclusions.  Evangelicals run away from reason and logic.  They fear such things.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then show how much rationalism plays a part in your conclusions.  Evangelicals run away from reason and logic.  They fear such things.

What makes you think I am running away from reason and logic?

Edited by SamuelTheLamanite

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

What makes you think I am running away from reason and logic?

I have all the evidence I need in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

It's perhaps not polite to say, unfortunately, it's been my experience that when it comes to cosmology and particle physics most members, non-members, and people in general -- they don't know enough to even ask the right or sometimes even relevant questions. As a consequence their (science-extending-theological) speculations are typically also very, very poor. Unfortunately saying such constitutes a measure of arrogance, which while amply present in me, I usually try to suppress publicly.

 

This article isn't about the Standard Model like the op, but, it is ... both dark matter and dark energy aren't components of the Standard Model.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-physics-majority-universe.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Your interpretation brother, it is not an "obvious fact". Robert, how did Jonah survive after being swallowed by a large fish?  How did Jesus resurrect from the death?   

Any time you must posit any God or Godlike force to make science work. It is no longer science, but it is religion. BTW It is perfectly acceptable in science to say: "I don't know".

SEE

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/26/2017 at 1:18 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Mormons are unaware that Mormonism is a fully naturalistic and humanistic religion -- indeed, that that is its strength.  Instead,  most Mormons erroneously see their faith as a species of normative Protestant Christianity.

I still am unaware.

I do not believe it is fully naturalistic and humanistic nor do I believe in the classical Christian conception of God and the Universe. I would suggest it is weirder then both.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still am unaware.

I do not believe it is fully naturalistic and humanistic nor do I believe in the classical Christian conception of God and the Universe. I would suggest it is weirder then both.

Truth is often stranger than fiction. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...