pantheory

I have written a unpublished scientific paper concerning about a half dozen ways to mitigate, redirect, or break up a tropical cyclone, and how it might be done with much less havoc than the tropical cyclone causes by itself (called a hurricane in the U.S.) I plan to publish the paper with meteorologist co-authors hopefully by the spring of 2021. The cost for such research and development I have estimated to be about 2 billion dollars, and a similar continuing annual mitigation program of labor and equipment thereafter of a similar 2 billion dollars. For 2017 alone in the US and Puerto Rico hurricane damage was estimated to be $300 billion. Yes, an atomic bomb might likely stop/ end a small hurricane but the side effects could be worse than the hurricane itself, and I think very few would support such a bizarre idea. If global warming is real and continues, the frequency of hurricanes will increase. This is because a minimum ocean temperature of 79 degrees Fahrenheit is needed for a hurricane to form. Continuing Ocean temperatures above this threshold will likely produce more and larger hurricanes.

I think Pantheism is a cool idea. I talked to someone calling himself a pantheist. I said, what can a God do according to pantheism? He said pantheists, like religious people, have many different beliefs. He said: for me as a pantheist God can only do those things that are permitted by nature. The meaning of this is that he equates God with the all of nature. God would have no knowledge or consciousness, and only the powers of nature. So for him he could call himself an atheist or pantheist depending upon his preferred definition of a pantheist.

You are right. This is a continuing issue. IMO there are a great many problems with mainstream physics theory today. String theory and M theory are just two obvious examples as you pointed out by your link above.

Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian? As we all know everyone is different to a certain extent. The answer to the above question might be answered by the realization that maybe up to half the members of this X-Christ forum were once evangelicals or devout Christians of some kind. Of course most devout Christians will not argue religion at all, but many passively listen to arguments whether they want to or not.

This is a similar question that I asked scientist associates in cosmology concerning the Hubble constant, shown below. The meaning of the Hubble constant is that of a constant rate of expansion of the universe. This constant is a mathematical constant within what is called the Hubble distance formula. The obvious problem arose in the 1990's when it was asserted that the rate of the expansion of the universe was now accelerating, now called dark energy. The rate of expansion of the universe cannot be constant, the Hubble constant, and at the same time be accelerating. Instead you could call it the Hubble variable. I asked this question of contradiction to mainstream cosmologists and the best answer I got was something like this. Yes, the expansion of the universe relating to the Big Bang and Inflation is a constant. But a new factor is now adding to this Hubble constant rate of expansion which we now call the cosmological constant. The question could then be asked: How do you know this increase or decrease in the Hubble expansion rate, or cosmological constant rate, has not happened in the past, either increasing or decreasing from a constant rate? They had no reply to this question since there now is an indication that the expansion rate in general was less in the distant past based upon a number of studies. One big problem with all of this is that cosmological distances are calculated based upon the Hubble formula and expansion rate and there have been many contradictions concerning the calculated results. As to my own explanation: the universe is not expanding at all. There accordingly is a different explanation to explain the observed cosmological redshifts of galactic spectra, therefore if so the Hubble constant and the cosmological constant would be fantasies An associate of mine turned one of my related scientific papers into a book concerning the subject of the cosmological constant,. I, being one of the co-authors. The book is entitled 'STANDARD AND ALTERNATIVE COSMOLOGY' contradicting the Hubble constant and Big Bang cosmology in general. Here is the link to the book. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334671279_Press_release_-For_immediate_release_'STANDARD_AND_ALTERNATIVE_COSMOLOGY'_A_new_book#fullTextFileContent Here is the link to the paper https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

"Singularities are hypothetical regions of space where the density of matter, and the proposed curvature of spacetime accordingly becomes infinite. In such locales, the standard concepts of space and time accordingly would cease to have meaning. Singularities, according to General Relativity, are predicted to occur in all black holes and also in certain Big Bang models of the beginning Universe." It was all the rage about 30 years ago for cosmologists and cosmogonists to talk about a singularity as being the beginning of the known universe. At that time they would often say 42 trillions of a second after the Big Bang beginning this or that happened, then 51 billions of a second after that this other thing happened. All these tiny numbers came from nuclear fission explosion theory. Today there is little talk of a Big Bang beginning entity other than a very hot dense cosmogony beginning, with no longer a reference to a Big Bang entity or singularity, or the exactness in time concerning what happened . This said, it is a joke to me, when referring to modern cosmology that proponents of religion would think that they could reconcile abstract BB theory with the simplistic, anachronistic words of the bible. There is only imagined evidence on the side of religion for such a contention, and also IMO the BB model itself will also be entirely replaced in the coming decades As long as the Big Bang model is still in favor some religious persons like Craig will try to justify religion through science. But when science theory is shown to be wrong and changes, Craig and others will quickly jump on the opposing band-wagon saying we knew this stuff was wrong based upon the words of the bible. Instead God did it all.

Concerning your link above. Philosophy is a very worthy field of study, but certainly very different from science. Part 1: Quantum theory and consciousness There is a faction of quantum physicists/ theorists who unfortunately believe that human observation can change reality. This IMO is based upon their misunderstandings of particle interactions in the subatomic realm. Part 2: The metaphysics of nonduality Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space. Talking about Non-duality For those unfamiliar with this term, like myself, non-duality is like a final destination in philosophy for those wanting to uncover the ultimate Socratic quest to "know thyself." Part 3: The end of suffering and the discovery of our true nature (No comment) Advaita Advaita Vedanta, originally known as Puruṣavāda, is a school of Hindu philosophy believed by its followers to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in the Hindu tradition.

Yeah, I really liked Billy Preston's song, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing" when it came out in '74." Hard to believe that was 45 years ago The famous cool Latin phrase stated that "out of nothing comes nothing, "ex nihilo nihil fit,.

The problem with nothing at all as a logical possibility, one would be referring to nothing of any kind, essence, substance or energy, in this or any other possible universe. If you believe in such a thing then you must concede that since we know that what we observed as reality is not "nothing at all," then you must accept that something can come from absolutely nothing at all. I don't know about you, but not only does this sound illogical, I think it is logically impossible. No proposition that I have ever heard of proposes that something can come from "absolutely nothing of any kind." Present proposals of something from nothing, which I don't adhere to, refer to nothing as the Zero-Point-Field (ZPF or ZPE). This known field is believed to have far more energy than all the rest of the universe combined. For this reason the ZPF may be the farthest thing from nothing that we know of. (your quote): "..... From there we go into the whole question of how our perceptions shape reality, and I've never quite gotten a handle on that one." Reality exists aside from any understanding of it. For an understanding of reality, science and every human forms "a perspective" of reality. And there are countless logical and supportable perspectives of it. Needless to say, your or my perspective of reality could never change reality itself even though some well-known "dumbbell" scientists IMO have proposed that our sensual observations of reality can change reality itself. Instead what is actually happening IMO and opinions of others, is that at the quantum level we are not using our direct senses to observe reality, instead we use instrumentation which involves electrons and photons. As electrons and photons assist us in providing information about a quantum reaction, by contact electrons and photons actually interfere with the reaction itself and therefore change it. In such a case our "observation" or understanding of reality would in fact have nothing to do with changing reality. That is done by our instrumentation.

Yay, it;s about time humanity is turning its other cheek away from religion. I wonder how much longer it will take other countries to follow suit concerning the ditching of religious shackles? As for myself, I have notion against religion in general. Religion is like believing in the god of thunder or the Greek Gods of yore. Nothing but people spinning their wheels in a make-believe direction. You can do a lot of good in the world being a non-believer. Religious motivation to do good deeds is not the only such motivator. Religion often causes more harm than good in the name of morality.

Today our only defense against bacteria are antibiotic drugs. This link is to another form of possible treatment to kill bacteria, especially those that are resistant to antibiotics commonly called superbugs. This chemical formulation and physical form was created for the purpose of being an antibiotic treatment, link below. It is a type of man-made polymer, plastic being a prime example of such a polymer. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2016/09/13/killing.superbugs.with.star.shaped.polymers.not.antibiotics This newly created polymer type and form was created in Australia and shows great promise concerning testing in animals. This is the first formulation and form of such a polymer discovered for antibiotic treatment, but probably not the only type of polymer form possible for such treatment. This invention, and similar types of possible polymer formulations and shapes, show great promise for future antibiotic treatment as another weapon in our antibiotic arsenal, especially concerning superbugs where humanity has little defense at present.

Justus, (Your quote and question) "However, nothing indicates that energy could exist prior to mass, so that would mean that mass would would have also be present at the time energy emerged into space albeit separate from mass wouldn't it?" The only example that I am aware of where energy turns into mass is when two apposingly directed high amplitude gamma rays (similar to x-rays) interact whereby they can create an electron positron pair that stay in existence. Right now I think the energy-first model of the Big Bang may have as many supporters as those that support a beginning big bang physical entity. I am not a fan of either version since I believe the Big Bang model is almost entirely wrong. In any event I'm not a fan of any energy-first model since IMO all energy has as its source a substance of some kind. So accordingly the zero-point energy field would have at its source the interactions and motions of a physical substantive field of some kind. My own model hypothetically explains this entity and its characteristics in some detail providing related reasoning and asserted evidence for the proposal.

(embolden added) According to my model the universe never came into physical existence. This may be a difficult concept for some people to understand. This is because everything that we know of had a cause, something that existed before it. But according to this model, matter, time and space only has had a limited time to their existence; there was no such thing as time before their existence. This would be because the changes perpetuated by this beginning entity created time and space resulting in our concepts which now define them. Substance with potential pre-existed both time and space yet this substance accordingly had no source cause. One could say it pre-existed separate from time and space for an instant. An instant of time is like a photograph in which no changes are occurring. They are just reference points within time which science call time frames. In this case this instant would be the beginning time frame and reference point. If you can understand this then you can understand the concept of the beginning of the universe according to the model I'm explaining and the related model of the Big Bang beginning having the same concepts. Accordingly there never could have been a time before the beginning entity any more than there could have been a change prior to the first change. In this context the word "before" would have no meaning. The beginning entity by its first reaction to its own innate internal potential energy, accordingly created time and space by its own action. We can now equate an interval of change as being the quintessential element that defines time. By a change in form the volume which matter first occupied also would have changed. Space can be defined as the volumes which matter occupies. When there are two separate substantive entities space can be defined as the volume these entities occupy, as well the distance between them. For three or more entities we could define space as the volume which they collectively occupy which encompasses them, their internal space and the distances between them. There would be no such thing as space, time or gravity outside the confines and influences of substance, matter and field, since the existence of substantive matter defines time, space, and gravity.

(embolden added) (your quote): The problem is that this is a description of how we measure time, not a description of how time is generated. Yes, I agree. As I discussed above, the universe had to have potential energy in its beginning for it to evolve into something else, and for the human concept of time as an interval of change to be envisioned and defined. So the universe accordingly had to start with a dimensional substance (or just energy in some models) of some elemental sort, and for time to continue in this way matter must have had, and continues to have potential energy within it. In my own model this is a type of winding of fermions. Fermions are the atomic particles which have spin, protons, electrons, and neutrons. In this model spin is not just a characteristic of these particles, it is what they actually do, just like a top. This is the same way that physicists understand and observe atomic and molecular physical spin, but speculate as to its cause without any consensus understanding of it. In my own model these particles both wind up and unwind at the same time. The unwinding torsion of fermions accordingly is the physical characteristic and dimension of matter that generates time, a kind of particle torsion. As to modern physics there is no consensus as to what time is or what drives it. In my own model all is relatively simple. But as to possible observations of this, electrons, for instance, are far too small to look at any internal parts. In modern physics they deal with them as zero-dimensional point particles. No internal parts of them or solid surface has ever been observed because of their infinitesimal size. But their description as point particles is all the understanding that is necessary for their calculations concerning electron interactions with other particles.

I understand. A type of cyclical motion, a frequency cycle, is how we presently measure time using an atomic clock. Cyclical motion is based upon atomic spin. Today cesium clocks measure frequency, cycles of spin, to an accuracy of 2-3 parts in 10 to the 14th power. This is 0.00000000000002 Hz (cycles).; this corresponds to a time measurement accuracy of 2 nanoseconds per day, or one second in 1,400,000 years. It is the most accurate measurement and determination of a unit of time, a second (time), that mankind has yet devised. Finite of course means limited time. Beginning means the start of time, but as far as we know in physics there will be no ending of time. Time is simply a measurement of change of some kind like a sun dial, hour glass, water clock etc. The most accurate measurement of time to date is a cesium clock. I'm not too fond of Einstein's space-time idea but it is a good concept for his equations of General Relativity. The idea is that location is not definite, its only relative to ones surroundings. So ones location is therefore x,y,z, at any particular point in time relative to your surroundings since everything has relative motion including your surroundings. So x,y,z stands for the coordinates length, width, and height relative to a defined point of origin. We add 't' to it becomes x,y,z,t. This is the location of something in space relative to a point of origin at a point in time. As time changes so does the values of the distances x,y,z in space. This is the essence of the meaning of space-time. This is all simple stuff that most people could understand if it is properly explained. Hope that's what I did . I think this stuff is poorly explained online, for the most part. If there is a part of it that doesn't make sense to you, ask questions if you are interested in further explanations. Again I equate the human concept of time to change, nothing more than this. Looking up the common definition of time one sees that time is something that a clock measures. I don't think physics does a better job of explaining it. The problem in physics is that there is no consensus understanding of the essence of time.