Creating matter

newtonian · Sep 17, 2005

Saiph - You posted: “Anyway, you really should stop professing biblical references as proof for scientific explanations.” May I suggest you accept my references as simply describing my understanding of the Biblical model, and in some cases exact quotes of said model? For example, why not just consider the stretching out fine gauze model for expansion as simply an alternative to the Balloon model or other flat models. Personally, I consider a flat model more tenable than the balloon model, in view of current scientific interpretations of discoveries of acceleration of expansion and inflation of our universe. [It is those discoveries I consider as proofs scientifically, and the fact that all scientific observations are consistent with Biblical statements, though disproving many religious doctrines of the past, is certainly noteworthy] Btw, I would not complain if you referred to the balloon model all over the place. People tend to post in harmony with their favorite model, and I absolutely love the Scriptures and God! I appreciate, btw, your relative tolerance of my discussing matters (and energies) from my favorite models. Discussing different models is more healthy for science than simply posting the standard or popular models - would you agree? You posted: “having a "first" cause still falls to the "watchmaker" syndrome. You say god started it, because someone had to start it. For any reason you give me that it had to be started by something, it applies just as well to why someone needed to create God.” Yes, the watchmaker illustration, that a watch requires a watchmaker, is a good illustration of the need for cause and effect extended to design requires a designer. This illustration applies to anything that we know scientifically had a beginning - be it a watch, the earth or the universe. This does not apply to anything that may have al

Saiph · Sep 17, 2005

I understand that you present your ideas from a biblical point of reference. However, quoting Isaih 40:22 (and other verses) doesn't add any validity to your statement other than supply a source for your vision of "stretching gauze". Now, I have no problem with you carrying on a seperate conversation about modern cosmology and biblical references in threads that are more in that vein (e.g. someone asks how scientists see god fitting into it all). Also, I'm not trying to stifle the discussion of alternate models. Well, I guess part of the problem is you and I have gone back and forth over many of these issues many times in the past. So this makes, what, the 5th time we've discussed the "gauze" statement? Maybe thats why I'm asking for it to be put to rest. Then again, this is the upteenth time I've discussed cosmological expansion... My main desire is for these forums to be a source of educating people about astronomy and science as it is actually practiced today. To help clarify all those over simplified statements that my astronomical community put out there in efforts to inform the layman. But, now that I think about it, you're doing a decent job presenting your biblical material as another source of inspiration and interpretation. As opposed to "absolute fact", so I think I'll just let it go. Now, as for the watchmaker syndrome and it's application to the universe: 1) How do we know god doesn't need a beginning? 2) How do we know the universe does have a begining? Sure, it appears to have a point beyond which we cannot look, but if, say, the cyclical universe is true, then there was something before, and always is. It's just irrevocably lost and unable to alter the current rendition fo the universe. Like someone hit the reset button. Also, the problem with the "flat gauze" analogy is the same one as the raisenbread analogy: It has an edge. Also remember, all three ( <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Sep 18, 2005

Saiph - How I know God does not need a beginning - to answer that involves Study of the Hebrew name Jehovah, and also the definition in Exodus 3:14: ehyeh asher ehyeh (in Hebrew it is not simply I am that I am). The definition is: He causes to be. Compare the title Father. If Jehovah was not the First Cause, then He would have been caused - of course. However, by Hebrew definition Jehovah is the First Cause. Granted, there other related definitions of this Hebrew name - notably: He accomplishes what He purposed You did ask. I ask: what alternative do you believe - e.g.: Do you believe there were infinite past causes and effects or a first cause? I will respond further another time, except for these basic comments: 1. A mind boggling alternative: God created primordial time long before all universes came to be. The obvious problem with that alternative: how does God cause time to come to be if time is the medium through which cause and effect flow? This is why I lean towards believing primordial time always existed - though I really don't know - of course! 2. There certainly were other heavens before ours, notably the heaven where God resides - I certainly agree our universe was not created from nothing. E.g.: (1 Kings 8:27) 27 “But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you; how much less, then, this house that I have built! This could mean our universe is but one of many within a much larger heaven of the heavens. A. The stretching gauze model is flat mathematically speaking - not actually visibly flat. I.e. the space time fabric does not curve back on itself. That why I referenced inflation and accelleration of expansion as consistent evidence for this model. B. The stretching gauze model may not have an edge. Assuming a finite universe,

siarad · Sep 19, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />if they're moving directly away from us, along a radial line<hr /></blockquote> Surely that's impossible I've read we're at the centre of the Universe which is expanding everywhere. This means only one item can be receding radially all others must be going at an angle.

newtonian · Sep 19, 2005

siarad - I'm going to have to research the definition of radial line. However, it only appears we are at the center of the universe - due to the way our universe is expanding. Consider a stretching fine gauze, stretching equally in all 3-d directions. All points will expand from all other points, and more distant points will expand away faster. They would all be moving in straight lines away from any point, including us. There is a skewing factor though - that is only describing motion due to expansion. There are many other causes of motion, and the other causes are far stronger locally. So much so that some galaxies are actually blue shifted, or moving towards us (or we moving towards them, depending on your frame of reference). Considering the rotation of the Milky Way and the upcoming merger with Andromeda, there will indeed be many curved lines describing motion towards or away from us.

Saiph · Sep 19, 2005

Actually, you can have any number of radial lines. Draw yourself a standard cartesian graph (x and y axis at right angles). Now, tell me, how many different lines (lines with different slopes) can pass through the origin? Answer: infinity. If you designate the origin as the center of a circle, all those lines passing through it are radial lines (and is the basis of polar coordinate systems and a component of spherical coordinate systems). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Sep 22, 2005

Yes but galaxies can't move along them. I wrote the original in a hurry just coz alarm bells went off but I didn't know why. Thinking on it the view we get is a chord between galaxies not a segment. As space is expanding the increase in radius must be matched by the increase in segment but the chord will be smaller causing the radius to close. So the reference radius is the only one the rest being curves.

newtonian · Sep 24, 2005

siarad - I agree. there are actually many bonds involving galaxies. We are actually in a gravitational tug of war between the Great Attractor, which is winning, and another attractor - I forget its location but it is nearly opposite in direction.

wurf · Aug 22, 2007

Mass/matter cannot be created or destroyed. How does this apply to cells of organic material? When a large oak tree comes from an acorn, or a human adult comes from the tiny egg and sperm, isn't there then more mass/matter in existence? I think when an individual cell reproduces itself, there's a loss from the original cell which would balance out the gain of the new cell? But looking at the big picture, in reproducing, a male and female human each lose a tiny portion of their mass/matter (the egg and sperm). This loss is much smaller than the mass/matter which eventually results (the new human). I guess I'm asking, if the number of human bodies on earth was once, say 3 billion, and is now 5 or 6 billion, hasn't there been an increase in the amount of mass/matter in the universe?

dutchie · Aug 22, 2007

The acorn draws water and nourishment from the earth to become an oak. The fertilized egg will start dividing BECAUSE it is in an environment where it can take in those substances it needs to do that. The foetus is connected to the mother through the umbilical cord. Nothing comes from nothing. The total amount of matter in the whole of the universe has not changed since the dawn of time.

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 22, 2007

Ok, let's test that. Stop eating. I'll get back to you in a few weeks to see how that is going. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Aug 22, 2007

Wurf's question is a very interesting one. I myself have been thinking in the same line. We have 6 billion people on this planet. Does the mass of the earth increase/decrease with population increase, or remains the same because the number of human grew by consuming earth's energy. I know the amount of mass increase because of 6 billion humans is very negligible compared to the mass of the earth. But question is what really happens here? Has anyone done any study? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

dutchie · Aug 22, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Does the mass of the earth increase/decrease with population increase, or remains the same because the number of human grew by consuming earth's energy.<hr /></blockquote>Let me ask you a question in return. If you took the bones of all people and animals that died since they appeared a gazillion years ago, you'd end up with a 6 foot layer of bones that would cover all of the planet... Nauseating idea, I know, but you get the picture. It obviously isn't there.. So where did it go?!?

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 22, 2007

Where would the mass come from? The Earth's main source of energy is the Sun. Well, perhaps the only freely available source that is. For living things, even... Aside from a few million tons of space dust, the occasional big rock and possibly some free floating gas, the Sun is the only "outside" contributor to Earth's ecosystem. Sunlight is the fuel source for Earth's biomass. (Discounting a few very hardy organisms that refuse to live on the surface with the rest of us like other decent living creatures...) What does that do? It fuels Earth's biosphere. What does that do? It converts that energy by using it to break down previously unusable matter into more palatable forms. What does that do? It allows individual organisms to use that converted matter to fuel themselves and to grow. In all of that, the energy is only converted to a more usable form. That process does not involve the "creation" of mass. It's only a process of conversion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

dutchie · Aug 22, 2007

...I was trying to get him to think and now you went and gave it all away... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

a_lost_packet_ · Aug 22, 2007

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

heyscottie · Aug 22, 2007

Or, let's boil this down into the simplest view: You can only gain mass (matter) if you eat food, drink water, etc. Some of the food/liquid you consume stays in your body to become new cells, allow you to grow taller, fatter, etc. Some leaves as waste. If you take in more than you excrete, you will gain mass. But the planet stays the same! If you excrete more than you take in, you will lose mass. But the planet still stays the same!

wurf · Aug 22, 2007

I stupidly forgot about nourishment. So if a 30 y.o. man has a mass of 200 lbs., then 200 lbs. is the sum total of all the matter (food, water, air, sunlight, airborne particles, skin lotion, etc.) that he has taken in over 30 years, minus what was converted to energy, and minus excretions and secertions? Then upon death, 200 lbs. go back into the earth, ashes to ashes....

MeteorWayne · Aug 22, 2007

That is absolutely correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

dutchie · Aug 23, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />go back into the earth, ashes to ashes.... <hr /></blockquote>...hence also the remark about the bones...

docm · Aug 23, 2007

And lets not forget that every cell in your body is replaced over time, differing by cell type but not more than yearly. Most don't last but a few weeks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Aug 23, 2007

IIRC, with the exception of neurons the entire human body is replaced on a cellular level over a span of seven years. Some cells turn over faster, some slower, and even neurons get replaced at times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

derekmcd · Aug 23, 2007

Is that what the 7 year itch is all about <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Aug 23, 2007

Well, what I wanted to know when I ran across this little tidbit is: If my body is new every 7 years...why does it seem to get more and more run down eh? I should be as fit and energetic as I was 7 years ago! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

docm · Aug 23, 2007

The cells go, but the DNA deteriorations and most free radicals released by your mitochondria remain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Creating matter

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

newtonian

Guest

siarad

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

newtonian

Guest

wurf

Guest

dutchie

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

dutchie

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

dutchie

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

heyscottie

Guest

wurf

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

dutchie

Guest

docm

Guest

Saiph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

docm

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page