I was wondering about the different theories Atheists have about how our Universe came to be, what happened before the big bang? Or did that even happen? Obviously a theist generally believes God made everything happen, what are your thoughts?
Opposite only in the non-scientific sense though. Anti-particles such as anti-neutrons and anti-protons are only a different assembly of quarks. It behaves the same in every character except for charge.
Not completely true. The weak force acts on matter and anti-matter slightly differently.
As to physicists 'subscribing' to the existence of anti-matter, this suggests it is a point of contention. On the contrary, we regularly make anti-protons and collide them with ordinary protons to learn more about subatomic particles. We have known about positrons (the anti-electron) for about 70 years and even use them in PET scans. Anti-matter is NOT a purely theoretical construct.
Fred: You persist that I subscribe to reincarnation. Let me make it as clear as possible: I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO REINCARNATION. In another group you asked why theists subscibed to an all powerful god instead of a whimpy one. I answered that they were probably motivated by having everlasting life and a whimpy god would not be able to guarantee it for them. I then said that if they believed that they could get everlasting life some other way "such as through reincarnation or something" they would probably be less likely to be theists. Fred: I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEM NOT ME. Understand this Fred.
Over the years I've had a number of theists try to argue that "something" must have caused the Big Bang. I'd suggest that that their arguements are based upon the analogies we use to try to explain the Big Bang in laymens terms.
For instance, the inflationary theory of the Big Bang often uses the analogy of a balloon, with us on the surface and everything moving away from everything else. However, by the nature of how we describe things, we are presenting a 3D image, with an implicit "inside" and "outside". We are on the "inside".
If one accepts the Big Bang Theory (which I do) then not only space but time started with the Big Bang. There is nothing prior to the Big Bang. It's as if we were inside a box, and the only instruments we have for measurement work within the box and can only measure within the box. As such there is no "outside" of the box.
Nothing could have caused the Big Bang, as far as we are concerned. For something to have caused the Big Bang, it would have to existed outside of our "box". As such, it doesn't exist.
The infinity of linear time is a different notion than the infinity of a "closed universe". The closed universe, whether it be roughly spherical, looped, or saddle-shaped, is finite in size -- albeit, unimaginably large. One can imagine standing outside a closed universe . . . in fact, in a multiverse, we would exist in only one of an infinitude of universes. With this in mind, we can easily imagine standing outside an infinitude of universes.
However, mathematical or linear infinity is completely different. It has no imaginable beginning and no imaginable end. Any beginning point or end point you can conceive of can be infinitely exceeded.
With linear infinity in mind, ANY beginning is preceded by time. But this fact only postpones the eventual question: when was the first universe created? Even if there is no multiverse, our universe could have cycled through untold numbers of expansions and contractions. You're right that time and space, as we know it, are local to our universe and, for all intents and purposes, began with the Big Bang . . . but it's not impossible (or even unlikely) that time and space existed before the Big Bang.
Hi Glenn. There are what are called primary colors: black opposite white, red opposite blue and green opposite yelow. The rest of the colors are blends of these. Opposites certainly exist and on the subatomic level they have interesting properties. Oppositely charged particles attract and like charged particles repell. Nobody knows why but they admit to the behavior. It seems there are scientific principles about them we don't understand.
Perhaps many atheists give lip service to spirituality because, for millennia, spirituality was considered the highest plane of human existence. In the purest sense, it's distinct from religion. By renouncing all things supernatural, atheists opt out of things spiritual. Intellect becomes the highest plane of human existence. For spiritual folks, morality stems from their spirituality. For atheists, morality must stem from intellect. Based on the old-school, majority mindset, atheists might appear at a disadvantage because their morality stems from a "lower" plane.
Of course, this is ridiculous. Human spirituality is an artificial plane, foisted above intellect by human ignorance. Unfortunately, lip service continues to be paid to spirituality by atheists and, even scientists. We wax spiritual when we approach the boundaries of our understanding. Such talk of spirituality is our metaphorical language of mystery and ignorance.
Yes -- the color wheel and all that. But in reality, the colors are areas on a continuum of frequencies that we happen to experience a very small range of as colors when perceived by normally functioning eyes. So my question was what bipolar opposition creates the green? Or mauve? Or teal? Or any other shade? It was not how do we normally manipulate the colors (either with light or pigments.)
On the contrary, we understand electrodynamics (and hence charges) quite well. The attraction/repulsion is due to how the charged particles interact with photons. The bipolar aspects you are looking at, though, break down when we look at the strong force. In that, there are *three* types of charge, whimsically called colors: red, green, and blue.