Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 40. (Read 901370 times)
I am Muslim, in my religion, I have never been taught to hate fellow humans and distinguish between religion, ethnicity, race or whatever. Of course every religion has its own rules or teachings that must be obeyed and lived. If there are religious people who make mistakes, blame that person don't blame his religion! In my opinion, there is no need to disturb or hate, I will do what I believe and please do what you believe, no need to disturb the trust of others. Peace is beautiful
Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly.
Actually, the average christian accepts evolution these days
This is from 2009, but ~50% of christians accepted evolution.
Here is a poll from in 2017
Story Highlights
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
Same percentage say humans evolved, but God guided the process
Less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism
% who believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years:
By religion:
Protestant/Other Christian = 50%
Catholic = 37%
No-religion = 9% (who are these guys?!?)
By education:
High school or less = 48%
College graduate = 24%
Post graduate = 21%
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
Same percentage say humans evolved, but God guided the process
Less-educated Americans more likely to believe in creationism
% who believe God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years:
By religion:
Protestant/Other Christian = 50%
Catholic = 37%
No-religion = 9% (who are these guys?!?)
By education:
High school or less = 48%
College graduate = 24%
Post graduate = 21%
I know it sounds cray cray, but less than half of christians believe in creationism
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
Wow, I did not expect that from you. I thought you were smarter than that.
You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism) (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/health-and-religion-1373864)
He was bashing atheism daily, for more than a month, until I created a thread titled, "Christianity is poison"... at which point he finally renamed the thread... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here
He is drowning in science, grabs any hypothesis/theory he can to validate his existing conviction, whether it be the Big bang, the Bolzman brain, computer simulation, holographic principle, or dark matter etc.
When someone says humanity was created in the image of our creator, you know you are dealing with someone who does not understand biology. The conversation is over at that point.
Sort of like notbatman and his dome theory of the electric field being responsible for the gravity. You just know when people wandered off to the delusion la-la land.
The only question remains, how severe their delusion is.
Then he accuses me of having faith. Guess what Coincube, evolution does not need faith, expanding universe does not need faith, 4.5 Billion years old Earth does not need faith, etc. we have data, we don't need faith.
Well Coincube is one of those guys that are smarter than the average christian. He actually accepts evolution and doesn't believe the earth is only 10k years old if I recall correctly.
What is common in all of these answers is that none of them can be proven. They are the foundations of a faith.
I have different answers.
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
The real difference between us is that we follow different faiths.
Dear lord never thought my first message here would be about this , so basically humanity is created/designed in the image of the creator but ignore the motion of how the creator came to be in the first place and it's existence is accepted by you as a starting point.
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
Wow, I did not expect that from you. I thought you were smarter than that.
You realize CoinCube is the guy who started a thread titled, "Athiesm is Poison", right? (can't even spell Atheism) (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/health-and-religion-1373864)
He was bashing atheism daily, for more than a month, until I created a thread titled, "Christianity is poison"... at which point he finally renamed the thread... not exactly a brain genius you are dealing with here
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
...
Wow, I did not expect that from you. I thought you were smarter than that.
We humans have such an infantile understanding of the universe.
It is important not to overstate our knowledge.
Case in point a hologram is an image.
Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html
Quote from: University of Southampton
Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe—in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.
The change of religion or transferring from atheism to some religion is something that happens with big trauma in life, loss of loved one or something other and is completely different discussion in my mind.
But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.
But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.
Yet, all people think, eat, love/hate, breathe, and do lots of things that are basically the same. So the wealthy people often forget that they are religious beings just like the poor. They are too absorbed in playing with their wealth.
The change of religion or transferring from atheism to some religion is something that happens with big trauma in life, loss of loved one or something other and is completely different discussion in my mind.
But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.
But most of the people are born in to religion, and one will find that people from poorer countries are more religious than for richer countries. Correlation is simple, there is more religious people in poor conditions.
Here is the problem with all these calculations. When the Beginning happened, be it by God-creation, or by some sort of big bang, time and other physics was not set in place like it is today. Time and other physics were all in formation.
What does this mean? It means that all of our math and understandings of past timelines are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because we are measuring things by the standards that we use, rather than by the standards that were in existence when the past happened.
Can we ever determine what the standards of the so-called distant past were? Possibly. But it will take way more calculation than we can currently program a computer to calculate, and it will take more precise measurements than we are able to make at this time. Why? Because we will need to see how physics is changing, just so we can extrapolate back to see what physics was in the so-called distant past.
We are absolutely just in the beginnings of understanding things. And things are so greatly complex that we may never understand them as individuals... even though a computer might be built that is capable of crunching the numbers so-to-speak.
Fair points it is indeed possible that things were different in the early universe. I came across the work of these scientists in an earlier discussion. Though the work discussed remains very theoretical the direction of research supports your position.
I have explained that we can't exist (the past and future will collapse) if there could exist an absolute truth...
iamnotback you have not made the case that an absolute truth cannot exist though perhaps you made this argument somewhere I am not aware of. In your essay The Universe you instead made this claim.
"If the speed-of-light were infinite, the time domain (and thus reality) would collapse to a single point, because all future changes in configuration would occur instantly."
There are a minority of scientists who believe that this is the exact the condition of the universe at the start of the big bang.
Scientists Think the Speed of Light Has Slowed, and They're Trying to Prove It
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/light-speed-slowed
Quote
But in the late 1990s, a handful of physicists challenged one of the fundamental assumptions underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity: Instead of the speed of light being constant, they proposed that light was faster in the early universe than it is now.
This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journal Physical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren’t always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein’s theory of gravity.
So just how much faster was light speed just after the Big Bang? According to Magueijo and his colleague Niayesh Afshordi, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, the answer is “infinitely” faster.
The duo cite light speed as being at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than its currently accepted speed of 300 million meters per second—this is merely the lower bounds of the faster light speed, however. As you get closer to the Big Bang, the speed of light approaches infinity.
On this view, the speed of light was faster because the universe was incredibly hot at the beginning. According to Afshordi, their theory requires that the early universe was at least a toasty 1028 degrees Celsius (to put this in perspective, the highest temperature we are capable of realizing on Earth is about 1016 degrees Celsius, a full 12 orders of magnitude cooler).
As the universe expanded and cooled below this temperature, light underwent a phase shift—much like liquid water changes into ice once the temperature reaches a certain threshold—and arrived at the speed we know today: 300 million meters per second. Just like ice won’t get more "icy" the colder the temperature gets, the speed of light has not been slowing down since it reached 300 million meters per second.
If Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory of variable light speed is correct, then the speed of light decreased in a predictable way—which means with sensitive enough instruments, this light speed decay can be measured.
Now that they’ve used the variable light speed theory to put a hard number on the spectral index, all that remains to be seen is whether increasingly sensitive experiments probing the CMB and distribution of galaxies will verify or overturn their theory. Both Magueijo and Afshordi expect these results to be available at some point in the decade. But Marsh and other physicists aren't so sure.
If their theory is correct, it will overturn one of the main axiom’s underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity and force physicists to reconsider the nature of gravity. According to Afshordi, however, it is more or less accepted in the physics community that Einstein’s theory of gravity cannot be the whole story
This theory of the variable speed of light was—and still is—controversial. But according to a new paper published in November in the physics journal Physical Review D, it could be experimentally tested in the near future. If the experiments validate the theory, it means that the laws of nature weren’t always the same as what we experience today and would require a serious revision of Einstein’s theory of gravity.
"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light."
...So just how much faster was light speed just after the Big Bang? According to Magueijo and his colleague Niayesh Afshordi, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo, the answer is “infinitely” faster.
The duo cite light speed as being at least 32 orders of magnitude faster than its currently accepted speed of 300 million meters per second—this is merely the lower bounds of the faster light speed, however. As you get closer to the Big Bang, the speed of light approaches infinity.
On this view, the speed of light was faster because the universe was incredibly hot at the beginning. According to Afshordi, their theory requires that the early universe was at least a toasty 1028 degrees Celsius (to put this in perspective, the highest temperature we are capable of realizing on Earth is about 1016 degrees Celsius, a full 12 orders of magnitude cooler).
As the universe expanded and cooled below this temperature, light underwent a phase shift—much like liquid water changes into ice once the temperature reaches a certain threshold—and arrived at the speed we know today: 300 million meters per second. Just like ice won’t get more "icy" the colder the temperature gets, the speed of light has not been slowing down since it reached 300 million meters per second.
If Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory of variable light speed is correct, then the speed of light decreased in a predictable way—which means with sensitive enough instruments, this light speed decay can be measured.
"Varying speed of light is going back to the foundations of physics and saying perhaps there are things beyond relativity."
...Now that they’ve used the variable light speed theory to put a hard number on the spectral index, all that remains to be seen is whether increasingly sensitive experiments probing the CMB and distribution of galaxies will verify or overturn their theory. Both Magueijo and Afshordi expect these results to be available at some point in the decade. But Marsh and other physicists aren't so sure.
If their theory is correct, it will overturn one of the main axiom’s underlying Einstein’s theory of special relativity and force physicists to reconsider the nature of gravity. According to Afshordi, however, it is more or less accepted in the physics community that Einstein’s theory of gravity cannot be the whole story
I know what is the difference between you and I. You need to HAVE answers to unknowns. I am ok to say I don't know.
That is why in your world you need to have an answer to who created the Big Bang.
In my world, I'm not sure if the Big Bang was created by anyone or how it came about at time 0. I don't know.
As a practical matter we all HAVE to have answers to basic inescapable questions about the nature of reality.
These answers cannot be avoided as engagement with the world cannot be avoided. Even if we profess a lack certainty we must act and such actions at their foundation are predicted upon our world views.
Verbally it is easy to deny assumptions or certainly but short of death we cannot deny or stop interacting with the world. It is these interactions where we show the world our answers. We live as though our answers were true and actions speak more loudly then words.
You have already shared with us some of your answers not that long ago.
...
Our universe, our chemistry and physics are pure lottery.
...
The fact that we are here is also pure chance.
...
Homo Sapiens are not special. Do not fool yourself into thinking that.
....
Our universe, our chemistry and physics are pure lottery.
...
The fact that we are here is also pure chance.
...
Homo Sapiens are not special. Do not fool yourself into thinking that.
....
What is common in all of these answers is that none of them can be proven. They are the foundations of a faith.
I have different answers.
1. Our universe, our chemistry and physics are are not lottery but design.
2. The fact that we are here is therefore not pure chance.
3. Humanity was created in the image of our creator and is inherently valuable.
The real difference between us is that we follow different faiths.
That is a problem with infinities. It is hard to imagine them. "infinity + something = infinity"
Some things are not intuitive. When Feynman first presented his diagrams, Dirac and Bohr told him he is an idiot and walked out of the room.
This universe is amazing, we all should be glad the supernovae created atoms in our bodies.
We should indeed be grateful for the stars and supernovae that allowed heavy elements to form and spread.
We should also be grateful for the light called into existence at the beginning of time that eventually made those supernova possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Quote
The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
And most importantly we should be grateful for the infinite creator who willed it all into existence and sustains it still.
Genesis 1-3:
Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
I know what is the difference between you and me. You need to HAVE answers to unknowns. I am ok to say I don't know.
That is why in your world you need to have an answer to who created the Big Bang.
In my world, I'm not sure if the Big Bang was created by anyone or how it came about at time 0. I don't know.
Here is the problem with all these calculations. When the Beginning happened, be it by God-creation, or by some sort of big bang, time and other physics was not set in place like it is today. Time and other physics were all in formation.
What does this mean? It means that all of our math and understandings of past timelines are incorrect. Why are they incorrect? Because we are measuring things by the standards that we use, rather than by the standards that were in existence when the past happened.
Can we ever determine what the standards of the so-called distant past were? Possibly. But it will take way more calculation than we can currently program a computer to calculate, and it will take more precise measurements than we are able to make at this time. Why? Because we will need to see how physics is changing, just so we can extrapolate back to see what physics was in the so-called distant past.
We are absolutely just in the beginnings of understanding things. And things are so greatly complex that we may never understand them as individuals... even though a computer might be built that is capable of crunching the numbers so-to-speak.
I am familiar with 3 completely separate methods in which 1+2+3+... = -1/12. The first was presented by Leonhard Euler using various infinite series manipulations
The simple explanation is that is uses Euler's Identity to convert the imaginary part to a real number. If you believe e^i*pi = -1, then you should also believe that 1+2+3+... = -1/12... it uses the exact same mathematics
I'm sorry you don't get it, but it is what it is... it is like dealing with "imaginary numbers" - not everything makes sense intuitively... don't blame the messenger because you didn't understand the message
The simple explanation is that is uses Euler's Identity to convert the imaginary part to a real number. If you believe e^i*pi = -1, then you should also believe that 1+2+3+... = -1/12... it uses the exact same mathematics
I'm sorry you don't get it, but it is what it is... it is like dealing with "imaginary numbers" - not everything makes sense intuitively... don't blame the messenger because you didn't understand the message
Thank you Moloch the Merciful. Moloch Akbar! Moloch Akbar! Moloch Akbar!
PS. And that is how new religions are born. People have questions and others have answers. LOL
PS. And that is how new religions are born. People have questions and others have answers. LOL
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer
I do somewhat subscribe to the simulation theory... Like Elon Musk, I find it too plausible to disbelieve. The Hindus and Buddhists have been saying similar for thousands of years, only they call it reincarnation
I find the idea of reincarnation more plausible than the idea that god created everyone with less than 100 years to find the correct religion or they spend eternity being tortured by an omnibenevolent god... the latter being a contradiction of an omnibenevolent god torturing souls for eternity, simply for making the wrong choice with limited/bad/contradictory information
Only if the universe can be reduced to computable, close-form functions. How do you do that with infinities that are all around us since the Big Bang?
What infinities? I've never seen an infinite amount of anything in this universe... have you?
Mathematics is the only place I've seen anyone dare to use the word, and that is purely abstract, not anything real or observable. There is also math that deals with "imaginary numbers", but that doesn't make them real either. I have never seen a quantity of sqrt(-1) either
Furthermore, mathematics does have ways of turning infinities into finite numbers. I saw someone earlier asking about the sum of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+...). The Riemann Zeta function handles infinities quite well. According to this function, the sum of 1+2+3+... = -1/12. Surprising, but when used in quantum mechanics to replace infinity with -1/12, it works! The math checks out via multiple proofs using different methods. Not all infinities sum to -1/12, only this particular one, but the Zeta function will give a finite answer to any infinity that actually works in the math, and is concordant with our observations of reality
On a side note: I drew my avatar using the Riemann Zeta function. The points on the right (non-infinites) correspond exactly to the center of the spirals on the left (infinities)
-1/12 is not the actual sum. Read it again, don't skip the important words :-)
It is counter-intuitive, but that is the answer... I'm quite familiar with this method (again, refer to my avatar, I have done serious work in this field of study)
Thank you Moloch the Merciful. Moloch Akbar! Moloch Akbar! Moloch Akbar!
PS. And that is how new religions are born. People have questions and others have answers. LOL
PS. And that is how new religions are born. People have questions and others have answers. LOL
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer
I do somewhat subscribe to the simulation theory... Like Elon Musk, I find it too plausible to disbelieve. The Hindus and Buddhists have been saying similar for thousands of years, only they call it reincarnation
I find the idea of reincarnation more plausible than the idea that god created everyone with less than 100 years to find the correct religion or they spend eternity being tortured by an omnibenevolent god... the latter being a contradiction of an omnibenevolent god torturing souls for eternity, simply for making the wrong choice with limited/bad/contradictory information
Only if the universe can be reduced to computable, close-form functions. How do you do that with infinities that are all around us since the Big Bang?
What infinities? I've never seen an infinite amount of anything in this universe... have you?
Mathematics is the only place I've seen anyone dare to use the word, and that is purely abstract, not anything real or observable. There is also math that deals with "imaginary numbers", but that doesn't make them real either. I have never seen a quantity of sqrt(-1) either
Furthermore, mathematics does have ways of turning infinities into finite numbers. I saw someone earlier asking about the sum of all natural numbers (1+2+3+4+...). The Riemann Zeta function handles infinities quite well. According to this function, the sum of 1+2+3+... = -1/12. Surprising, but when used in quantum mechanics to replace this infinity with -1/12, it works! The math checks out via multiple proofs using different methods. Not all infinities sum to -1/12, only this particular one, but the Zeta function will give a finite answer to any infinity. That finite number actually works in the math, and is concordant with our observations of reality
On a side note: I drew my avatar using the Riemann Zeta function. The points on the right (non-infinites) correspond exactly to the center of the spirals on the left (infinities)
That is a problem with infinities. It is hard to imagine them. "infinity + something = infinity"
Some things are not intuitive. When Feynman first presented his diagrams, Dirac and Bohr told him he is an idiot and walked out of the room.
This universe is amazing, we all should be glad the supernovae created atoms in our bodies.
We should indeed be grateful for the stars and supernovae that allowed heavy elements to form and spread.
We should also be grateful for the light called into existence at the beginning of time that eventually made those supernova possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Quote
The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
And most importantly we should be grateful for the infinite creator who willed it all into existence and sustains it still.
Genesis 1-3:
Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Muslims claim the Quran says that too, they also claim the Quran measures the earth and universe to be billions of years old unlike the bible (6-10k years) I think you should be a muslim.
I knew someone who's Atheists but he still go to church along with his family who are all Catholic not because he believes in religion.He just don't believe what the bible says.
That is a problem with infinities. It is hard to imagine them. "infinity + something = infinity"
Some things are not intuitive. When Feynman first presented his diagrams, Dirac and Bohr told him he is an idiot and walked out of the room.
This universe is amazing, we all should be glad the supernovae created atoms in our bodies.
We should indeed be grateful for the stars and supernovae that allowed heavy elements to form and spread.
We should also be grateful for the light called into existence at the beginning of time that eventually made those supernova possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
Quote
The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
Before decoupling occurred, most of the photons in the universe were interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe was opaque or "foggy" as a result. There was light but not light we can now observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination", thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent.
And most importantly we should be grateful for the infinite creator who willed it all into existence and sustains it still.
Genesis 1-3:
Quote
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Saying that infinities do not exist is also the sign of ignorance where our observations indicate what our universe started at a singularity. The scientific community is pretty much in an agreement on this point (pun intended).
As for Black Holes, next year they will be releasing the 25-year observational study of the behavior of the black hole in the center of our Milky Way. Exciting stuff coming up ... BTW, general relativity predicts a singularity at the center of the black hole.
General relativity does indeed predict a singularly at the center of a black hole. General relativity works well to describe the universe but that does not mean it can be extrapolated into quantum scales.
Newton's laws of motion work wonderfully for what they do also but push them to the edges and they break allowing for things like travel faster then the speed of light.
The appearance of a black hole singularity in general relativity is a powerful indication that general relativity is probably inaccurate at very small sizes. We already know this which is why we need quantum field theory to describe objects of small sizes.
However, quantum field theory does not include gravitational effects, which is the main feature of a black hole. This lack means that we really have no idea what is going on in a black hole until scientists can successfully create a new theory that accurately describes small sizes and strong gravitational effects at the same time.
As for the Big Bang I agree that something very unique occurred at that moment. The instantaneous creation of everything from nothing. A fascinating area of study.
Another question you can ask yourself is the universe finite or infinite. I mean the part of the universe past the observable horizon which changes over time as stuff moves away from us. Observations indicate an infinite and flat universe.
Observations indicate a flat universe that is probably finite.
Unless inflation went on for a truly infinite amount of time, the Universe must be finite in extent.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/05/ask-ethan-could-the-universe-be-infinite/amp/
Ok, try the same with the divergent series.
Clearly that would be more challenging.
That said I am skeptical that divergent series actually exist in reality. Easy to set up on paper but they break down when applied to the real world. Here is a clarifying example.
Quote from: fcas80
Consider a handball court inside a cube, where every wall including the ceiling is fair game to bounce a ball off of.
Bounce a ball at an angle off one wall, so that it bounces off numerous different walls.
In an ideal world of no friction, etc., the ball will bounce forever and never converge anywhere. This is a divergent series.
In the real world, eventually the ball will converge and come to rest somewhere.
Bounce a ball at an angle off one wall, so that it bounces off numerous different walls.
In an ideal world of no friction, etc., the ball will bounce forever and never converge anywhere. This is a divergent series.
In the real world, eventually the ball will converge and come to rest somewhere.
The divergent series in this example is simply an inaccurate modeling of reality. It fails to account for friction.
1+1+1+1+... to infinity probably fails in a similar way because in a finite universe you eventually run out of subatomic particles or whatever it is that you are counting. The model is too simple.
Same story with the "infinity" of a black hole. We have no concrete knowledge of what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. Any comments on the physical dimensions of the mass inside the event horizon are pure speculation.
Physics professor Christopher S. Baird covers this well
http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/09/13/does-every-black-hole-contain-a-singularity/
Quote from: Dr. Baird
In the real universe, no black holes contain singularities. In general, singularities are the non-physical mathematical result of a flawed physical theory. When scientists talk about black hole singularities, they are talking about the errors that appear in our current theories and not about objects that actually exist. When scientists and non-scientists talk about singularities as if they really exist, they are simply displaying their ignorance.
Jump to: