About the whole 'eternal creator' thing...

[Cosmic+Amarna]

Also, on the whole complicated thing: it becomes truly astounding how complex the universe is when its natural laws and properties stem from some less-than-twenty values, laws and formulae.

Yes I know what you're saying. It is astounding that it all could fit onto a small piece of paper.

[▽]

It is entertaining to see people that still believe time is just a human construct, as opposed to a real (though not directly tangible), physical concept. Do said people have an explanation for the difference in time between atomic clocks on earth and the very same clocks that travelled along with the space shuttle? Or can they explain how it is that the GPS system requires continuous corrections to be accurate? I doubt they are able to, but do try.

As for not understanding something and therefore it being untrue. Reality is not democratic, as opposed to politics (which, incidentally, isn't an exact science). Science has enabled you to live your life exactly as you do now, with computers, comfortable living conditions and medicine, to name a few. Never seen spiritualism heal someone from cancer. Nor have i ever seen religion build a machine as intricate as the LHC. All these things were the result of hard work by physicists, mathematicians and biochemists.

[Alaude Drenxta]

Eternal could mean timeless, existing without/beyond time.1.
as The Professor pointed out, is a man-made concept.2.
I feel like you've just stated the obvious.3.

What, exactly, was all that nonsense supposed to accomplish? You've addressed and explained nothing.

[Cosmic+Amarna]

What, exactly, was all that nonsense supposed to accomplish? You've addressed and explained nothing.

Because my original statement was not mysterious, it explained itself. Again eternal could mean timeless, existing without/beyond time. That we don't know everything about time, all of what I originally said.

[theirlosthearts]

It is entertaining to see people that still believe time is just a human construct, as opposed to a real (though not directly tangible), physical concept. Do said people have an explanation for the difference in time between atomic clocks on earth and the very same clocks that travelled along with the space shuttle? Or can they explain how it is that the GPS system requires continuous corrections to be accurate? I doubt they are able to, but do try.

I agree. Though, I do think that people have made a human construct of time based on misconceptions about time that are held by many people, but of course, that human view of time is flawed. However, thinking about time too much can make it difficult to understand. Things happen. That's relatively simple, but thinking deeply about that can make it more complicated. Add the qualities of time (my memories of studying time, relativity, etc. are old, so correct me if I'm wrong) such as gravity affecting time, high velocity (I'm guessing a lot of energy? Did that a long time ago, so not sure) slowing time, etc. Essentially, what you mentioned about clocks in space measuring time differently from clocks on earth. Time is difficult to understand, so people are going to have flawed views of time. Your next two sentences finish the point nicely.

As for not understanding something and therefore it being untrue. Reality is not democratic, as opposed to politics (which, incidentally, isn't an exact science). Science has enabled you to live your life exactly as you do now, with computers, comfortable living conditions and medicine, to name a few. Never seen spiritualism heal someone from cancer. Nor have i ever seen religion build a machine as intricate as the LHC. All these things were the result of hard work by physicists, mathematicians and biochemists.

I find it interesting that you say that a concept should not be thrown away by an individual just because he or she can't understand it and then discredit religions because you measure them just by the accomplishments of many individuals (ie what many simply call science). Also, I believe that using the word "religion" is too general. It groups together so many different organizations and people that are so vastly different that one can only make a few statements that are true for every component. Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Gandhi, etc. were produced in relation to religion. One could easily say that "religion" has fed many people, clothed many people, etc. and also mention the wrongs caused by religion (ie the catholic church when it was nigh totally corrupt, religious wars, etc.). "Religion" and "science" are far too general to be used credibly. Each word stands for millions (if not billions) of people, thousands of organizations, and more history than would fit on a modern day computer (well, possibly a supacomputer). My point is that those words are far too general for a legitimate use.

[▽]

I agree. Though, I do think that people have made a human construct of time based on misconceptions about time that are held by many people, but of course, that human view of time is flawed. However, thinking about time too much can make it difficult to understand. Things happen. That's relatively simple, but thinking deeply about that can make it more complicated. Add the qualities of time (my memories of studying time, relativity, etc. are old, so correct me if I'm wrong) such as gravity affecting time, high velocity (I'm guessing a lot of energy? Did that a long time ago, so not sure) slowing time, etc. Essentially, what you mentioned about clocks in space measuring time differently from clocks on earth. Time is difficult to understand, so people are going to have flawed views of time. Your next two sentences finish the point nicely.

I find it interesting that you say that a concept should not be thrown away by an individual just because he or she can't understand it and then discredit religions because you measure them just by the accomplishments of many individuals (ie what many simply call science). Also, I believe that using the word "religion" is too general. It groups together so many different organizations and people that are so vastly different that one can only make a few statements that are true for every component. Mendel, Darwin, Newton, Gandhi, etc. were produced in relation to religion. One could easily say that "religion" has fed many people, clothed many people, etc. and also mention the wrongs caused by religion (ie the catholic church when it was nigh totally corrupt, religious wars, etc.). "Religion" and "science" are far too general to be used credibly. Each word stands for millions (if not billions) of people, thousands of organizations, and more history than would fit on a modern day computer (well, possibly a supacomputer). My point is that those words are far too general for a legitimate use.

Indeed, not many are able to grasp time as a dimension, or the concept of more then just 3 spatial dimensions. Still doesn't mean that reality conforms to their view (that would really make it a mess) if it were. As for the effects you mention, they can be considered to be part of relativity. Gravity being no more then a morphology of space and time (as for relativity, these are almost indistinguishable from eachother) as a result of a minimum amount of mass. Likewise, a velocity (not energy) of an inertial system (a planet, a rocket or otherwise) has influence on the rate of time in said inertial system, relative to that of a different, comoving inertial system. This again arises from the unity of the spatial and temporal dimensions.

Religion i define as every belief of a supernatural sentience responsible for existence/the universe/earth/life. Part of religion being specific rituals and texts. Science can be defined as the fields that attempt to establish models of nature using both theoretical as well as empirical methods. These might be broad, but i think the use of these general terms is justified when comparing the results from either entity.

[Space-timelord~]

It is no mystery that the fact that your(or me or whoever)even here is pure luck.but i still believe that god(or savior creater whatever you wish to call it by)did set the motions for the universe a very long long time ago before this universe even.which its why we have very little knowledge of the universe/omniverse etc....because its so complex it cant be simply made or understood in a matter of 1 day it might take millennium to even get it right but once it is gotten it starts with a bang(big band theory)and then he lets it take its course by itself without him being involved and particles and dark matter will slowly begin to create the cosmos.But i also believe that he only needed to do this once.why?because its pretty obvious that everything has its time and eventually and no matter how hard mankind tried to prevent it the universe will eventually start falling apart and cease to exist but right before it is literally gone it will gather enough energy for a new big bang to occur and thus continuing life everywhere with possibly new laws of physics and so fourth.

[Orion]

which its why we have very little knowledge of the universe/omniverse etc....because its so complex it cant be simply made or understood in a matter of 1 day it might take millennium to even get it right

And of course, we've been working towards it since we ever began looking at the world scientifically. Which has been millennia.

But i also believe that he only needed to do this once.why?because its pretty obvious that everything has its time and eventually and no matter how hard mankind tried to prevent it the universe will eventually start falling apart and cease to exist but right before it is literally gone it will gather enough energy for a new big bang to occur and thus continuing life everywhere with possibly new laws of physics and so fourth.

These ideas are contradictory. When the universe is moving towards a low-energy-density state, there's no way it can 'gather energy' and make a new universe. The only way for that work that is somewhat consistent with our current understanding of physics is if the universe's current expansion eventually reverses and we get a big bounce. That still means you have to answer the following question: If our universe could so easily give birth to another one, what reason do we have to assume that we're the first, or in any way special?

[Space-timelord~]

And of course, we've been working towards it since we ever began looking at the world scientifically. Which has been millennia.

I used the word millennium not as how long it might have taken but just to show that it takes a quit substantial amount of time to even create a whole universe itself and not let it fall apart like many physicist belive happened to many other universes.

what reason do we have to assume that we're the first, or in any way special?

Well remember its luck that were even alive at this very moment.That we were not to far away from the sun but not to close to be able to at least sustain life.It is also luck that when the universe first started it had an unevenness of atoms that allowed it to expand to what we know today.Which is why i belive were special since luck brought us here.

By the way have you seen Stephen Hawkings into the universe?If not i high recommend seeing The Story of Everything its the second one Into The Universe With Stephen Hawking | Watch Free Documentary Online

[theirlosthearts]

Indeed, not many are able to grasp time as a dimension, or the concept of more then just 3 spatial dimensions. Still doesn't mean that reality conforms to their view (that would really make it a mess) if it were. As for the effects you mention, they can be considered to be part of relativity. Gravity being no more then a morphology of space and time (as for relativity, these are almost indistinguishable from eachother) as a result of a minimum amount of mass. Likewise, a velocity (not energy) of an inertial system (a planet, a rocket or otherwise) has influence on the rate of time in said inertial system, relative to that of a different, comoving inertial system. This again arises from the unity of the spatial and temporal dimensions.

Okay, thanks. I need to find the time to restart my studies, which is rather ironic since I'm still in school.

Religion i define as every belief of a supernatural sentience responsible for existence/the universe/earth/life. Part of religion being specific rituals and texts. Science can be defined as the fields that attempt to establish models of nature using both theoretical as well as empirical methods. These might be broad, but i think the use of these general terms is justified when comparing the results from either entity.

Those definition are sensible; although, people do have a tendency to misinterpret generalized terms. Also, the results of both entities are mixed, but I can still see the ease of use gained by having simple terms available when making a comparison. Of course, if an individual refers to his or her own religion, the individual might be offended if other religions are grouped with his or her own religion, but the terms should be acceptable for general use.

[Orion]

I used the word millennium not as how long it might have taken but just to show that it takes a quit substantial amount of time to even create a whole universe itself and not let it fall apart

All the ideas present in this sentence are false or misused. Substantial is relative, but even hundreds of millennia is only a flash in the pan in the lifespan of the universe.
It didn't take a whole lot of time to 'create' the universe we exist in now. That creation happened and ended with the moment of the big bang, everything beyond it was a continuum of states and configurations of matter and energy. The idea of a 'whole' universe is outright flawed because an isolated space of any size or content would still be a universe. If a universe happens to 'fall apart', it's a natural function of the properties of that universe and so is only 'falling apart' according to people thinking of disorder and low-energy as something running down.

like many physicist belive happened to many other universes.

What they believe is irrelevant, since all the propositions of other universes are thus far purely theoretical and only 'work' because they're designed to be consistent with observe phenomena. There's been no proof that actually directly points out one possibility.

Well remember its luck that were even alive at this very moment.

Us particularly? Perhaps, but sentient life is inevitable in a universe as large and old as ours because our existence is based on fundamental interactions of particles. Calling our existence lucky is silly and anthrocentric. Sentient and intelligent life is inevitable, we just happen to be one form of it.

That we were not to far away from the sun but not to close to be able to at least sustain life.

I'm talking about a universal perspective, not a geocentric one. Only life as we currently know it could exist at the current distance from our type of sun, but even then it's not ideal. Had Earth been shifted while life was still very young, and were it flexible or hardy enough, it would survive, and we'd be saying the same thing about goldilocks zones as now. Even on Earth alone there are hundreds of things that can easily kill us and which we have no control over. Further, look out into space - super solar flares, asteroids, supernovae, etc. Us being human intelligent sentient life is hardly a 'lucky' thing when so much of the universe is apathetic or even dangerous to our existence.

[▽]

It's obvious space-timelord (que the irony), doesn't have a clue about the nature of the universe, nor does he understand the BB model. If he would've understood, he wouldn't mention how there was "an unevenness of atoms" in the primordial universe. Apart from that being rather unclear, he would know how the four fundamental forces were a singular force. This disallows the existence of baryons (proton and neutrons) which require the distinct strong nuclear force for colour confinement. Not to mention the weak force, which holds together the nucleus of atoms. Another requrement is electromagnetism to allow for the wave function (and therefore, probability distribution) of the electron to be localised around the nucleus. These forces only split after the universe had sufficiently expanded (equating to a specific energy distribution in space), a certain amount of time after the big bang. In short, he shows utter ignorance of the fields of QCD, QED and electroweak interactions.

As for the goldilocks zone, evolution destroys that argument. If you didn't know (and you probably didn't), the short and long axii of earth's orbit are actually increasing slowly over time. On geological timescales this amounts to noticeable temperature drops in the range of full degrees. Incidentally, these timescales allow for actual evolution of species (assuming life on earth isn't whiped out anytime soon). Basically, every position in a stellar system is a goldilocks zone, making life on earth not that special.