No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[RetroGrow]

The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century

Tell that to Galileo.....the "father of science".
Galileo's championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books and forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.
Galileo later defended his views in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII, thus alienating not only the Pope but also the Jesuits, both of whom had supported Galileo up until this point. He was tried by the Holy Office, then found "vehemently suspect of heresy", was forced to recant, and spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest. He was lucky he wasn't burned at the stake, as many were, by "believers".
Religion has a long history of persecuting and attempting to quash science. Today's creationists are still trying, in their efforts to quash stem cell research.

 

[djvai]

A little high

A little high

That is so fucking deep it blows my mind!

I was smoking a blunt checking out my kids ant farm. They are industrious little creatures - working all day until the day they die.

Then I went outside to see if I could see the reflection of the glass wall that someone has put us in. Could we be just like little ants in someone's farm?

 

[HempKat]

View Image

They'd likely fall back on John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Many took that as other people in distant lands but Jesus just as easily could have been speaking in a larger sense then just this one planet.

 

[HempKat]

When we finally and inevitably make contact, and prove alien organisms exist, even in single celled forms, the creationists and bible thumpers are going to go insane. It didn't say THAT in the bible. Why, it didn't even prophecy the Kardashians.

They'd likely fall back on John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Many took that as other people in distant lands but Jesus just as easily could have been speaking in a larger sense then just this one planet.

The thing that bothers me about Christianity is this whole concept of original sin. God created us, he knew we didn't have the strength to withstand temptation and he then punishes man kind for all eternity from the moment we're born for the weakness he knew we had, that he created us with?

 

[HempKat]

Free will, choice.
Which is a trait you still posses.

Being obedient does not mean you don't have free will. You choose to obey because you want to please your God. When God created us he had to make us either weak to temptation or strong. Eve tempted Adam with virtually no effort. Surely God could have made it necessary for someone to do more then simply eat some first and then hand it to Adam to try?

I may seem like I'm anti Christian by challenging the bible. I'm not I'm willing to believe that something we call God created a living son to go among the people and lead the way. That said son would be known as what we now call Christ. People were getting Christ wrong a lot though. One of the big things is documented in the Bible ironically. That being when Christ talked of destroying the temple and raising it in 3 days. Many thought he was talking about the actual temple that man built rather then the unique temple he represented and that we all represent which God built. There are other places where when asked of how we should live our lives he referred to our bodies as temples. So therefore I believe what you need to do is have your own personal relationship with God as you see him/her to be. Gathering with others who share your views and beliefs is fine and dandy but these places should be just that, not some agency telling you how you must behave. How can one be said to have free will, choice when he's either damned to Hell or exalted into Heaven depending on which choice he makes?

 

[mr.brunch]

You are certainly not anti Christian by questioning the bible... We are all allowed to question whatever we like.
When people tell me of their Christian beliefs and question my non belief, I don't call them " anti athiest " and I don't tell them they are attacking me, either.....

Maybe I should take others beliefs as a personal slight on what I think.... Plenty of others seem to think this way. We all have the right, if not duty , to question everything- this is how we will move on as a species

 

[Weird]

They'd likely fall back on John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Many took that as other people in distant lands but Jesus just as easily could have been speaking in a larger sense then just this one planet.

The quote you have me listed as making was retro not me, fwiw.

The thing that bothers me about Christianity is this whole concept of original sin. God created us, he knew we didn't have the strength to withstand temptation and he then punishes man kind for all eternity from the moment we're born for the weakness he knew we had, that he created us with?

I think because we are living in a day and time where man is trying to create life in the same vein, my personal observations and hypothesis might be proved in our lifetimes.

Now I do not want to argue for or against any dogma, imho they all reconcile to the same meanings, which is something that is based on a great wealth of information. If we deviate it will become impossible to have a focused discussion.

Basically, from how I interpret it, God, is a "programmer" (non corporeal sentient consciousness) of life.

God being the universe itself, which works in a way as a neural network, and within the constraints of this universe God created life that would evolve to be sentient and conscious.

Now as fantastic as this may sound (the seeming contradictions in genesis are resolved in the same manner), this same dynamic exists in bits and pieces in nature and is being reverse engineered by science in our creation of artificial intelligence.

When you look at it from this framework, God created us from sin is equivalent to us evolving from beings without the capacity to make decisions based on the conscious capacities we now posses.

We we born into sin, which is simply another word impulse/instinct, the ones which counter conscious behavior. Interestingly enough this happened on a gross evolutionary scale and happens developmentally within all our lifetimes.

Now this would seem to lead to some contradictions, but If you extrapolate the theory further it can continue to fall into place even from a physics standpoint.

Intelligence has been turned into a physics equation that operates more effectively than human intelligence when run on a computer.

I linked that in this thread. There are many, many real scientific realities that can potentially explain biblical mysteries. Just as is the evidence on neurological levels that we are hard wired and benefit from belief.

Beyond that though, past the physical sciences the social sciences now recognize the value in regards to our well being.

Dogmas describe what science is uncovering to be reality, depending on how you interpret things. For me the rabbit hole goes deeper but it is all relative to what I have read or know, as more data is presented I tend to reevaluate my beliefs accordingly.

None the less I don't let them dictate my interpretation of the the value of humanity, but understand the nature we are subject too

Universe grows like brain

http://www.livescience.com/25027-universe-grows-like-brain.html

A Brain Cell is the Same as the Universe

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/brain-universe.html

Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A 'Giant Brain'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/27/physicists-universe-giant-brain_n_2196346.html

Quantum neural networks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_neural_network

'Cosmic Web' of the Universe --"Reveals an Enormous Non-Random Network of Galaxies"

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...normous-non-random-network-of-galaxies-1.html


Universe as Network Deriving the Standard Model Plus Gravity from Simple Transformation Rules on Discrete Event Networks

http://www.goertzel.org/papers/eventnet.html

The Cosmic Web, or: What does the universe look like at a VERY large scale?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74IsySs3RGU

Your Brain, the Internet and the Universe Have Something Fascinating in Common

http://techland.time.com/2012/11/28...niverse-have-something-fascinating-in-common/

 

[mr.brunch]

And ,no , that wasn't an attack on anyone before I get grief...

 

[mr.brunch]

unless they are consistent with the description of aliens that are found in the bible and other religious cultures histories.

do you think that people made pure fairy tale or perhaps there have been external fores at play, alien, otherworldly or otherwise?

how come every time you share something you gotta add a twist as if it is meant as an attack against something? Why can't you keep the discussion to things scientific or at least congruent with your belief of atheism (yeah its a belief, your brand of atheism at least)

your turning into the poster child of why kids should be breast fed and hugged

May I ask where aliens are mentioned in the bible? Would be interested to read that bit again as I must have missed it.

Cheers

 

[ghostmade]

Aliens (or creatures) are mentioned in revelation .also i believe any reference to angles are a refrence to a non terrestrial being.
Futher more I've come to believe that god is an extra dimensional being. Meaning this universe is just a page in the book of dimensions. The book of life and existence
Also i believe we cannot truly grasp the allmighty god.we do not contain the facilitys to process him in complete understanding.we can understand (to a degree) his existence in relation to us. I.e. he is greater than and is responsible for existence that we have grown to know and have just BEGUN to understand.
Just like evrything else though. We can only really perceive this to the scope of our own psyche.
I tend not to discuss these thing.even among other believers of a one true power.im a dogmatic presence with pretty much any church with a name on its front yard.
Ive come to realize that that people are pretty much little and limited in there scope of understanding . because we fail to look at things from a point of simplicity.
Matter is taken up from the earth and it shall return to the earth (from the dust we are taken,and to the dust we shall return)
Light is are power sorce.and just like a picture we are unique in our own image.how light is captured on a canvas.
Anyways i dig this thread.and people like mr.bruch who can inject his opinion without coming off like a vain arrogant douchebag lol my sir

 

[Weird]

You are certainly not anti Christian by questioning the bible... We are all allowed to question whatever we like.
When people tell me of their Christian beliefs and question my non belief, I don't call them " anti athiest " and I don't tell them they are attacking me, either.....

Maybe I should take others beliefs as a personal slight on what I think.... Plenty of others seem to think this way. We all have the right, if not duty , to question everything- this is how we will move on as a species

that is the crux of the problem though

both Buddhism and Judaism ask practitioners to question the same

but to question another person's belief without understanding all the nuances that went into building it is like a native bushman dressed in traditional attire ridiculing a eskimo based on his traditional garb

belief is not some homogenous programming but an interpreted influence which is based on personal experiences

at some point regardless it becomes very personally relative in interpretation but knowing how it is interpreted is not necessary if you simply come to accept that when it comes to belief that there will be contradictions between other peoples beliefs but as long as they are used for personal relevance and it doesn't negatively effect those around you who cares?

and if someone does effect you negatively based on belief, what is the most effective means of solving the problem?

attacking belief or addressing the behavior?

has anyone been to a grateful dead concert? raised kids? integrated with people of different religions? Have any anecdotal life experience where they over came these issues in positive manners or lived past belief?

 

[trichrider]

Researchers Discover New Clues to Determining the Solar Cycle September 3, 2014

Approximately every 11 years, the sun undergoes a complete personality change from quiet and calm to violently active. The height of the sun’s activity, known as solar maximum, is a time of numerous sunspots, punctuated with profound eruptions that send radiation and solar particles out into the far reaches of space.



A composite of 25 separate images from NASA's SDO, spanning one year from April 2012 to April 2013. The image reveals the migration tracks of active regions towards the equator during that period.
Image Credit: NASA/SDO/Goddard
..

However, the timing of the solar cycle is far from precise. Since humans began regularly recording sunspots in the 17th century, the time between successive solar maxima has been as short as nine years, but as long as 14, making it hard to determine its cause. Now, researchers have discovered a new marker to track the course of the solar cycle—brightpoints, little bright spots in the solar atmosphere that allow us to observe the constant roiling of material inside the sun. These markers provide a new way to watch the way the magnetic fields evolve and move through our closest star. They also show that a substantial adjustment to established theories about what drives this mysterious cycle may be needed.

Historically, theories about what's going on inside the sun to drive the solar cycle have relied on only one set of observations: the detection of sunspots, a data record that goes back centuries. Over the past few decades, realizing that sunspots are areas of intense magnetic fields, researchers have also been able to include observations of magnetic measurements of the sun from more than 90 million miles away.

"Sunspots have been the perennial marker for understanding the mechanisms that rule the sun's interior," said Scott McIntosh, a space scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and first author of a paper on these results that appears in the September 1, 2014, issue of the Astrophysical Journal. "But the processes that make sunspots are not well understood, and far less, those that govern their migration and what drives their movement. Now we can see there are bright points in the solar atmosphere, which act like buoys anchored to what's going on much deeper down. They help us develop a different picture of the interior of the sun."

Over the course of a solar cycle, the sunspots tend to migrate progressively lower in latitude, moving toward the equator. The prevailing theory is that two symmetrical, grand loops of material in each solar hemisphere, like huge conveyor belts, sweep from the poles to the equator where they sink deeper down into the sun and then make their way steadily back to the poles. These conveyor belts also move the magnetic field through the churning solar atmosphere. The theory suggests that sunspots move in synch with this flow – tracking sunspots has allowed a study of that flow and theories about the solar cycle have developed based on that progression. But there is much that remains unknown: Why do the sunspots only appear lower than about 30 degrees? What causes the sunspots of consecutive cycles to abruptly flip magnetic polarity from positive to negative, or vice versa? Why is the timing of the cycle so variable?

Beginning in 2010, McIntosh and his colleagues began tracking the size of different magnetically balanced areas on the sun, that is, areas where there are an equal number of magnetic fields pointing down into the sun as pointing out. The team found magnetic parcels in sizes that had been seen before, but also spotted much larger parcels than those previously noted -- about the diameter of Jupiter. The researchers also looked at these regions in imagery of the sun's atmosphere, the corona, captured by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO. They noticed that ubiquitous spots of extreme ultraviolet and X-ray light, known as brightpoints, prefer to hover around the vertices of these large areas, dubbed “g-nodes” because of their giant scale.

These brightpoints and g-nodes, therefore, open up a whole new way to track how material flows inside the sun. McIntosh and his colleagues then collected information about the movement of these features over the past 18 years of available observations from the joint European Space Agency and NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and SDO to monitor how the last solar cycle progressed and the current one started. They found that bands of these markers – and therefore the corresponding large magnetic fields underneath – also moved steadily toward the equator over time, along the same path as sunspots, but beginning at a latitude of about 55 degrees. In addition, each hemisphere of the sun usually has more than one of these bands present.

[YOUTUBEIF]tlwmEll_l6U[/YOUTUBEIF]

Youtube Override:
Bands of magnetized solar material – with alternating south and north polarity – march toward the sun's equator. Comparing the evolution of the bands with the sunspot number in each hemisphere over time may change the way we think about what's driving the sun's 11-year sunspot cycle.
Image Credit: S. McIntosh
..

McIntosh explains that a complex interaction of magnetic field lines may take place in the sun’s interior that is largely hidden from view. The recent observations suggest that the sun is populated with bands of differently polarized magnetic material that, once they form, steadily move toward the equator from high latitudes. These bands will either have a northern or southern magnetic polarity and their sign alternates in each hemisphere such that the polarities always cancel. For example, looking at the sun’s northern hemisphere, the band closest to the equator – perhaps of northern polarity – would have magnetic field lines that connect it to another band, at higher latitudes, of southern polarity. Across the equator, in the bottom half of the sun, a similar process occurs, but the bands would be an almost mirror image of those across the equator, southern polarity near the equator and northern at higher latitudes. Magnetic field lines would connect the four bands; inside each hemisphere and across the equator as well.

While the field lines remain relatively short like this, the sun's magnetic system is calmer, producing fewer sunspots and fewer eruptions. This is solar minimum. But once the two low-latitude marching bands reach the equator their polarities essentially cancel each other out. Abruptly they disappear. This process, from migratory start to finish at the equator takes 19 years on average, but is seen to vary from 16 to about 21 years.

Following the equatorial battle and cancellation, the sun is left with just two large bands that have migrated to about 30 degrees latitude. The magnetic field lines from these bands are much longer and so the bands in each hemisphere feel less of each other. At this point, the sunspots begin to grow rapidly on the bands, beginning the ramp-up to solar max. The growth only lasts so long, however, because the process of generating a new band of opposite polarity has already begun at high latitudes. When that new band begins to appear, the complex four-band connection starts over and the number of sunspots starts to decrease on the low-latitude bands.

In this scenario, it is the magnetic band’s cycle – the lifetime of each band as it marches toward the equator – that truly defines the entire solar cycle. “Thus, the 11-year solar cycle can be viewed as the overlap between two much longer cycles,” said Robert Leamon, co-author on the paper at Montana State University in Bozeman and NASA Headquarters in Washington.

The new conceptual model also provides an explanation of why sunspots are trapped below 30 degrees and abruptly change sign. However, the model creates a question about a different latitude line: Why do the magnetic markers, the brightpoints and g-nodes, start appearing at 55 degrees?

"Above that latitude, the solar atmosphere appears to be disconnected from the rotation beneath it," said McIntosh. "So there is reason to believe that, inside the sun, there's a very different internal motion and evolution at high latitudes compared to the region near the equator. 55-degrees seems to be a critical latitude for the sun and something we need to explore further."

Solar cycles theories are best tested by making predictions as to when we will see the next solar minimum and the next solar maximum. This research paper forecasts that the sun will enter solar minimum somewhere in the last half of 2017, with the sunspots of the next cycle appearing near the end of 2019.

"People make their predictions for when this solar cycle will end and the next one will start," said Leamon. "Sometime in 2019 or 2020, some people will be proved right and others wrong."

In the meantime, regardless of whether the new hypothesis provided by McIntosh and his colleagues is correct, this long term set of bright points and g-node locations offers a new set of observations to explore the drivers of solar activity beyond only sunspots. Inserting this information into solar models will provide an opportunity to improve simulations of our star. Such advanced models tell us more about other stars too, leading to a better understanding of similar magnetic activity on more exotic, distant celestial counterparts.

For more information about NASA's SDO, visit:

www.nasa.gov/sdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlwmEll_l6U

 

[mr.brunch]

Personally I think it's down to the individual to believe whatever they think is right, as long as it helps with positive behaviour it's all good.
As for questioning people's beliefs without knowing all about them being wrong- that's all well and good, but if you take it upon yourself to tell people that they are wrong not to believe in a god, and tell them your particular creation myth as if it is fact - then say if they don't accept Jesus word they will suffer in the afterlife.... In my opinion you are opening yourself up to criticism and it should be expected.
after all if I start delivering athiest literature to devout Christians, for example, I would expect to have my beliefs challenged too. ( and I would be within my rights to do this, judging by the religious junk mail I get through my door)

I don't believe in a god myself ( and I don't force that belief) but i don't speak of this as fact... I am not too big headed to admit that we don't really have a clue what the universe is all about -
But it's nice to discuss it.

Thanks weird for this thread

 

[genedigger]

thats what my little guy gets boobs and hugs.they make great people!

 

[Weird]

I speak of other people's beliefs as if I am intimate with them because I am.

I am not only friends with but have had very intense psychedelic journeys with people from all dogmas and philosophies and sitting across from them was able to reconcile our differing beliefs to the same dynamics, the same human conditions.

In some ways I have led a very rich life (no not material) in that I have created relationships, deep and lasting.

This thread was never meant to bring religion into the discussion but simply highlight the evolving nature of science and the dangers if we apply it without including this certainty.

However it turned religious and the mods allowed it to stay, I am guessing for the purpose of seeing if there could be reconciliation.

SO in that vein the easiest way for me to share with you my philosophy of religion and God is to give an analogy I gave to a vice president when he said "how can there be a god if everyone has their own"

and I said

"how do you know that there isn't one god who appears before us as ourselves because our ego acts as a mirror? and that the purpose of life is finding all of god that lies beyond?"

he never answered me

in the crux of it, if we are in gods image, and we are the body of the living god, then the more of us that get past our indifference to work in harmony, the more of us simply live according to gods will

the same general purpose is gotten from all dogmas, synergy between believers because of the polarization of belief.

but it is not the belief that polarizes, but the human nature that is expressed because of the similar interpretation of that belief, which is governed by perception, which is influenced by environment and DNA.

our dna + our environment led us to these phenotype expressions

at some point the evolving dynamics of our nature are still constants

this is why dogmas like Buddhism refer to our eternal qualities

and at some point it becomes apparent that I have eaten plenty of psychedelics

 

[mr.brunch]

thats what my little guy gets boobs and hugs.they make great people!

Best medicine for sure.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMn8NCGVUV0

[youtubeif]CMn8NCGVUV0[/youtubeif]

secret space program and breakaway civilization, Richard Dolan

good lecture.

 

[waveguide]

sorry djvai, wrong thread for thoughts and anecdotes, we're doing big boring fuck off quotes in this thread to preserve our decaying delusory self image as academics or authorities on bullshit or summink...

 

[Weird]

them vs us doesn't exist

it is humanity against itself, human nature versus human nature.

sadly you don't even see your own programmed deviation.

Why is it that atheism was born from religion?

Why was the counter culture born from the mainstream?

If you look at human nature one of the common variables is that when people deviate form the norm they do it in a polarized manner, not a logical one. A logical one includes problem - solution propositions.

It is part of our para sympathetic system as opposed to the sympathetic one.

Letting the one guide the other is not logical.

That is simple biology.

 

[armedoldhippy]

"I may seem like I am anti-Christian because I am challenging the Bible."- Hempkat. not at all, to me anyway. I believe that MOST people that identify as believing in God and as Christians do not take the Bible literally as the direct written word of God. it has been interpreted from time to time into different languages, an inexact science in and of itself. myself, I think that most folks believe the planet is much older than the fundamentalist interpretations might seem to claim. as you point out, everyone gets to make their own calls on this, for THEMSELVES. some folks, unfortunately, want to judge others beliefs. I would never try to belittle anyone elses religion/non-religion. if I ever come across like that, I apologize. I do not look at religion as rigid orthodoxies which you must swallow whole, more like a room full of buffet tables that you are free to pick and choose from at your discretion...or not.