God as a Continuum.

asim18 said:
Yes, and I hope you're not a scientist given your thought process of coming to the conclusion that "Think about a mathematical operation." means the same thing as "GOD=MATHS".
Click to expand...

I'd be quite interested to see where I posted that, or are you using that good ol' tactic of putting words in the other sides mouth.

And, yes, I am a scientist - I'm a physics student at the University of Birmingham.
 
asim18 said:
It would be a good idea to stay away from God threads then. ;)
Click to expand...

I genuinely cannot help myself, being a physicist - I just want to make sure that nobodies peddling "crackpotteriness" (as I like to call it) which people could read and think is correct. It's like conspiracy theories about "chemtrails" and such, people should actively seek and destroy articles which push such nonsense.
 
asim18 said:
I wonder a lot, about lots of things. Today I've been thinking about God.

My theory is that if God does exist it is in the form of a completely separate continuum from the spacetime continuum in which we currently reside. This continuum of God may or may not be a spacetime continuum, but could rather be a special "God Continuum".

Could it be that the inhabitant(s) of this separate God Continuum has a sort of special ability by which it can set off big bangs.

Thinking of God as a separate continuum could explain why God cannot influence or change things in our universe. And that the laws set at the big bangs are the only thing which this God can control, like changing the numbers before the equals sign. This theory would also class world religions as simply man-made, and also disregard the existence of heavens and hells et al due to the fact that God cannot physically interact with us and vice versa.

If this is the case, then it is possible that God cannot be worshipped. As in we cannot interact with the God Continuum just as God cannot interact with our observable universe.
Click to expand...

I suggest you stop wondering. :rolleyes:
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
Until there is any sort of feasible evidence for the existence of some "all-knowing, all-powerful" deity existing in any form, I remain an atheist due to the complete lack of evidence. Please note that atheism is not a belief system as many people try to imply - rather, it is that one does not believe in a "god".

Those are my thoughts, and if this thread starts to heat up - which they tend to - then I shall leave it at that. I speak as a physicist by the way, so I do know a fair bit of stuff when it comes to the universe and theories of its evolution*.

* Note that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of origin - one does not currently exist in any acceptable form - it is a theory of universal evolution.
Click to expand...

PhysicsMan94 said:
I'd be quite interested to see where I posted that, or are you using that good ol' tactic of putting words in the other sides mouth.

And, yes, I am a scientist - I'm a physics student at the University of Birmingham.
Click to expand...

PhysicsMan94 said:
I genuinely cannot help myself, being a physicist - I just want to make sure that nobodies peddling "crackpotteriness" (as I like to call it) which people could read and think is correct. It's like conspiracy theories about "chemtrails" and such, people should actively seek and destroy articles which push such nonsense.
Click to expand...


You're a Physicist?? I never would have guessed :p

I used to be a physicist/mathematician, then I graduated.... IIRC we do actually have some proper physicists on this forum (or at least used to), as in not us humble students/BSc holders but actual researchers.
 
Judgeneo said:
You're a Physicist?? I never would have guessed :p

I used to be a physicist/mathematician, then I graduated.... IIRC we do actually have some proper physicists on this forum (or at least used to), as in not us humble students/BSc holders but actual researchers.
Click to expand...

Haha, sorry, must have got carried away. :p

And, I think a physics student has every right to call themselves a "physicist" - it's their life whilst their studying it after all, and by studying physics at this level you qualify for the definition of "physicist". Anyway, I posted that because I can't help but detect a note of nastiness/sarcasm in your comments there - something which I have noticed on these forums and is quite unwarranted. Ho hum.
 
Yeah I'm pretty sarcastic by nature, no nastiness intended though. I used to call myself a physicist whilst studying the subject too (did a bit of genuine research as well), but nowadays I don't consider people physicists until they are studying for the PhD, theres just so much you don't begin to cover at the undergraduate level, or even know how to cover.

Anyway, I've changed disciplines now, and am doing much better as a result :p
 
Judgeneo said:
Yeah I'm pretty sarcastic by nature, no nastiness intended though. I used to call myself a physicist whilst studying the subject too (did a bit of genuine research as well), but nowadays I don't consider people physicists until they are studying for the PhD, theres just so much you don't begin to cover at the undergraduate level, or even know how to cover.

Anyway, I've changed disciplines now, and am doing much better as a result :p
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and yes indeed I agree - there's a lot at undergraduate level which isn't fully explained given the complexity of it and the fact that the topics themselves may be current research topics which aren't actually that well understood yet, that especially applies to topics in particle physics.
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt - both general and special relativity theories quite explicitly state that the speed of light c is the universal speed limit, if such a postulate were to be broken then that would be a serious problem as it would mean that a lot of the physics that has been researched over the past century is fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

The engine doesn't go faster than light, it condenses spacetime so that relative to a regular piece of spacetime it is going faster than light would go in the regular space. It fits with relativity.

They have sort of already done it on a tiny scale using bose condensate to slow light to 26 mph. Now imagine an engine that does the reverse by expanding instead of compressing.

 
kwerk said:
The engine doesn't go faster than light, it condenses spacetime so that relative to a regular piece of spacetime it is going faster than light would go in the regular space. It fits with relativity.

They have sort of already done it on a tiny scale using bose condensate to slow light to 26 mph. Now imagine an engine that does the reverse by expanding instead of compressing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well I'm no expert on such a topic but it still seems to be very much in the theoretical stages to me.

Edit - And I realise we're probably way off topic now...
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt - both general and special relativity theories quite explicitly state that the speed of light c is the universal speed limit, if such a postulate were to be broken then that would be a serious problem as it would mean that a lot of the physics that has been researched over the past century is fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

Science is all about observing new evidence and updating existing science, no?

It was in one of Hawking's programs where he explained how the physics that we currently understand can't apply to something like the centre of a black hole. So where does this all fit in with that in mind?
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
I do actually laugh at that response now, "faith in science" haha - I think you'll find that faith is "belief with lack of evidence", the very nature of science and the scientific method is in perfect contradiction to that. Faith is exactly the wrong word to use when talking about science.
Click to expand...

If you want to use science as a predictive tool, its method is (more or less) perfect, and based purely in evidence as you suggest. Science says that if I look at my laptop, then at my feet, then back at my laptop, then I still perceive my laptop as it is a persistent entity, and will therefore remain there in the absence of something moving it. This theory is perfect for predicting the future presence of my laptop in the same place, until it's moved.

However, if you want something to explain what is actually there it is less effective, and does require faith. Let's imagine that there are three explanations for why my laptop is still there. One is scientific - it's there as it's a persistent object. Two is that fairies come down and replace the laptop every time I look back towards it. Three is that an evil demon is implanting the image of the laptop in my brain.

Science has no way of showing what is actually happening with the laptop. All it can say is that it can explain why the laptop reappears, and that explanation one is the most simple and therefore the best, as per Occam's Razor. Accordingly, explanation one is the explanation that should be taken. However, to say that explanation one is in fact what occurs is a leap of faith.

Edit: I was a philosophy student, so am saying this as a philosopher ;)
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
Incorrect. This hypothetical galaxy would "not exist" within our observable universe - but it would still exist within the universe.
Click to expand...

Impossible to prove. The only "evidence" you'd have is some photon imprints on a piece of film. Might as well have a bible.

It's widely accepted that the universe is indeed expanding faster than the speed of light! There are any number of articles you can look up. The general idea seems to be that dark energy is the reason but if you read what i posted in the other thread I reckon it's more likely to be entropic mavity!
 
13. Expansion of the Universe

According to Hubble's Law, two galaxies that are a distance D apart are moving away from each other at a speed HD, where H is Hubble's constant. So this interpretation of Hubble's Law implies that two galaxies separated by a distance greater than c/H must be moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Actually, the modern viewpoint describes this situation differently: general relativity takes the galaxies as being at rest relative to one another, while the space between them is expanding. In that sense, the galaxies are not moving away from each other faster than the speed of light; they are not moving away from each other at all! This change of viewpoint is not arbitrary; rather, it's in accord with the different but very fruitful view of the universe that general relativity provides. So the distance between two objects can be increasing faster than light because of the expansion of the universe, but this does not mean, in fact, that their relative speed is faster than light.

As was mentioned above, in special relativity it is possible for two objects to be moving apart by speeds up to twice the speed of light as measured by an observer in a third frame of reference. In general relativity even this limit can be surpassed, but it will not then be possible to observe both objects at the same time. Again, this is not real faster than light travel; it will not help anyone to travel across the galaxy faster than light. All that is happening is that the distance between two objects is increasing faster when taken in some cosmological reference frame.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html#13
 
Oh goodness, so many replies. I'll get to responding later, I need to sleep now. But as for your comment, kwerk, on it being possible for 2 objects to be moving apart at a speed of twice the speed of light from a third observers reference frame - I am fairly sure that such a situation is not at all possible in SR given the 2 major postulates; and I know a physicist on a science forum who is very well trained in SR and GR who, if I recall correctly, explained how such a situation violates SR. I'll get some sleep, then look at my notes and try to get back to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom