 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2012.03.18, 0800 Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim Universal Time – Who created us? Why are we here? These are questions that vex every intelligent, thinking person. Because the universe reflects the Order of its Creator, any explanation of the origin of the universe, to be correct , must be compatible with science. Yet, by definition, science is constrained to physical laws within the universe. Is that the proper place to find an Origin that transcends the physical universe, that transcends–and created–the physical laws? Doesn't this define the limits of science (including physicists) in this quest?
As a long-time member of Mensa eligible for more elite such organizations, I'm not intimidated by physicists or mathematicians. Increasingly, physicists seem to converge with Kabbalists. Both, to support and defend their assertions, simply fabricate fictional worlds and assume how they work. The public should realize that when their theories disagree with each other, somebody's wrong (empirically, it's likely both are still wrong)! The more responsible physicists and cosmologists tell you that up-front.
 |
 Antikythera analog computer that calculated and displayed positions of the seven then-known planets along with varying orbital speeds and moon phases; ca. B.C.E. 205 (!!!) See also Computer Tomographic X-rays that show 30 bronze gears |
Too, some physicists deliberately mislead the public by their calculated misuse of terms (physicists cannot plead such blatant ignorance as not knowing the difference between terms). For example, physicists today argue that science in the Middle Ages, by the "scientific revelation" that the sun was the center of the solar system instead of the earth, as the Christian Church taught, disproved God. Are physicists unable to discern between the Christian Church and the Singularity-Creator? Yet, it had been known that the earth was round, not a flat island under a "firmament" dome, since Eratosthenes (BCE 276 – ca. BCE 195) – before the Maccabees!
One of the most critical problems is that scientists still perceive "God" as Church (synagogue or mosque) primitivism; and that is an ignorance on the part of the scientists! Contrary to some scientists' propaganda sewage, science disproved the human view of the Church, not a Transcendent Singularity-Creator.
In the same tradition of misleading the public, Stephen Hawking (known among physicists as a greater celebrity than physicist) asserted that, just as tiny particles can appear in our universe out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing, entire universes could do that. However, the flaw in this thinking is that he, too, has misled the public by deliberately using the wrong term (or, perhaps , those who quote him have substituted the wrong term). Hawking's "nothing" (quantum vacuum) is no more than yet another different dimension which is, so far, undetectable by us and, therefore, inaccessible to us. Such particles do not appear from nothing or disappear into nothing. Hawking's theory turns out to be a sophomoric rewording of other theories.
Astronomer Laura Danly of the Griffith Observatory points out how finely tuned our universe is, with fundamental constants so sensitive that if they were only minutely different, the universe would not exist. If they were changed by one part in a quintillion (18 zeroes) – equal to one grain of sand out of all of the world's beaches – 1 grain more or less of matter and either matter or antimatter, respectively, would have consumed the universe and we wouldn't be here. If the "perfectly calibrated" Big Stretch-Apart (the Biblical term describing creation – inaccurately, "Big Bang") would have produced so much as one grain of sand more, or one grain of sand less, it would have wrecked the universe. "That's how precise things had to be for us to be here."
Further, if one of these constants was off by such a minute part, matter would either have spread evenly across the universe, precluding the formation of galaxies, solar systems and planets and allowing matter to interact with antimatter, obliterating the universe, or the universe would have expanded in clumps too large, in which case the universe would have collapsed back into itself and "unbanged," ceasing to exist.
Even then, life could not have evolved without the complex nuclear reaction within stars that converted helium and hydrogen into heavier elements like carbon.
To physicists, fine-tuning suggests a controlling mechanism rather than the simplistic notion of most religionists of direct Divine micromanagement. However, precluding the simplistic human notion of Divine micromanagement with a control mechanism is no contradiction of a Singularity-Creator of the entirety. Rather, it implies a more Intelligent Designer.
Physicists' Theory of a Multiple Universe in Hyperspace – When Kabbalists need worlds, or spheres, or fireballs, or orbs of light to complete their imaginary worlds, they just make them up. "Assuming" enough universes that ours becomes a statistical likelihood is no different from the Kabbalists! Moreover, making up all of these fictional "possible" worlds and universes merely defers the question of creation to the origin of the Multiple Universe, pushing the question over the horizon to defer and evade it. This exercise is a childish deferral rationalizing: push it off the radar so we won't have to "deal with it." Just make up stuff to bolster the theory and grind the axe of your agenda. Note that agenda-driven assuming is the opposite of science. If Kabbalists cannot do it, neither can physicists or other scientists. It seems to me that we may be in danger of yet another impending Dark Era, where consensus of beliefs displaces evidence and fact – especially historical fact. Wikipedia is a stunning example of displacing fact with consensus of popular beliefs. The encyclopedia no longer represents what is factual, documented, demonstrated, proven and true, but, rather, what public consensus votes and edits "truth" –their beliefs – to be; what is, in the opinion of the digitally endowed, politically correct becomes transformed into the new "truth" that "everybody knows."
Other dimensions and String (Grand Unified) Theory (of Everything) – Strings are "assumed" to be the "fundamental building blocks of all matter" – like quarks before them, atoms before that, molecules before that, etc. ad nauseam. One wonders if physicists will ever overcome their arrogance. This theory is merely the product of "assuming" universes to fill the theorized seven additional dimensions required to make the String Theory viable; more imaginative assumptions to bolster earlier assumptions; that do nothing more than defer the question of ultimate origin over the horizon yet again. Yet, multiple dimensions, too, must all have an origin. Pushing the question over the horizon is a childish exercise; but one must concede: such silliness does continue to fool mental children; particularly a generation that insists on instant bliss, whether from drugs, sex or the TV. To such, complexity is an anathema.
Eleven-Dimensional "Bulk Universe" – provides that other dimensions, undetectable by and inaccessible to us, may exist in the same space as we do. While it may be a bit confusing, other times, for example, may exist (present tense, not "have existed") in our space but are existing in a different time dimension. In other words, Mosh•ëhꞋ and the Israelis may be praying every Shab•âtꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ , merely in a different time dimension we don't know how to detect or access. Such dimensions can only be accessible mathematically – and spiritually.
The hypothesis that the "Big Bang" was the result of "membranes" of "multiple universes" crashing together is yet another deferral rationalization that attempts to push the question back over the horizon. Then the origin of the "membranes" must be explained. There's no end to deferral rationalizing; it permits the question to be repeatedly deferred forever. They apparently presume that mental children will never look up from their addiction to instant gratification to realize the ruse.
Clifford Johnson, Univ. of Southern California: By use of particle accelerators, "We can find the effects of those other dimensions by interacting with particles that may be able to move into those other dimensions." As I've already pointed out, first, the particles have not been shown to originate from, or arrive at, any destination outside the universe. Second, every person's nëphꞋ ësh, consciousness and sentience all operate outside of the physical universe. (Consider a non-physical idea. It doesn't exist in the physical universe. This is an interaction beyond the universe.) Yet, these haven't helped these great physicists relate one nano-iota. Indeed, physicists have overlooked this most fundamental point altogether! Could this allow us to sense Av•râ•hâmꞋ ? Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋ ëkh? RibꞋ i Yәho•shuꞋ a? To pray with Mosh•ëhꞋ and the Israelis every Shab•âtꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ ? To relate to the Ultimate Singularity-Creator? Absolutely! It's the only way!
Physicists hypothesize that particle accelerators allow them to break down matter to the basic building blocks that existed at the first moments after creation. However, this is an incredibly fragile assumption. Physicists fail to inform you that they have no firm basis to assume that the laws of physics beyond the universe, at the time of creation, was identical to the laws of physics after the creation of, and within the created, universe. There is no scientific basis for assuming this like Kabbalists! What scientists today glean from particle accelerators likely (not definitely) tells us about physics today and, perhaps, very close to the point of the "Big Stretch-Apart," but not necessarily what laws governed at the initial moment of the "Big Stretch-Apart."
The documentary uses a video graphic of two model cars racing in opposite directions around a race track and then collide to illustrate what goes on in a particle accelerator. The physicists then "explain" that, just as examination of the parts that flew off of the model cars at the crash can tell us what they're made of, the particle accelerator tells us how the universe was made. Examine this carefully. Contrast "what they're made of" versus "how it is made." In fact, reassembling the broken parts of the models is not how those model cars were made. Using a computer simulation to "uncrash" the model cars would give a false picture of how they were made. Colored plastic fragments didn't simply fly together, as an "uncrash" (reverse motion) computer simulation would show, to produce model cars. The chemical components were mixed by humans and poured into an extruder that molded them. The other pieces were also manufactured by humans and then assembled—absolutely unlike "uncrashing" the pieces in a computer simulation. Similarly, using computer simulations based on "uncrashing" particles smashed in accelerators to "unbang" the "Big Bang" (itself a problematic theory rife with contradictions, see The Big Stretch-Apart) is certain to give a false notion of what happened. No matter how much energy a particle accelerator can be built to generate, it may only be giving us a clearer picture of how things are put together now and a clearer false picture of the "Big Bang" unbanged!
There is no surprise that everything in nature could be explained by the laws of nature. On the other hand, the proposition that nature could have created itself before it existed is conspicuously oxymoronic. Berkeley Prof. of Astronomy Alexei Filippenko seems to agree.
The reasoning that the universe had an origin beyond our universe implies not only a Singularity-Creator (however circuitously deferred), but also an existence beyond our universe, existence beyond physical life—consciousness, sentience and the nëphꞋ ësh.
Scientists say that they find no "mark" of a Creator encoded in the binary math of the universe. However, that is because they invent magical universes, for which there is zero evidence, to defend their speculations and postulations. If one constrains oneself to the evidence and real world, then statistics of such refined orderliness defies coincidence and dictates an Intelligent Designer. Subtleness and mechanisms are expected; they are not contradictions of an Ultimate Singularity-Creator.
The "No Boundary" Theory – Essentially, physicist Stephen Hawking asserted that the universe began as a 2-dimensional grid – with the same laws of physics that govern our 3 dimensional universe (a requirement for one to explain why the same laws of physics applied at the inception of the "Big Stretch-Apart") – in which time didn't exist. Ergo, he asserted, there was no "before" the "Big Stretch-Apart." However, time IS a component of 2 dimensional space just as it is of 3 dimensional space. The "No Boundary" model necessarily assumes 2-dimensional matter and universe that "curved around itself" to form the 3 dimensional universe at the "Big Stretch-Apart." The population (matter, antimatter, energy, etc.) of a 2-dimensional universe, being identical to our 3-dimensional edition, necessarily implies time -- how far apart is one object from another, how much TIME to traverse that distance (even in only 2 dimensions) at a given velocity? Hawking didn't "explain" a timeless origin. Rather, this is nothing more than yet another futile exercise in deferring origin to the origin of the previous 2-dimensional universe; pushing the question over the horizon yet again. Sophomoric. In fact, I invented the theory of timeless origin when I was in elementary school to explain the existence of Singularity-Creator: "Time is a component of the physical universe. Ergo, before the creation of the universe there was no time. Therefore, the Singularity-Creator could have gone back and created Himself." Many minds have crashed into the railing and burned trying to round that corner. (Of course, it's more complicated. Timelessness eventually and inexorably implies that there is nothing, and has never been anything, except now-existence. To oversimplify, now-existence is… and is all there has ever been. We – now-existence – are like boulders at different points in a stream with life experience – time – streaming past us. Removing time, the stream of water, from that equation doesn't eliminate the boulders.)
Time – I suspect that scientists misunderstand time. Time is an inescapable intrinsic element of the definition of any, and every, dimension. Even one dimension (a line) cannot exist without points (not necessarily in space; perhaps there may be non-space dimensions) along it, distances between points, direction, velocity – and the time inherent in those definitions. Thus, each node, of each dimension, has its unique time-point tag. In our 3-dimensional universe, we are only fooled that there is a given time now. While this ordinarily suffices for most purposes, our "now" comprises x, y and z axes time-point tags. Thus, your time is defined by your point in space along the three axes with each axis tagged by the same, constantly incrementing and synchronized, time tag. If any one of those times differ on their axis then you're either somewhere else or sometime else. If the three time tags don't match, it's undefined. While this constitutes a negligible difference for people standing face-to-face, these differences are more easily recognized when two people are speaking to each other in different time zones. Thus, there is no travel through time (alone), only through what can be expressed by these three axes with their time tags (and no one knows what that would be or whether it's possible). Accordingly, eleven dimensions of the String Theory would each have their own time tags, and so on.
Many mathematical equations describe myriads of possible universes and worlds. What is it that "breathes fire" into one particular set of equations? Whose equations are right? First of all, we have no evidence that all equations represent some aspect of some actual universe. Such worlds and universes are entirely speculation, deferral assumptions based on the empirical experience that math often points us to new discoveries. But the flaw is that math has not proven to always represent some aspect of some actual universe. Furthermore, that is not provable. It is destined to remain speculation. Does the square root of -4 represent some world or some universe? "Well, maybe" you say? And maybe some distant planet is made of strawberry jello, too.
What cannot be proven otherwise does not prove it's converse (silence is not disproof). Learn to spot the fallacy immediately. "Prove that no distant planet is made of strawberry jello! Can't? Therefore (!), some distant planet is made of strawberry jello." That logical fallacy is routine among religious arguers of all sides. (Prove that the Bible is true. Can't? See, the Bible is false. Prove that the Exodus happened. Can't? Then it's false. Prove that Yehoshua existed. Can't? Then he's fiction. Prove that Mosh•ëhꞋ or Dâ•widꞋ ha-MëlꞋ ëkh existed. Can't? Then they're fiction. To bring this more up-to-date, Prove the Ya•a•qovꞋ and Yәho•shuꞋ a ossuaries are those of the family of RibꞋ i Yәho•shuꞋ a! Can't? See, the ossuaries are fake and the characters are fictional!" The list is endless.)
So, what is it that "breathes fire" into one set of equations? We exist in one! We witness this set. That is a set, perhaps the set, of equations that work!
Question deriving from the possibility of life elsewhere – would they recognize the same Singularity-Creator? Or different Gods (how?) like our ancestors and today's idolaters? This question is so trivial it's silly. The recognition of a Singularity-Creator is motivated and governed by sentient mathematical logic: tracing back to the origins of the universe and its Singularity-Creator. If another world were as intelligent, or more intelligent, than us then they would be at least as far along in recognizing the Singularity-Creator of the universe as we are. They would likely have a different Name, due to a different language, but that would make no difference. Moreover, if they are as intelligent, or more intelligent, than we are, they, too, would recognize that this Singularity-Creator is "Existence"; equating in their language to the Hebrew Tetragrammaton based on logical reasoning regardless of where in the universe, or even a different dimension or universe, they originate. Contact with aliens would have negligible impact on our most advanced "religion," the Nәtzâr•imꞋ because we are the sole "religion" based on mathematical logic. At most, we might each add new information – depth, additional color and familiarity with the Singularity-Creator -– to the other.
Could aliens have created the universe? This is the silliest of all hypotheses and shouldn't be claimed by any scientist. The question is merely a rephrasing of the earlier question of whether nature could create itself, evading and deferring the question: then who created the aliens? The only thing sillier is spending millions on listening for aliens who are millions of light years away. In this universe, they originated approximately the same time as we did and, therefore, are likely more or less about the same level of progress and technology. If they signal us, say, a century ago, then we should start listening for them a few million years from now when their (hypothetical) signal could reach us.
The logical conclusion, that an expanding universe had to have had a beginning, predates physicists. But it is also true that, in "assumed," speculated alternate meta-universes of physicists fertile imagination, any changing universe, even if it isn't expanding, must have had a beginning that brought it into existence. Like it or not, everything in our universe, which constrains physical laws (and, therefore, the rational reasoning of physicists) implies that every effect is a reaction to a cause. The same must hold with any speculated or assumed (fictional) shrinking universes.
Deferral, inventing an ever-increasing number of "gods" between us and the Singularity-Creator, is also known as idolatry. Determination to know and relate to the original Singularity-Creator is Monotheism. Av•râ•hâmꞋ figured that out millennia ago. Scientists today have come so far since the Middle Ages – edging past Eratosthenes, approaching the revelation of Av•râ•hâmꞋ and all. 
 |
|
 |