Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:01 pm

For example, mid-wavelength microwaves can penetrate dust, rain, clouds, etc, but bounce off of solid surfaces and are received again by an antenna. It is very difficult to get an antenna to resonate with any other frequency, so of course light will not interfere with the reading in the least.

Vast Ancient River System Discovered Under The Sahara Desert
via iflscience .com

While today the Sahara is a dry, sandy, mostly inhospitable place, this wasn’t always the case. Evidence from cave paintings made thousands of years ago show the region was once teeming with wild animals, from hippos to giraffes, and that ancient farmers even raised their cattle there. New evidence shows how this lush and verdant ecosystem may have been maintained, as researchers have discovered the remains of an ancient river system buried beneath the desert and lost to the sands of time.

Stretching for over 500 kilometers (300 miles) from the middle of the Sahara to the coast of Mauritania in West Africa, the river would have been fed by water from the Atlas Mountains to the north and Hoggar Mountains to the east. In fact, the river system was so vast that if it were still flowing today, it would be ranked as the 12th largest drainage basin on Earth. The researchers, who have and have published their study in Nature Communications, believe that it once fed the proposed Tamanrasett River.



A map of the river systems and their basins associated with northern Africa, showing the ancient Tamanrasett River, top left. Skonieczny et al. 2015


The possibility that a river system once existed in the region was first hinted at around a decade ago, following the discovery of fine river sediment and a deep underwater canyon carved into the continental shelf off the coast of Mauritania. However, direct evidence needed to confirm this was lacking. This time around, the scientists used orbital radar satellite imagery, which allowed them to take images of the geology of the Sahara meters below the sandy surface using microwaves. From this data, the scientists could see the ancient riverbeds of the waterway, which incredibly matched up with the canyon off the coast.


Now, wrt antenna tech, every one please go slowly.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:56 am

Brigit Bara wrote:does your theory forbid the use of antennae of certain lengths for certain frequencies?

Au contraire, it demands it; by virtue of the "fact" that the vectoral geometry of optics is symmetric with respect to sender/agent and receiver/receptor of light. Symmetry is the basis of resonance. Light signals produced at greater angles to the CLOS require a "longer" antenna or receptive apparatus [such as rods and cones]. "Longer" is accomplished also by the use of a wider arc shape, since the angle of reception along with signal generation frequency determines the distinction of the signal.
Instantaneity is permissible or achievable only as a consequence of the unified field, ie. a single field connects the receiver and centroidal agent [of the given field]. A field altered at the source/centroid is instantaneously altered everywhere as it is fundamentally a single "object" [so-to-speak].
The EM spectrum model [as you illustrated] differs from reality in that the spectrum, as may be observed most fundamentally by the employment of a spectroscope, ends at the "edge" of indigo. When observed via a prism, the violet region of an ostensible edge occurs on the dark side of the edge, not on the light side. This is the border of a new spectral distribution [ie. starting over with red], but the viewing apparatus disallows the extended spectral pattern by nullification of the vectors of the pressure gradient. In a diffraction grating or simple pinhole/slit device, the entire light field is vectorially imaged by the pinhole which orders the rays angularly, yielding spectral redundancy that is unexplainable by your EM diagram. Likewise atmospheric halos and rainbows are produced by a multiplicity of "prisms" allowing the redundant spectral array to appear plainly, and in full contradiction of the EM spectrum diagram.
Longitudinal light action between field centroid and peripheral observer, a member of the unified field, is instantaneous according to the CPFT.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:07 pm

by webolife » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:56 am

Light signals produced at greater angles to the CLOS require a "longer" antenna or receptive apparatus [such as rods and cones]. "Longer" is accomplished also by the use of a wider arc shape, since the angle of reception along with signal generation frequency determines the distinction of the signal.


I checked the length of the rods and cones for comparison with light waves:

"the rod inner segments are 2 microns and the cone's about 6 microns in diameter in peripheral human retina. In the fovea, however, where there are only cone photoreceptors, the most central cones are even thinner than the average rod at about 1.5 microns diameter"

"The range of visible em waves consists of the narrow portion of the spectrum, from 0.4 microns (blue) to 0.7 microns (red)."

Is that what you were pointing out?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:51 am

Brigit Bara wrote:I checked the length of the rods and cones for comparison with light waves:
"the rod inner segments are 2 microns and the cone's about 6 microns in diameter in peripheral human retina. In the fovea, however, where there are only cone photoreceptors, the most central cones are even thinner than the average rod at about 1.5 microns diameter"
"The range of visible em waves consists of the narrow portion of the spectrum, from 0.4 microns (blue) to 0.7 microns (red)."

Is that what you were pointing out?


No, since I disavow the wave nature of light.
Rods and cones are a very interesting study in biological antennae, however.
A. Let's look first at the rod---
The discernment of dark and light is a simple matter of unidirectional or vectoral force [in the ideal]. Pressure toward the source [acc to CPFT] produces the sensation of light, while the relative lack of that centropic pressure is observed to be dark. The job of rods is primarily threefold, related of course directly to their structure:
1. As antenna for direct light pressure, rods detect no color, resonating only with the intensity of the signal at the direct line of sight. Thus, the "rodlike" structure is well suited to this LOS response. The LOS are to be distinguished from the central line of sight [CLOS] at the focal point of observation.
2. As motion detectors, the rods' peripheral concentration on the retina allows for quick recognition of not only motion but silhouette-ish form in peripheral vision. Subtle changes of color would be distracting to the quick acquisition of motion, a perception linked to survival. Rods nearer the fovea enhance the detection of detail particularly that elicited by shadowed/illuminated edges and light/dark edge transitions...
3. ...which enables them to be great for night vision. Observing objects at night, it provides much more detail to pan around the center of vision, allowing the rods to detect minute changes in the dark/light patterns not available in direct on viewing. I learned this as a young astronomer when I with naked eye discovered the rings of Saturn , and also observed the North American nebula late at night on a camping trip.
B. Cones, on the other hand, are better suited to the detection of the "conic" pressure gradient that surrounds the CLOS [central line of sight]. Cones are arranged and shape for color perception and [thus] detail in direct viewing at the focus of vision, being concentrated in the macula/fovea of the retina. A cone's broad "head" is able to elicit the pressure gradient about the CLOS, while it's internal structure transmits just portions of the gradient through the narrow "neck" of the receptor cell toward the brain. Thus some cones send signals from the "blue receiving" surface of the cone, some green, some red, etc. The density and distribution of the cones enables us to distinguish a million hues and amazing detail, particularly at the macula/fovea. The additional curvature/indentation of the fovea provides not only parabolic concentration of light but also the wider arc suitable [as an antenna] for the distinguishing of the pressure gradient about the CLOS.

Significantly the photoreceptors of the retina are positioned pointing toward the back rather than front of the eye, which is much more simply explained by the finding [ of the CPFT] that the light vectors are centropic, in the direction of/toward the light source/field centroid, rather than as material or pressure from the direction of the source.

Now there's a creation story for you...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:13 pm

That's really interesting -- hold that thought on biological antennae, please web.

First, if light is an instantaneous pressure gradient, is there a medium?

Is the sun the centroid in this system?

Which of these definitions of pressure is closest to what you mean?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

In the em spectrum, do you say that radio waves are waves? You seem to acknowledge that radio waves can bounce off of a target and return to the receiver, which involves time. And short wave guys bounce signals off of the ionosphere. Are x- and gamma waves waves? Are you saying that it is just light that does not have a wave nature?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby webolife » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:26 pm

Material waves of the fluid and/or acoustic nature are well known and well covered elsewhere, so I'll not delve here.
Radio, on the other hand actually serves as a model for centrepiece vector action. Vectors, as a matter of symmetry, are reflectable, refractable, and absorbable, as well as the ideal fundament of pressure, as a direct model of force. The direct or central line of light is accompanied by a gradient of pressure which is elicited by its vectoral ordering via pinhole, slit, edge, beamsplitter, diffraction grating, lenses and prisms. That manifestation is the redundant spectral array of red to blue we can see everywhere we look, once we know it's there. At the basic level light/radio signals are the result of rapidly vibrating or spinning "particles" (eg. electrons) so they are detected and distinguished by the characteristic frequencies that give rise to our oscilloscope graphics, and lead us to the belief that some "material" (as photons) is waving through the vacuous medium of space. Worse, average and even professional folk talk of radio as "airwaves" further perpetuating what I will call the myth of radio waves. In reality the best description of light action has always been the optical ray diagram. Neither the particle nor wave model allows us to understand the images we observe as the real universe of objects. There is no paradox of uncertainty or of time in the CPFT.
My reason for marking radio as the ideal model for light vector action is the universal acknowledgment of their invisibility, along with our daily/hourly/minute by minute experience of them by use if resonant devices, attuned not by wavelength but by frequency, and distinguished by the fluctuation of the pressure gradient which accompanies each "signal"... of course all light is invisible, despite the misrepresentation of the EM Spectrum model, until the light pressure is detected by a resonant detector, whether retina or antennae of our own design.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Sithri » Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:50 am

As for creation, why would the universe need 'creating' anyways? If it is eternal in extent of space and time, then it would only require a sustainer, and the universe itself would pull itself up by its own bootstraps with this sustainer. Infinity is real! The further we view into space, the more and more objects we see, which are more and more distant and older simply by the fact of photographic zooming-in. Why couldn't this go on forever? And if there is a creator, then who created him, and if he doesn't have a creator, then why does he exist? The big bang is creatio ex nihilo, and so is God. So, any creation theory must account for this problem of God's or the Universes' beginning being without precedent.
Sithri
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:57 pm

I don't mean to burden any one with a lot of reading, but we did talk about these questions earlier in the thread.

The thesis here is that while the BB universe is in violation of the First Law (that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed), the Steady State universe is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

Either way relies on breaking laws of physics and either model involves a miracle, or miracles.

The real source of the Big Bang model [is] the scientific materialists, and rather than blame the failings of the scientific materialists on "religion," it would be far more instructive to look at the historical failings of the materialistic scientists. For they are many.

I have made a general case, but in the end, recognizing the failings of the scientific materialists is a task that not many are able, or maybe not many are willing, to do. It's too horrifying.
Last edited by Brigit Bara on Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:37 pm

webolife says,
"At the basic level light/radio signals are the result of rapidly vibrating or spinning "particles" (eg. electrons) so they are detected and distinguished by the characteristic frequencies that give rise to our oscilloscope graphics...."


Ah, good. Now back to biological antennae! (: How do you suppose the frequencies of color are read by the human eye?

In my view, if we look at the way that the human eye manipulates light so that it can be collected, adjusted, focused, and transcribed into an impulse which can travel through the optic nerve, I think we will not be far from understanding the nature of light.

So after the light is focused by the crystal lens (waves?), and has traveled through the medium, it strikes the rods and cones.

The cones are filled with photoreceptors, which are folded(?) proteins.*

Depending on the wavelength of the light striking the photoreceptor molecules, from ~.4 microns to ~.7 microns, the protein alters itself.

This causes the protein to send a particular electrical signal, which is able to travel to the occipital lobe.**

They are either responding to the wavelengths or the frequencies of the various colors by altering their configuration. This reconfiguration sends the electrical impulse to the visual cortex, which then experiences it as sight. So these are the biological antennae for light. Whatever their submicroscopic shape is, that must be an ideal antenna.

Whether by frequency or wavelength, this is very fine-tuned antennae technology, wouldn't you say?


*ref: "Photopsins (also known as Cone opsins) are the photoreceptor proteins found in the cone cells of the retina that are the basis of color vision."

**ref: "Opsins are Gn-x protein-coupled receptors of the retinylidene protein family. Isomerization of 11-cis-retinal into all-trans-retinal by light induces a conformational change in the protein that activates photopsin and promotes epigenetic changes." "George Wald received the 1967 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his experiments in the 1950s that showed the difference in absorbance by these photopsins."
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Sithri » Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:12 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:I don't mean to burden any one with a lot of reading, but we did talk about these questions earlier in the thread.

The thesis here is that while the BB universe is in violation of the First Law (that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed), the Steady State universe is in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy).

Either way relies on breaking laws of physics and either model involves a miracle, or miracles.

The real source of the Big Bang model [is] the scientific materialists, and rather than blame the failings of the scientific materialists on "religion," it would be far more instructive to look at the historical failings of the materialistic scientists. For they are many.

I have made a general case, but in the end, recognizing the failings of the scientific materialists is a task that not many are able, or maybe not many are willing, to do. It's too horrifying.


An eternal infinite in space universe doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics just as much as animal homeostasis does. It only means that the universe is either a closed or open system, and as far as we know, that is impossible to prove because in mathematics infinity can be a cardinality, or a limit.

A limit would mean that it's an open system, ever-expanding, even though it is infinitely large, while a cardinality would mean that it is closed--yet infinite itself! I tend to think of infinity as a cardinality due to the fact that infinity itself can contain infinity--to infinity... so, the ultimate infinity is the cardinality of the Continuum, or C.
Sithri
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:10 pm

by Sithri
An eternal infinite in space universe doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics just as much as animal homeostasis does. It only means that the universe is either a closed or open system, and as far as we know, that is impossible to prove


It is impossible to confirm, observe, measure, or disprove a steady state universe that is either open or closed, agreed. In this it is not a scientific theory. This is a just criticism of the BB also.

In my view, no one in a scientific frame of mind, upon reflection, would make a prediction that the universe will never grow old, fade, break down, or suffer futility and decay in cosmological time. There is not enough supporting evidence or knowledge about the circuit which is sustaining the heat, light, motion and possibly self-replication of these beautiful cosmic structures.

But a lot of people -- very fine people, esp. around here -- appear to argue that the Steady State Universe is very likely or Probable. It is not enough to make a metaphysical decision about the possible temporal and spacial qualities of the physical universe, and support it by indicating it is Probable. That does not meet the standard of either a scientific theory or empirical evidence. It is a nice idea, tho.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Sithri » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:01 am

Brigit Bara wrote:by Sithri
An eternal infinite in space universe doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics just as much as animal homeostasis does. It only means that the universe is either a closed or open system, and as far as we know, that is impossible to prove


It is impossible to confirm, observe, measure, or disprove a steady state universe that is either open or closed, agreed. In this it is not a scientific theory. This is a just criticism of the BB also.

In my view, no one in a scientific frame of mind, upon reflection, would make a prediction that the universe will never grow old, fade, break down, or suffer futility and decay in cosmological time. There is not enough supporting evidence or knowledge about the circuit which is sustaining the heat, light, motion and possibly self-replication of these beautiful cosmic structures.

But a lot of people -- very fine people, esp. around here -- appear to argue that the Steady State Universe is very likely or Probable. It is not enough to make a metaphysical decision about the possible temporal and spacial qualities of the physical universe, and support it by indicating it is Probable. That does not meet the standard of either a scientific theory or empirical evidence. It is a nice idea, tho.


I fully agree. I tend to think that the universe is both open and closed. As we see the distant stars and galaxies we are basically 'opening' the ' infinite-yet-closed' universe. The further we see, the more open the universe is, yet the lesser we view, the smaller the universe is. If we say the universe is open, it simply means that we cannot see infinity, because infinity is taken as a limit, while if we say the universe is closed, we are assuming that it is infinite, in cardinality. These two views aren't contradictory, although the aspect of the open universe does depend upon observation.
Sithri
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:51 pm

by Sithri
I fully agree. I tend to think that the universe is both open and closed. As we see the distant stars and galaxies we are basically 'opening' the ' infinite-yet-closed' universe. The further we see, the more open the universe is, yet the lesser we view, the smaller the universe is. If we say the universe is open, it simply means that we cannot see infinity, because infinity is taken as a limit, while if we say the universe is closed, we are assuming that it is infinite, in cardinality. These two views aren't contradictory, although the aspect of the open universe does depend upon observation



If the red shift does not indicate anything near the distances reported, the visible universe is fairly local.



~~~~
I am not suggesting the future heat death of the universe, just to make that clear.
I did find one teenager who is counting on it, though--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8WPyC48uX8
dur. 15 seconds
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Sithri » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:05 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:by Sithri
I fully agree. I tend to think that the universe is both open and closed. As we see the distant stars and galaxies we are basically 'opening' the ' infinite-yet-closed' universe. The further we see, the more open the universe is, yet the lesser we view, the smaller the universe is. If we say the universe is open, it simply means that we cannot see infinity, because infinity is taken as a limit, while if we say the universe is closed, we are assuming that it is infinite, in cardinality. These two views aren't contradictory, although the aspect of the open universe does depend upon observation



If the red shift does not indicate anything near the distances reported, the visible universe is fairly local.



~~~~
I am not suggesting the future heat death of the universe, just to make that clear.
I did find one teenager who is counting on it, though--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8WPyC48uX8
dur. 15 seconds


It certainly isn't local, such as galaxies being so far away, however we can't know because most standard candles are based upon certain assumptions, and I'm fairly certain that redshift isn't an indicator of distance. I may be wrong, though.
Sithri
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Why do you say the BB is a "Biblical" creation story?

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:31 am

by Sithri » Sat Feb 09, 2019 11:05 pm

It certainly isn't local, such as galaxies being so far away, however we can't know because most standard candles are based upon certain assumptions, and I'm fairly certain that redshift isn't an indicator of distance. I may be wrong, though.


To rephrase and reframe it properly, wrt eternity, billions of light years are local.

Which leads to the question, "What is the structure of the observable universe if the redsift distance is removed?"

If you remove the redshift disance and trace the "cosmic filaments that connect celestial formations with bridges of luminous material", "[t]hose structures could mean that the visible Universe is a braided filament of electric charge that reaches from the Virgo supercluster to the Fornax supercluster across billions of light-years." ~Stephen Smith

ref: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/0 ... -part-two/
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest