Michael J.

Hello, I was recently reading a thread on the evidence.info boards and came across an article by "MAC". I just wanted to know what you think of it. Remember, I in no way said this is from me, but from MAC.




"When discussing the existence or non-existence of a God, it is best to put aside presumptions of 9 dimensions, theoretical Quantum Physics, in which even Stephen Hawking has admitted can never be empirically tested, only considered probable to one degree or another through mathematics. (Statement made on a NOVA series about Dark Matter) Instead it might be better to deal with logic and scientific truths and principles that we as a species know to be as true as can possibly be.

I had begun a self imposed crusade when I was about 18 to prove to myself (not anyone else) that God did exist. I’m now, let’s say over 50. I already had sufficient knowledge of Christianity, since I was born, raised and schooled as a Roman Catholic. However, my research through logic, philosophy and science regrettably led me to the conclusion that God, a Supreme Being or Intelligence, the Creator or whatever you want to call him, does not exist, at least in the supernatural, Judeo/Christian tradition. God is not and can not be a entity outside of our physical reality. Our reality or Cosmos, is all there is. {I will refer to God as “he/him”, since it is more respectful to refer to God as he rather than it, and is also grammatically correct in the English language.}

We know much more about our physical reality than we know of the so called supernatural realm. With all due respect, the supernatural realm is at best, speculative. Faith is all we have to go by when pondering the supernatural.

To shorten this post, I will presume that most who read this have a better than average understanding of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and in particular his Special Relativity Theory. Actually, Special Relativity Theory can be considered fact, having withstood over 65 years of empirical testing and scrutiny, yet still has not been proven wrong, inaccurate or incorrect.

“The Universe Always Existed Theory” falls short when one brings up the point that about 15 billion years ago, the Universe did in fact have a beginning or birth. Most scientists in the field of Cosmology will not dispute this birth of the Universe in which all the substance of our reality (Cosmos) was infinitely compressed into a non-measurable point named a “Singularity”. From this Singularity, the Universe erupted a primordial plasma (The Big Bang) which quickly expanded, eventually forming and separating into: space/time, atoms, molecules, gases, the stars, planets, energies, galaxies, sub-atomic particles and all other phenomena known and unknown throughout our Cosmos or reality. But how could an expanding universe with a definite beginning and a possible end have always existed? The very notion seems to be an oxymoron.

Years ago this was explained by the Big Crunch Theory, (Oscillating Universe) whereby the Big Bang expanded and the universe as we know it formed with expanding galaxies. But sooner or later, gravity (space/time curvature) would have its way and eventually overcome this Cosmic expansion and begin to collapse. This collapse would continue until all the substance of reality was once again infinitely compressed back into a Singularity state. At this point there would be no existence and no laws of nature, such as gravity to hold this super compressed universal plasma together and once again the Singularity would expel its substance with another Big Bang and form another universe. This has and would continue for eternity, much like a perpetual motion machine.

However, The Big Crunch is a flawed theory. There was no real evidence to support this theory and it perceives the universe in real time rather than relative time, as it should be. Also, NASA scientists who had been observing and researching Nova and Super Nova, recently stumbled upon an important fact during their research. That being the universe is expanding at a velocity far exceeding what was previously thought. This revelation has severe Cosmological consequences, the most important being that this increased expanding velocity can not be overcome by the gravity created by all the matter in the Cosmos. In other words, the universe should continue to expand forever. (The Big Crunch Dispelled Link-below) Even though, quite probably, the living universe we know, filled with blazing stars, comets, Quasars etc, would eventually be burnt out dead bodies, devoid of giving off energy and most could not even reflect light. Notwithstanding, this idea of a universe that was born 15 billion years ago and would continue to exist for all eternity, is actually a paradox. Combining a reality symbiotic amid time, with timelessness, (eternity) is like mixing apples and oranges and calling them the same.

Our Cosmos (as far as I know, the only Cosmos) is subject to “time”. Some say time is just a concept and not a reality, but that is incorrect. Einstein’s Cosmological model, incorporating the idea of an interlocking space/time relationship (time being the key term here) is fundamental to his Theory of Relativity, proven true over and over again. Time is not only real, it is essential for our existence. Time, when separated from space, is the measurement of events, even if events are not actually measured by anyone or anything. If the universe was composed of just one hydrogen atom, time would exist. The atom would give off heat energy which could be measured and its orbiting electron could be measured also. Not to mention the positive and negative charges that exist within the atom and the space/time curvature it would trigger. (gravity) Most scientists of all the diverse disciplines agree that everything in our reality, our universe, is in constant motion and it is impossible for anything to stop or cease to move or vibrate, even for the most minute fraction of a second.

One of the main reasons that an object with mass can never attain the speed of light is because at, or maybe an instant before, the object would attain light speed, time would stand still for the object. This is impossible in our reality of events or cause & effect; therefore matter can never achieve light speed. Of course there are other more tangible reasons for the inability of matter to gain the speed of light. Besides relative time gradually slowing for an object as it approaches light speed, relative mass density also increases and would reach a mass density of infinity at the speed of light. Space/time cannot support matter with infinite mass or mass density. The object would disappear from our reality. And it would take an infinite amount of energy to propel an object of infinite mass density. The entire universe does not contain infinite energy, therefore matter can never attain the velocity of light.

My point is that a reality composed of motion and events (time), cannot then become a reality of timelessness or eternity. (non-motion/events) The universe, as it is normally viewed, must one day cease to exist, at least in a relative point of view. The same is true for a God, outside of our existence. Using the Judeo/Christian definition of the Almighty in which God is eternal (timeless) omnipotent (all powerful and knowing) always was, always will be and always remains the same, faces the same paradox that I just explained. As soon as God did anything . . . creating the Cosmos or even the most minuscule act or event, he would then become subject to the restrictions of time, thereby not being eternal or timeless. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, at least outside of our physical reality. An eternal God would have to be dormant and incapable of doing anything whatsoever. Of course many would argue that God transcends such limits of our reality, but as I stated in the beginning, let’s stick to what we know and not speculate on something we could not possibly know.

But if God cannot be the first cause or Creator of the universe, where did the original Singularity come from and why did it expand (The Big Bang) about 15 billion years ago, relatively speaking. This is the biggest problem that atheists face. The Big Crunch Theory is nothing more than a flawed hypothesis now. The answer lies within Relativity. Time, like everything else, is relative . . . or point of view, within our reality of constant motion and events. It is doubtful at best that a “supernatural” realm (whatever that is) would be comprised of constant motion & space/time with gravity. Therefore relative time would not apply to that realm and consequently time would be linear or straightforward and not subject to point of view.

Relative time allows the Cosmos to have a definite beginning and a definite end, but also be timeless or eternal as well. Sound’s preposterous or bizarre? Keep reading, it really isn’t.

The same Relativity laws which govern accelerating objects with mass, in which at the speed of light, the object would exist in “0” time, (or more accurately cease to exist), have a mass density and gravity of infinity and other properties that have no relevance to this post, also applies to large celestial bodies in our Cosmos. In particular, “Black Holes”. A massive Black Hole is really a Singularity, in which at its center, its original substance has been compressed or squeezed to infinity or infinite mass density, existing in “0” time, or non-existence.

A Black Hole in general is the result of a very massive star continuing it’s celestial evolution. All stars (maybe most would be more accurate) should collapse upon themselves, because their large size induces an extremely intense space/time curvature, or gravity. {It is easier to conceptualize gravity as a Newtonian force, rather than a 3(4) dimensional indentation in the fabric of space/time, therefore I will occasionally refer to gravity as a force.} This massive gravity should compress the star to a rather small, but very dense ball of matter. I believe our sun should collapse to the size of dense ball with a diameter of about a mile. But we all know that this does not happen. Why? Because the terrific force of gravity on large celestial objects like most stars, causes enough internal pressure to allow the hydrogen atoms within the stars to produce fusion reactions . . . on a very large scale. This fusion energy creates an equilibrium, preventing gravity from collapsing the star. Lucky for us. However, eventually a star will exhaust all its hydrogen fuel. At this point gravity begins to have its way and the star begins to collapse. But this added force of collapse, along with the extreme gravity force, allows the star to create fusion reactions using its supply of helium. The helium fusion energy is so intense that normally the star overcomes its gravity and flares outward to a monumental size. A “Red Giant”. {Sometimes at this point in a star’s evolution, the helium based fusion energy is so strong, it causes a nova or a super nova, but these events are rare and not the norm.}

It is not my purpose to describe all the possible star evolutionary patterns. Suffice to say, some stars evolve in other ways.

After the Red Giant has used up it’s helium fuel, nothing can prevent gravity from forcing the star to collapse upon itself. In most cases to a small, but highly dense object. The same principle applies to stars much more massive than our sun. A star that is at least 3 times the mass of Sol, after using up all its hydrogen & helium fuels, will also collapse upon itself. But because the star was so massive to begin with, its original gravity causes the mass density of the final dense object to be so great, that the consequential gravity it forms generates an escape velocity from the collapsed star to actually exceed the speed of light. (Space/time warp=gravity-is monumental) Therefore, the star seems to disappear, because nothing, not even light can escape this super compressed star. Thus the name Black Hole.

However, many Black Holes are formed from stars that are 10, 50 or 100 times as massive as our sun. These types of stars form what is called a Super-Black Hole. Super-Black Holes differ from the one I just described in that the gravitational collapse of these stars is so intense that the collapse does not end with a highly dense ball of matter, but continues collapsing, overcoming the strong atomic forces which binds the nucleus of atoms together and keeps the atoms electrons in orbit. Atoms (matter) are literally crushed to infinity, (infinite mass density) intermixed with any electromagnetic energy, such as light, into a kind of infinitely dense plasma soup. And to top it off, this soup exists in “0” time, time stands still. Normally, this colossal crushing of atoms, would release monumental amounts of energy. And so it does, but the energy cannot escape the gravitational crushing influence of the Super-Black Hole. But I mentioned earlier that matter crushed to infinite mass density and existing in the limbo of “0” time is impossible in our reality. Yes it is, but it can perceived through Relative Time. Super-Black Holes follow Einstein’s Relativity to the letter.

Super-Black Holes exist in multiple points of view or relativity. From our point of view, the Super-Black Hole exists and exerts is super gravitational attraction on any substance or celestial objects nearby, even light and other energy. If one happened to see an asteroid caught in the gravity of a Super-Black Hole, one would witness the asteroid first being quickly drawn towards it. But once the asteroid reached the Super-Black Hole’s point of no return, its “Event Horizon”, it would appear to be frozen in time; not moving. However, the asteroid would not be frozen in time, but merely moving exceptionally slow. {Other phenomena occur, but are not relevant to my post} If the observer could hang around for millions of years and could see matter that does not reflect light, he would realize that the asteroid is indeed moving slowly towards the center of the Super-Black Hole, and it would gradually move slower and slower as it got nearer to its center. Eventually, the asteroid would be crushed to non-existence, like the rest of the plasma soup at the center.

From the point of view of the Super-Black Hole, the asteroid would be caught in its gravitational attraction and when it reached the Event Horizon, it would immediately be drawn into the center and crushed to infinity. I believe the asteroid’s point of view would be the same as I described. The center of the Super-Black Hole’s point of view would be that once the center reached the critical threshold of non-existence, all the substance that it would ever devour from our point of view, would instantaneously be crushed along with the collapsed star’s substance, simultaneously. Super-Black Holes actually gain gravitational influence, as they pull in dust, debris, and celestial objects. The more they pull in, the more powerful their gravity becomes. In other words, there are degrees of gravitational intensity between different Super-Black Holes.

Sticking to our point of view, it is imminent that eventually all the substance of the universe will eventually be consumed by Super-Black Holes. There is no way to stop this. Not even the newly found NASA discovery of a universe expanding at a much higher velocity than was previously known. Weaker Super-Black Holes will give way to stronger ones, until all existence (including space/time) is inside one massive Super-Black Hole. At this point, the universe will look exactly as it did, less than a micro-second before the “Big Bang”. All the substance of our reality, infinitely compressed to a non-measurable point . . . a Singularity. Because there will be no existence nor laws of nature, this final Super-Black Hole/Singularity will be free to expand, since gravity no longer exists. This will begin the universe, the Big Bang. The end of the Cosmos occurs at exactly the same moment as the beginning of the Cosmos, from one relative point of view. From our point of view, the Cosmos begins, evolves, then ends, being swallowed up by the final Super-Black Hole/Singularity.

In other words, the end of the universe creates the universe, which evolves towards its end. The Singularity in which the universe began from is exactly the same Singularity (Super-Black Hole) that ended the universe. All this is possible through relative time, that can only occur in a reality of motion & events whereby mass, mass density, time and gravity are relative states, and not in an almost fictitious supernatural existence.

This ending and beginning of the Cosmos at the same exact moment is not a sequential event, such as a piston engine. Instead, from a relative point of view, the Cosmos is ending and beginning eternally, but at the same moment. One significant fact in all of this is that the universe has already ended, relatively speaking. All events in our reality have already occurred and cannot be changed. This may be perceived as a deterministic existence, in which we have no real free will. And so it is. I know this is hard to conceptualize, but explaining how our reality can be both finite and infinite should be a difficult concept to understand. But in case you haven’t noticed, there is a flaw in all of this. Actually not a flaw, just something I haven’t justified . . . yet.

The flaw or inconsistency is this. When a massive star collapses to form a Super-Black Hole, I stated that the substance of the star is crushed to infinity or infinite mass density and this substance (plasma) exists in “0” time. However, earlier I mentioned that matter in this state is impossible in our reality of events and cause & effect. And so it is.

What happens is this: inside the center of a Super-Black Hole, the infinitely crushed plasma never exists in our reality. Once it reaches a particular mass density threshold, it drops out of our present reality and before it can be said to exist in a non-existent environment, it expands to form the universe. (The idea of “0” time or timelessness, is really just a hypothetical reference point. Non-existence never really has a chance to be.)

But how can the substance of one Super-Black Hole form the entire universe? It doesn’t. Since the “center” of all Super-Black Holes, whether they were formed a billion years ago, yesterday or 10 billion years in the future, all exist at the same relative moment, “0” time. All their “centers” expand simultaneously, because at “0” time there is no reality, nor laws of nature, nor the concept of locale. All the centers of every Super-Black Hole that will ever form expand not only at the same instant, but from the same locale. The Big Bang. This off course is another relative point of view. But from the point of view of the Singularity, it always was, always will be and always remains the same. It is a “universal constant”. This universal constant, from one relative point of view, is eternal and unchanging, but simultaneously can and does change, through another relative point of view, by expanding to form the universe, which then evolves to its end.

I believe it is quite probable that the 9+dimensions we hear about are not dimensions, but rather relative points of view. These different relative points of view can be perceived as being different realities or dimensions.

I do realize that besides our linear point of view towards the Cosmos, the other relative points of view are views that can only be observed hypothetically. Einstein knew this also. But because humans cannot actually observe the various relative states of the Cosmos and its inner workings, does not mean they do not exist. Actually, they have to exist.

This brings me back to the notion of God, a Creator or Supreme Being-Intelligence. By definition, the Judeo/Christian God always was, always will be and always remains the same. God is considered omnipotent. God is not considered just the creator of the universe, but the universe and everything that exists within it, is also considered to be part of God.

My model of the Cosmos meets this definition of God, but not as a supernatural being, but as the physical universe itself. In other words, the universe is a living physical Supreme Being. God is not only the “universal constant”, the Singularity, but also all the other relative states that occur and relative points of view that are hypothetically observable. A God capable of being what I have just described, surely is capable of a grand design, in which we are all part of. And capable of creating, or allowing the creation of biological life. It may be that God/universe depends on life forms as well as all other objects and phenomena in order to exist. This could be considered a restriction to our definition of omnipotence, but even the supernatural Judeo/Christian God has restrictions as well. He cannot die or be created. He cannot do evil. He cannot create another being more powerful than himself. And he cannot be confronted with a task, too difficult for him to achieve. In other words, God cannot do the impossible. But regretfully, I doubt very much that my physical God holds humans accountable for their actions and there is no reason to expect that an afterlife exists either.

We humans mistakenly presume that we are so elevated and important that God (my physical one or the supernatural one) has endowed us with some sort of afterlife quality, like an immortal soul. Regretfully, dying will not prove one way or another if there is some sort of afterlife, if in fact there is none. Because after death, one would be just as one was before conception. Non-existent. (Our Physical bodies continue obviously, evolving through several decaying states. By non-existent I am referring to our consciousness, ability to think and be self-aware) If, in the remote possibility there is some sort of afterlife, then death would be proof.

It seems to me that with all the billions of stars in a galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe, there should be an intelligent life form more deserving of any special treatment from God (physical or supernatural) rather than Homo Sapiens, who are only one step higher on the evolutionary ladder than other primates, and maybe on the same cognitive scale, as dolphins and other other large brained sea mammals.

It could well be that carbon based biological life is really the garbage of the universe, and advanced intelligent life forms, not connected with DNA or RNA, exist and have abilities far beyond our own and beyond any chance of humans ever obtaining these abilities. But this is merely speculation as is the existence of a supernatural realm and God. Anything is possible, but to live one’s life believing in an exceptionally remote possibility is rather difficult for me.
Regards,
MAC "

Links:

ABOUT BLACKHOLES-
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...lackHoles.html
THE BIG CRUNCHED DISPELLED-
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...d-forever.html
OSCILLATING UNIVERSE INVALID-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/univ...html/osci.html
STEADY STATE THEORY INVALID-
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/univ...ml/steady.html
ABOUT ALBERT EINSTEIN-
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/index.html
THEORY OF RELATIVITY-
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...relativity.htm

Some
Sources:

BLACK HOLES: The End of the Universe?
By John G. Taylor Avon Books NY, NY.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. From the Big Bang to Black Holes.
By Stephen Hawking Bantam Books NY, NY.

THE STORY OF ORIGINS-Life, Mankind, the Earth, the Universe.
By Isaac Asimov Berkley Pub Group NY, NY.

UNDERSTANDING PHYSICS
By Isaac Asimov Hippocrene Books Ny, NY.

beastmaster

Thank you Michael J. for re-posting this eminently readable summation of cosmology and the Special Theory of Relativity. As a layperson, I am not sure of the specifics, but it "smells" right.

My only qualm is with MAC calling the universe "God." To me, this is nothing but wordplay. After all, MAC concedes that such a God does not hold humans accountable for their actions and offers us no afterlife. There's nothing to worship.

beastmaster

Oh, also, I am a little unsure about MAC's conclusion of a deterministic universe. I understand that he's saying that, from our relativistic point of view, the universe is in a loop, and that from the "universe's" relativistic point of view, the universe is eternal. But where does quantum mechanics fit in, if at all? Are there quantum potentialities or multiverses?

Fiach

God has no consistent definition. Here in the western world we define God as a Being with a human mind, who created the universe, hell, diseases, etc. Some like Marlowe describe a Pantheistic god more or less equivalent to the universe. I have proposed that if we stretch it, we can define the forces at the first millionth of a nanosecond of the Big Bang. That god is not conscious, not cognitive, and does not monkey with us in an afterlife. You might say, that is Atheism. And it may be so. But we are playing with words.

Fiach
<img src=http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/pubimage.asp?id_=1411479>

Autonemesis

The Mormons believe God has a physical human form and reposes at a particular place they call Kolob, supposedly a planet, though no scripture or doctrine calls it a planet.

JEST2ASK

Wow I knew they hold God to be a physical enity but I did not know there is a special planet ( = heaven) .... however Why Not .... And very interesting article ...

Thanks & Welcome ...


:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
Michael J. & Max

Autonemesis

Mormon hymn:

If You Could Hie to Kolob

If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
D'ye think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,
Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?
Me thinks the Spirit whispers,
"No man has found 'pure space,'
Nor seen the outside curtains,
Where nothing has a place."

The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter;
There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit;
There is no end to race.

There is no end to virtue;
There is no end to might;
There is no end to wisdom;
There is no end to light.
There is no end to union;
There is no end to youth;
There is no end to priesthood;
There is no end to truth.

There is no end to glory;
There is no end to love;
There is no end to being;
There is no death above.
There is no end to glory;
There is no end to love;
There is no end to being;
There is no death above.

MIDI

markstake

beastmaster writes:
I'm not sure why having something to worship is a necessary component to an origin theory.

You could always just go ahead and worship anyway - you just wouldn't get anything out of doing it. I'd be suspect of the true faith of anyone who believes a theory just for the reward.

Fiach

I would also question the faith just for the reward, but more common is the Christian who worships or has faith out of FEAR of Punishment in HELL. How sincere is such faith? It is like saying "I love you to someone with a .44 magnum at your temple." Sincere love, I don't think so." I think this is why most Christians harp on the barmy term "God-fearing" as though it were a compliment.

Fiach

beastmaster

Neither God nor worship is necessary to an origin theory. That's my point: I don't see why MAC feels the need to call the universe "God."