Intelligent Beginning

[Nonson]

The lead-in to this post is on Russia.com.



THE TEN DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE

Ever since Theodore Franz Kaluza had proposed a five dimensional unified field theory to combine Einstein▓s theory of relativity with Maxwell▓s electro-magnetic theory around 1920, the physicists have been inspired to consider theories which attempt at unifying the fundamental forces in multi-dimensional universes. There is a great deal of excitement at present about superstring theories which can possibly unify all of the fundamental forces into the TOE. A somewhat detailed excerpt from Kaku and Thompson may be helpful here to explain which way the cosmologic theorization and speculation is proceeding at the present time. According to them (5), ⌠..there were many gaps in Einstein▓s theory. Why did the universe explode? What happened before the Big Bang? Theologians as well as scientists have for years realized the incompleteness of the Big Bang theory, because it fails to explain the origin and the nature of the Big Bang itself. Incredibly, the superstring theory predicts what happened before the Big Bang. According to superstrings, the universe originally existed in ten dimensions┘. However, because the universe was unstable in ten dimensions, it ▒cracked▓ into two pieces, with a small, four dimensional universe peeling off from the rest of the universe┘ If the theory is true, it means that our universe actually has a ▒sister universe▓ that co-exists with our universe. It also means that the original fissioning of our universe was so violent that it created the explosion that we know as Big Bang.■ Well the new superstring theory which may ultimately take the shape of TOE has indeed opened up a Pandora Box of new questions. It was believed till recently that the universe came into existence through the big bang. It was naОve to ask what was there before the big bang because there was no before. Time, space, and matter were created simultaneously by the big bang. The laws of nature were also believed to have come into existence simultaneously with the big bang. According to Davies (2), ⌠The picture that we then obtain of the universe is a remarkable one. At some finite instant in the past the universe of space, time, and matter is bounded by a space-time singularity. The coming into being of the universe is therefore represented not only by the abrupt appearance of matter, but of space and time as well.■ It was believed that the universe exploded into existence some 15-20 billions years ago. Now probably that is the time when the big bang occurred and our universe separated from the mother universe of ten dimensions. That means that not only time but space and matter also existed before the big bang together with the TOE. Now it is no longer naОve to ask how long before the big bang did the ten dimensional universe actually exist? What is happening to the sister universe? Can it be suggested that a super duper mathematician is out there somewhere who created the laws of nature (n.1). If He is there, can He be called God? But before we discuss God, I would like to quote from Dirac (3) here. According to Dirac, ⌠one field of work in which there has been too much speculation is cosmology. There are very few hard facts to go on but theoretical workers have been busy constructing various models for the universe based on any assumptions that they fancy. These models are probably all wrong. It is usually assumed that the laws of nature have always been the same as they are now. There is no justification for this. The laws may be changing, and in particular, quantities which are considered to be constants of nature may be varying with cosmological time. Such variations would completely upset the model makers.■ Whether the fundamental laws of nature are changing in cosmological time is another issue which can not be adequately discussed here. However Weinberg believes that if the constants of nature were even slightly different from what they are, our universe could not have come into existence.

WHERE DOES GOD FIT IN?

An interesting anecdote about Pierre Simon Laplace is reported in the history books of science which is appropriate to be mentioned in the context of the discussion here. Laplace is reported to have presented a copy of his book ▒Mechanique Celeste▓ to the emperor, Napoleon Bonaporte. Napoleon had been informed that Laplace▓s book contained no mention of God. Napoleon asked Laplace, ⌠They tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe and have never even mentioned its creator.■ ⌠I had no need of that hypothesis,■ said Laplace. Later, when told by Napoleon about this incident, Lagrange commented , ⌠Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things.■ The situation at present is not very different. There are Laplaces and Lagranges among the modern scientists also and God, per se, has still not been included in the scientific schemes of cosmology. There is no chapter on God in any standard textbook of physics. Apparently, there is simply no need. And there is not a single equation in physics which includes a parameter for God. The reasons for exclusion of God from the physics and celestial mechanics are simple yet very complex at the same time. Physics deals with mathematical relationships about the dynamics of the material objects and their energies. God has not been described in sufficiently clear terms so that it is not possible to set up mathematical relationships which could describe explicitly how God plays a role in the universe. Nobody even knows if God has a material existence. God means different things to different people. The traits that are ascribed to God to define Him such as omnipotent, omniscient, absolutely just, absolutely fair, etc. are so vague that they can not be used in any mathematical analysis. Such characteristics inevitably define an infinite being. Physics can not deal with infinities. Curiously this problem arose in 1930▓s. The physicists were sorely dismayed and frustrated when infinities started appearing in the quantum mechanical equations that were constructed to unify quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity. It became a big challenge to deal with infinities and save the theory. Richard Feynman found a way to get rid of the infinities through renormalization for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Now we are told that the superstring theories have gotten rid of the infinities without using renormalization. The fundamental laws of physics deal with finite entities; they can not be used to describe God nor discover Him because He is believed to be infinite in many, if not every, respects. We are looking for God in the wrong place. Mathematical Physics is incapable of describing God directly. It is a futile search. However that does not mean that the verdict of physics is the last word on the existence of God.

Maybe God is just a concept that exists in the human mind. For this reason, it is perhaps more appropriate to search God in meta-physics, religion, and mysticism. Those who have had mystical experiences feel fulfilled in some ways and spiritually uplifted. Many of them have the feeling of unity with the Absolute One (n.2). Before closing this discussion, I would like to quote from Barry Parker (8) as follows:

Why does a book on the creation of the universe have no mention of God? Scientists do, indeed, rarely mention God when they talk about creation. Furthermore, they are sometimes accused of trying to do away with the need for a God by attempting to explain creation in scientific terms. And it is true: scientists would prefer a purely scientific explanation of the beginning of the universe. That is not to say, though, that all scientists are atheists (few are). Furthermore, there is no fear that scientists will ever eliminate the need for a God. If we look back at the early universe we see that regardless of how far things are pushed √ even if we were some day able to explain creation itself in an entirely satisfactory scientific way √ there is still some thing that is unexplained. Creation depends on the basic laws of nature √ without them it would not be possible. Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.

Be that as it may. Most probably, the kind of God that Parker is talking about is not the God of Gospels and Scriptures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is optimistic anticipation among the physicists that the Theory of Everything is on the verge of discovery and development. All the fundamental forces of nature, i.e., electroweak, strong nuclear, and gravity, will be unified. This unification is possible in a universe of ten dimensions. The big bang is the event which separated our four dimensional universe from the mother universe of ten dimensions and is not the birth of the whole universe together with time, space, and matter as was commonly believed by the majority of the scientists till recently. The 15-20 billions years is the age of our universe but the parent universe of ten dimensions has to be older. The TOE has thus raised a new question: what is the age of the parent universe? The physicists also seem to believe that the universe is bounded both in time and space; it is finite in other words. The concept of an infinite universe cannot be totally ruled out of consideration although if the universe is infinite indeed, its essence cannot be wholly grasped through material science which deals with only finite entities. The dawn of the twentieth century had given birth to the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Two new fundamental forces were discovered. There is no guarantee that a similar situation may not arise with the discovery of TOE in the twenty-first century. If one or more new forces are discovered, the physicists may find new challenges to deal with in spite of the vain vaunts of TOE. A whole new branch of physical science may come to light.

NOTES

1. According to Rucker (9), ⌠.. Augustine argues that God must already know each and every natural number and that he even knows ▒infiniteness▓ in the form of all the natural numbers taken at once √ for otherwise the set of natural numbers would exhaust his abilities. God, according to Augustine, must lie beyond the set of natural numbers.■

2. Rucker (9) suggests, ⌠In more familiar terms, it is not hard to prove that God is infinite √ but if you don▓t believe that God exists? It may seem hard to doubt that the more impersonal Absolutes √ such as ▒everything▓, or the ▒Mindscape▓ exist, but there are those who doubt this. The issue under consideration is a version of the old philosophical problem of One and the Many. What is being asked is whether cosmos exists as an organic One, or merely as a Many with no essential coherence. It is certainly true that the Mindscape, for instance, does not exist as a single rational thought. For if the Mindscape is a One, then it is a member of itself, and thus can only be known through a flash of mystical vision. No rational thought is a member of itself, so no rational thought could tie the Mindscape into a One.■

REFERENCES

1. Crease, R, Mann, C., ⌠The Second Creation■, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1986.
2. Davies, P., ⌠The Mind of God■, Simon and Schuster, New york, 1992, p. 50.
3. Dirac, P.A.M., ⌠Methods in theoretical Physics■, included in ▒Unification of Fundamental Forces, The 1988 Dirac Memorial Lectures▓, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, p. 128.
4. Hawkings, S., ⌠Is the End in Sight for Theoretical Physics■, in ▒Boslough, J. Stephen Hawkings▓ Universe▓, Morrow, New York, 1985, quoted by Robert R. Crease and Charles C, Mann in ▒ Second Creation▓, Macmillan Publishing company, New York, 1986, p. 410.
5. Kaku, M, and Thompson, J., ⌠Beyond Einstein■, Anchor Books, Doubleday, New York, 1995, pp. 4, 11-12.
6. Lederman, L., ⌠The God particle■, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1993, p. 193.
7. Lindley, D., ⌠The End of Physics■, Basic Books, A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1993, pp. 18, 224.
8. Parker, B., ⌠Creation: The Story of the Origin and the Evolution of the Universe■, Plenum Press, New York, 1988, p. 282.
9. Rucker, R., ⌠Infinity and the Mind■, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1995, pp. 48, 51.
10. Schwarz, J., ⌠A Theory Of Everything■, theory.Caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str143.
11. Weinberg, S., ⌠Towards the Final Laws of Physics■, in ▒Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics▓, The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 64-65.
12. Weinberg, S., ⌠Dreams of a Final Theory■, Pantheon Books, New York, p. 230.

What Do You Think?

Nonson
2.02.01

[kazanova3]

noson pls.go to this site and see what it said about creation and every thing around us pls.go to see. thanks.


read http://www.it-is-truth.org




XVII. SOME QUR▓AANIC VERSE
AND ASTRONOMICAL DISCOVERIES



Professor Yoshihide Kozai: I say, I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in the Qur'aan.

Dr. Kozai is Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan, and was the Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, Mikata, Tokyo Japan. We presented to him a number of Qur'aanic verses describing the beginning of creation and the heavens, and which deal with the relationship of the earth to the heavens. After studying these verses, Professor Kozai asked us about the Qur'aan and about the time when the Qur'aan was revealed. We informed him that it was revealed 1400 years ago, and then we asked him about the facts which these verses contained. After each answer we would show him the Qur'aanic text. He expressed his astonishment, saying that this Qur'aan describes the universe as seen from the highest point, everything seen is distinct and clear. He who said this sees everything in existence. Seen from such a point, there is nothing which can be unseen.

We asked him whether at some point in time the firmament was in a form of smoke. He stated that all signs and indications are converging to prove that at one point in time the whole firmament was nothing but a cloud of smoke. This has come to be established as a proven visible fact. Scientists now can observe new stars forming up out of that smoke, which is the origin of our universe, as we see in this picture (Figure 17.1).


Fig. 17.1

This picture was obtained only recently with the help of the spaceship. It shows one of the stars as it forms up out of the smoke. Look at the outer reddish parts of the smoke as it begins to heat and cluster. And look at the center of the cloud and how the smoky matter is of such high density that it becomes irradiant. The illuminating stars we see today were, just as was the whole universe, in that smoke form. We presented to him the Qur'aanic verse saying:

Then he turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke (dukhaan): He said to it and to the earth: come you together, willingly or unwillingly. They said: we do come (together) in willing obedience. (Qur'aan 41:11).

Some scientists describe this dukhaan or smoke ⌠mist■. But Professor Kozai pointed out that the term ⌠mist■ does not correspond to the description of this smoke, because mist is characteristically cold, whereas this cosmic smoke is somewhat hot. Dukhaan indeed is made up of diffused gases to which solid substances are attached, and this is the exact description of the smoke from which the universe emerged even before the stars were formed. Professor Kozai said that because that smoke was hot, we cannot describe it as ⌠mist■. Dukhaan is the best descriptive word that can ever be. In this way Professor Kozai continued to scrutinize each Qur'aanic verse we presented to him.


17.2

Finally we asked him: ▒What do you think of this phenomenon which you have seen for yourself, namely, that science is beginning to discover the secrets of the universe, whereas many of these secrets have already been revealed in the Qur'aan or in the Sunnah? Do you think that the Qur'aan was given to the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu ▒alaihi wa sallam) from a human source?▓

Professor Kozai replied: "I say, I am very much impressed by finding true astronomical facts in Qur'aan, and for us modern astronomers have been studying a very small piece of the universe. We have concentrated our efforts for understanding of a very small part. Because by using telescopes, we can see only very few parts of the sky without thinking about the whole universe. So, by reading Qur'aan and by answering to the questions, I think I can find my future way for investigation of the universe."

Fig. 17.3


Professor Kozai believes it is impossible that the Qur'aan was from a human source. He further stated that we scientists in our studies concentrated only on a small area, but if we read the Qur'aan, then we will see a much larger picture of this universe. Scientists have to look at it in a panorama, not within limited and narrow perspectives. Professor Kozai acknowledges relating to the Cosmos, he is now able to define his way in the future. He states that, from now on, he will plan his research guided by the comprehensive Qur'aanic view of the universe.

Glory to You O Lord, may You be exalted! This is the ever-lasting miracle which renews itself. This is a miracle which gives life and which convinces Muslims and Non-Muslims, and which will convince all generations until the Day of Judgment. Allah said in the Qur'aan:

But Allah bears witness that what He has sent unto thee He has sent with His (own) knowledge. (Qur'aan 4:166).

And say: Praise be to Allah, Who will soon show you His signs, so that you shall know them. (Qur'aan 27:93).




for pictures pls go to the site. directly. have nice time friends..................... http://www.it-is-truth.org

[Nonson]

Kazanova3,

I am well aware that Allah created the worm-filled feces which you guys have been eating for 1400 years. Am also aware that he (allah) created the alternative form of reality called "ideological fantasy based on bizarre desires". Those desires causes rapes of infant male and females, gross deviations in homosexual acts, sado-mas-vulgarities, a forcing of females to perform sickenly obscene acts.

Since you are apparently a pimp for this system of corruption what is your special sexual function? Who do you service?

Nonson
2.03.01

[kazanova3]

will if you behave your self then i can answer you?i want educated ,wise man to speak with not nonmind people whom carried hate and racist in thier hearts?????

[Nonson]

Kazanova3,

Your ignorance is beyond comprehension of the rational mind. You speak of education, but you can't write the simplist of English. You cry wisdom, yet you pen the thoughts of insane animals. You claim love, but you applaud savage killings of women and children. You are sick. Realy, really, sick.

Nonson
2.04.01