Researchers propose how the universe became filled with light

August 30, 2017
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Soon after the Big Bang, the universe went completely dark. The intense, seminal event that created the cosmos churned up so much hot, thick gas that light was completely trapped. Much later—perhaps as many as one billion years after the Big Bang—the universe expanded, became more transparent, and eventually filled up with galaxies, planets, stars, and other objects that give off visible light. That's the universe we know today.

How it emerged from the cosmic dark ages to a clearer, light-filled state remains a mystery.

In a new study, researchers at the University of Iowa offer a theory of how that happened. They think that dwell in the center of galaxies fling out matter so violently that the ejected material pierces its cloudy surroundings, allowing light to escape. The researchers arrived at their theory after observing a nearby galaxy from which is escaping.

"The observations show the presence of very bright X-ray sources that are likely accreting black holes," says Philip Kaaret, professor in the UI Department of Physics and Astronomy and corresponding author on the study. "It's possible the black hole is creating winds that help the ionizing radiation from the stars escape. Thus, black holes may have helped make the universe transparent."

Kaaret and his team focused on a galaxy called Tol 1247-232, located some 600 million light years from Earth, one of only three nearby galaxies from which ultraviolet light has been found to escape. In May 2016, using an Earth-orbiting telescope called Chandra, the researchers saw a single X-ray source whose brightness waxed and waned and was located within a vigorous star-forming region of Tol 1247-232.

The team determined it was something other than a star.

"Stars don't have changes in brightness," Kaaret says. "Our sun is a good example of that.

"To change in brightness, you have to be a small object, and that really narrows it down to a black hole," he says.

But how would a black hole, whose intense sucks in everything around it, also eject matter?

The quick answer is no one knows for sure. Black holes, after all, are hard to study, in part because their immense gravitational pull allows no light to escape and because they're embedded deep within galaxies. Recently, however, astronomers have offered an explanation: The jets of escaping matter are tapping into the accelerated rotational energy of the black hole itself.

Imagine a figure skater twirling with outstretched arms. As the skater folds her arms closer to her body, she spins faster. Black holes operate much the same way: As gravity pulls matter inward toward a black hole, the black hole likewise spins faster. As the black hole's gravitational pull increases, the speed also creates energy.

"As matter falls into a black hole, it starts to spin and the rapid rotation pushes some fraction of the matter out," Kaaret says. "They're producing these strong winds that could be opening an escape route for ultraviolet light. That could be what happened with the early galaxies."

Kaaret plans to study Tol 1247-232 more closely and find other nearby that are leaking ultraviolet light, which would help corroborate his theory.

Explore further: Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

More information: P. Kaaret et al, Resolving the X-ray emission from the Lyman-continuum emitting galaxy Tol 1247-232, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx1945

Related Stories

Image: Computer simulation of a supermassive black hole

April 7, 2016

This computer-simulated image shows a supermassive black hole at the core of a galaxy. The black region in the center represents the black hole's event horizon, where no light can escape the massive object's gravitational ...

How much of the universe is black holes?

June 17, 2014

We all fear black holes, but how many of them are there out there, really? Between the stellar mass black holes and the supermassive ones, just how much of our Universe is black holes?

Oxymoronic black hole RGG 118 provides clues to growth

August 12, 2015

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and the 6.5-meter Clay Telescope in Chile have identified the smallest supermassive black hole ever detected in the center of a galaxy, as described in our latest press release. ...

Measuring galaxy black hole masses

May 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes, one of the most amazing and bizarre predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity, are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational ...

Where is the closest black hole?

March 21, 2016

You know that saying, "keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer?" That advice needs to go right out the window when we're talking black holes. They're the worst enemies you could have and you want them as far ...

How massive can black holes get?

August 11, 2015

Without the light pressure from nuclear fusion to hold back the mass of the star, the outer layers compress inward in an instant. The star dies, exploding violently as a supernova.

Recommended for you

Dawn mission extended at Ceres

October 20, 2017

NASA has authorized a second extension of the Dawn mission at Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. During this extension, the spacecraft will descend to lower altitudes than ever before ...

Solar eruptions could electrify Martian moons

October 18, 2017

Powerful solar eruptions could electrically charge areas of the Martian moon Phobos to hundreds of volts, presenting a complex electrical environment that could possibly affect sensitive electronics carried by future robotic ...

73 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrNewTime
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2017
In the eternal and infinite space there are extremely dense and massive objects that are very far away from each other. All of them are located far outside the visible universe and the expanding visible universe protrudes away from one such object. Thereby the expanding condensations absorb motion originally from other similar objects to themselves. This is the matter of motion/energy i.e. remains of very old detectable kind of universes.
MrNewTime
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2017
These extremely dense and massive objects recycle the eternal motion/energy among each other and during this action there are detectable kinds of galaxies born out of the extremely dense motion/energy that is directed away from those very objects.

If there were no remains of the old universes that still have areas of different densities protruding in the contrary direction no detectable kind of visible universe could ever be born.

First the supermassive objects in the centers of galaxies are born out of zillions of individual condensations that expand and recycle the expanding motion/energy among each other.
MrNewTime
1 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2017
The external motion/energy protruding towards gets the expansion of these objects to accelerate very strongly at the same time. As a result there is suddenly an extremely great pressure in the center of a large area with no gravitational force at all.

Now there is outward expanding motion/energy being pressed from the center of this area out of which new expanding stars come to existence by the aid of the external motion/energy in a similar manner. Also new detectable kind of matter is born consisting of the cores of expanding atoms that recycle among each other the expanding motion/energy with a nature of expanding light.

In this case the external motion originates from a supermassive object in another galaxy's center that also expands in a manner that expanding motion/energy protrudes outward of it. This expanding motion/energy has the nature of expanding cores of atoms and thus it also has the nature of expanding stars.
rderkis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2017
Perhaps some alien intelligence, vastly superior to us, that we don't understand said "Let there be light!"
Dingbone
Aug 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2017
? It has been published in Genesis 1:3 already: ",,And God said, 'Let there be light,'... a.a.aand "plop!" - there was light! .


I think that is what I just said.
physman
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2017
And then God said, "let the black holes that dwell in the center of galaxies fling out matter so violently that the ejected material pierces its cloudy surroundings, allowing light to escape."

rderkis
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2017
And then God said, "let the black holes that dwell in the center of galaxies fling out matter so violently that the ejected material pierces its cloudy surroundings, allowing light to escape."


I don;t think that is written. God worked the miracles and as men we seek to understand how he accomplished it. As with most things there are probab;y a thousand ways of accomplishing the same thing.
big_hairy_jimbo
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2017
I'm AMAZED at people that use FACTS and REASONING when studying science in order to deduce how nature works. YET they DO NOT apply this same reasoning to a so called GOD. Religious people, please apply occams razor, you will find GOD is an unnecessary explanation.
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2017
I'm AMAZED at people

I am amazed at people like you, who would discount alien possibilities completely with no proof whatsoever!
I understand your being so closed minded and unobjective but you really need to look at all the possibilities and only eliminate ones that can be proven wrong.
Nikstlitselpmur
not rated yet Aug 30, 2017
A whitehole?
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2017
A whitehole?


A whitehole could not possibly exist because we know, at most, 2% of our universe.
But yet many people in their arrogance insist they know what does not exist and what does exist.
At this point in our civilization, it seems we should be in a state of mind where we try to learn everything we can while not closing our minds because we have made up our minds with no proof.
alkane
1 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2017
Surely this can't be right. The universe is reconed to be 13.7 billoin years old and the furthest thing we can see is 13.3 billion light years away, wouldn't that still be 'invisible' to us if this article is correct?

I'm sure someone will be able to put me straight on this.
TopCat22
1 / 5 (2) Aug 30, 2017
black-holes have very intense magnetic fields. They also spin. The sun has magnetic field lines that occasionally snap as it spins flinging matter outwards. Likely black-holes behave in the same way and that its magnetic field lines also snap flinging mater outwards that is otherwise falling inwards.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 30, 2017
A whitehole?


A whitehole could not possibly exist because we know, at most, 2% of our universe.
But yet many people in their arrogance insist they know what does not exist and what does exist.

Whoa... You just did what you said many people do....
At this point in our civilization, it seems we should be in a state of mind where we try to learn everything we can while not closing our minds because we have made up our minds with no proof.

Some people believe in a god - without any proof.
Some don't believe in a god - because there isn't any proof...
Which way do you roll?
MrNewTime
Aug 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrNewTime
Aug 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nikstlitselpmur
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2017


A whitehole could not possibly exist.


"Schwarzschild wormholes, also known as Einstein–Rosen bridges can be modeled as vacuum solutions to the Einstein field equations, and that are now understood to be intrinsic parts of the maximally extended version of the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole with no charge and no rotation. Here, maximally extended refers to the idea that the space-time should not have any edges it should be possible to continue this path arbitrarily far into the particle's future or past for any possible trajectory of a free-falling particle following a geodesic in the spacetime.
In order to satisfy this requirement, it turns out that in addition to the black hole interior region that particles enter when they fall through the event horizon from the outside, there must be a separate white hole interior region that allows us to extrapolate the trajectories of particles that an outside observer sees rising up" wiki
MrNewTime
Aug 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2017
Black holes do not exist!
There IS no expanding Space.
No curving Space.
No extra dimensions.
No dark matter with pulling force.
No dark energy which get expanding Space expanding faster.
Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding pushing force which Have a nature of dark expanding lightwaves, expanding photons and nature of expanding electrons.
Onesimpleprinciple.com


Please PROVE any one of these. If you had said for example "I don't think black holes exist because .." I would not have asked you to prove the unprovable.
rderkis
3 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2017
A whitehole could not possibly exist because we know, at most, 2% of our universe.
But yet many people in their arrogance insist they know what does not exist and what does exist.

Whoa... You just did what you said many people do...."
Yes, I was being sarcastic. :-)

Some people believe in a god - without any proof.
Some don't believe in a god - because there isn't any proof...
Which way do you roll?

You forgot several reasons.
Some people believe in God because they have experienced him.
Some people believe in God because of the testimony of a whole nation of peoples who witnessed God's miracles first hand and have celebrated the events every year since.
Some people believe in God because they instinctively realise man is a pack animal and the larger the pack the stronger and more peaceful their lives can be.
Gigel
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2017
I'm AMAZED at people that use FACTS and REASONING when studying science in order to deduce how nature works. YET they DO NOT apply this same reasoning to a so called GOD. Religious people, please apply occams razor, you will find GOD is an unnecessary explanation.

Sorry to be a bit unscientific, but God is the simplest hypothesis for the existence of everything. By far. No maths involved. The "let there be..." is the simplest cause for everything.
Gigel
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2017
Surely this can't be right. The universe is reconed to be 13.7 billoin years old and the furthest thing we can see is 13.3 billion light years away, wouldn't that still be 'invisible' to us if this article is correct?

I'm sure someone will be able to put me straight on this.

You are quite right, only the article doesn't state when exactly the universe became transparent. In fact it doesn't say what "transparent universe" means. They probably mean that light could have gone on distances comparable to the radius of the observable universe.

Btw, due to expansion, an object 13.7 billion years in the past would be now at some 46 billion light-years away. As its light came to us, it continued moving away from us.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2017
Sorry to be a bit unscientific, but God is the simplest hypothesis for the existence of everything. By far. No maths involved. The "let there be..." is the simplest cause for everything.


Ah, but to know how he did it or other ways you could achieve the same results is so interesting and beneficial for humans.
Dingbone
Aug 31, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2017
Whoa... You just did what you said many people do...."

Yes, I was being sarcastic. :-)

Thought so, but just making sure...:-)

... Which way do you roll?

You forgot several reasons.
Some people believe in God because they have experienced him.

Totally subjective.
Some people believe in God because of the testimony of a whole nation of peoples who witnessed God's miracles first hand and have celebrated the events every year since.

"Miracle" implies lack of apparent physical/rational causality. (Usually contrived to appear that way to the less informed.)
And - see your statement below;
Some people believe in God because they instinctively realize man is a pack animal and the larger the pack the stronger and more peaceful their lives can be.

Opportunism as reason to believe in a god?!?
(Which brings us back round to - " a whole nation of peoples who witnessed...")
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2017
a whole nation of peoples who witnessed...")


Didn't you ever notice no one that is taken seriously in science or religion says that the plagues or the passover did not happen?
They will try to find logical reasons for the events but never deny the events happened. That is because the miracles were witnessed by every single person, in the whole nation that come out of Egypt.
Furthermore they celebrate it religiously(pun?) every year since.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2017
a whole nation of peoples who witnessed...")


Didn't you ever notice no one that is taken seriously in science or religion says that the plagues or the passover did not happen?

Because they would be roundly pounced upon and "pooh-pooh"ed (black-listed even) by the religious elite.
They will try to find logical reasons for the events but never deny the events happened.

Again, to forego that same public "execution" by a few elite PR spin doctors who work hard to insure everyone is on THEIR page...
That is because the miracles were witnessed by every single person, in the whole nation that come out of Egypt.

Furthermore they celebrate it religiously(pun?) every year since.
Bringing us back to - "Some people believe ...the larger the pack the stronger and more peaceful their lives can be."
NOT actual belief in a god, but a "Social Survival" skill..
So - subtle sarcasm, again, I guess...
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2017
Whydening Gyrenot, since you chose to ignore a whole nation of witnesses, I do not believe you should be taken seriously.
Therefore I am going to ignore you, like I ignore people that say the world is flat or the holocaust did not happen despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
Whydening Gyrenot, since you chose to ignore a whole nation of witnesses, I do not believe you should be taken seriously.
Therefore I am going to ignore you, like I ignore people that say the world is flat or the holocaust did not happen despite all the evidence to the contrary.

And your evidence for the plagues and exodus comes from - where?
And...
A whole nation of people saw it? or just agreed to say they saw it because;
"Some people believe in God because they instinctively realize man is a pack animal and the larger the pack the stronger and more peaceful their lives can be."

Gigel
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
You can't get a whole nation to agree on something. That is why there is democracy - because there are always some people who think differently. And if they had made it up, they would have realised it was too far fetched; I mean, why make up 10 plagues when 2 or 3 or even 1 may suffice? Why try to get people to say they saw 10 plagues when it would be easier with just 1? And in fact why make up the whole plague issue when it would suffice to say they simply left Egypt?

Which brings the whole issue to another point: how would have they managed to leave Egypt on their own?
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
You can't get a whole nation to agree on something.


It's even harder than that. These were a deeply religious people. You can found a religion on faith when only a select few are privy to miracles. But when a whole nation pins their faith on somthing each of them have seen for themselves, it becomes more than faith to those people.
You cannot create a religion based on truth by getting the whole nation to lie to each other and the world when the real truth is known by each of them.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
Just to be clear.
We have no objective proof of any gods and we have been looking for a LONG time.
We have ample proof of people making up things and really believing in them for subjective reasons, you don't even have to go search to see it, just interact with people.

Are gods real or not?

Which is the simplest hypotheses?
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2017
Sitä mass Black holes are Black stars which emit Black light. I mean do dendity light particle that our machine Cantellin rekisteröidä this particle. Galaxys centre supermassive concentrations emit dark matter which can expanding later so fast, that it come to Be visible matter.
Onesimpleprinciple.com
Ever see those sites that use fake, randomly-generated gibberish as filler? That's what I think this is.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
Have you looked at his website?
It's an eye opener.
;-)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
The most obvious logical contradiction of the existence of an omnipotent omniscient being is the famous conundrum, "Can gawd/jebus/buddha/mohammed/whatever make a rock so big it can't move it?"

A much more subtle and powerful conundrum is, "If gawd/jebus/buddha/mohammed/whatever is 'good' and worth following, why does it let little kids die in agony?" Every answer to this one is hand-waving, trying to deny the innocence of little kids, justify torture of innocents some way, or pretend we're too stupid to understand why. Sorry, I object to killing little kids in the first place, agonizing them first seems undeniably evil. I cannot imagine looking at such a figure as one worth emulating, or even having any respect for. Maybe this is the real test for eligibility to enter into whatever idiotic hebben these flat earthers think is up past the sky.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2017
Meanwhile, back to the original subject of this article, it seems that the disk/jet phenomenon is pervasive in astrophyics. We see it at every scale from the jets and disks of protostellar and protoplanetary sites all the way up to the massive jets and disks of supermassive black holes. Finding that the jets resulted in the transparency of the universe is no great surprise, really.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
Which is the simplest hypotheses?

While I like your simplest hypotheses theory it is not the answer to everything.
Thinking it is will take you down a dead end road sometimes,
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 01, 2017
I have to agree, Occam's razor and all, it's not a law, more of a principle that generally holds true.

Personally I see no reason to construct any theory to explain something that leaves absolutely no trace on reality.
People experience MANY things that have no basis in reality. Everything you experience is many layers removed from 'reality'. Mistakes, misinterpretations, even totally fictitious experiences and memories occur all the time, we know how these things work. There is really no need for any theory.

Sorry for the off topic posts.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2017
Researchers propose how the universe became filled with light

It's pretty simple, electricity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2017
You can't get a whole nation to agree on something.


It's even harder than that. These were a deeply religious people. You can found a religion on faith when only a select few are privy to miracles. But when a whole nation pins their faith on somthing each of them have seen for themselves, it becomes more than faith to those people.
You cannot create a religion based on truth by getting the whole nation to lie to each other and the world when the real truth is known by each of them.

Yeah, you can. Just tell 'em the future of their soul (and their childrens) depends on it...
nikola_milovic_378
Sep 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2017
Yeah, you can. Just tell 'em the future of their soul (and their childrens) depends on it...


You are just plane stupid! Only a vary few simpleton people like you, would believe their salvation and their children's salvation would depend on a lie about their God (which EVERYBODY else would know is a lie).
TheGhostofOtto1923
not rated yet Sep 02, 2017
You are just plane stupid!
You spelled stoopid wrong. Please turn on your spellCzech.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2017
Yeah, you can. Just tell 'em the future of their soul (and their childrens) depends on it...


You are just plane stupid! Only a vary few simpleton people like you, would believe their salvation and their children's salvation would depend on a lie about their God (which EVERYBODY else would know is a lie).

Except if... they don't really know if it IS a lie - or a truth...
Better to just go along with what the rest of your society is saying/doing... A safer and more dependable plan of action...
So... yes' I would believe it.
O - and it's "plain" stupid, not plane...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2017
Sorry, #godbotherers, jebus didn't make the Big Bang.

jebus doesn't care about your physics.

Get over it.
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
The most obvious logical contradiction of the existence of an omnipotent omniscient being is the famous conundrum, "Can gawd/jebus/buddha/mohammed/whatever make a rock so big it can't move it?"

Yes, he can. And then can he move it? Yes, he can. The reason of an omnipotent being and our reason are necessarily different.


A much more subtle and powerful conundrum is, "If gawd/jebus/buddha/mohammed/whatever is 'good' and worth following, why does it let little kids die in agony?"

This is indeed a subtle question and the answer is probably a subtle one too. Why does he let us do evil in the first turn, anyway? Why doesn't he step up and stop us each time we do something bad? Well, if he would do that we wouldn't be free any more. One explanation is that with the fall of man all creation fell and evil became part of it, but initially it wasn't so. It is not an easy question and the answer is not easy, and it is not a definitive proof.
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
And after all, what is "proof" for humans? Do we have proofs for anything? The only things we can definitely prove are those derived form a set of axioms that were chosen and fixed as "true"; e.g. facts of Euclidean geometry.

Can we prove or in fact know something about nature or anything external to us? To know is to have a trustworthy connection with an external object; one that guarantees that what you perceive is true. But besides perceptions we have nothing of ourselves that could connect us to the exterior. And at least up to now there is no proof that what we perceive is true.

In other words, we can use only perceptions but we don't know if we can really rely on them. In fact the notion of "truth" for us is an abstract and inferred one, based on experience with perceptions. We know far less about truth than about a perceived apple. We don't "have" the truth, we just perceive it indirectly from objects we see.

(cont'd below)
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
(cont)

Then science would not be a study of nature, but really of our perceptions of what we call "nature". We have no definite proof that "nature" is really there. And there is probably no way to definitely prove it. Basing such proofs on regularities of perceptions is still a perception of nature by reason, not definite proof it exists.

Thus it seems we humans cannot really have proof of anything external to us. Science is limited and we have to accept some assumptions in order to give it any validity. We must assume "nature" is what we perceive in a regular way; but there is no proof it is really so.

In fact I think there is a Roman Catholic dogma stating this fact: that what we perceive is according to reality. I am not absolutely sure on this dogma though.

This is where another form of knowledge takes place: divine revelation. This is a straight link with the truth, not by science or our own discoveries, but by action of God.

(cont'd below)
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
(cont)

So we humans, in order to accept the possibility of any true knowledge for us, which excludes any illusion, would have to accept that there exists a form of truth that is external to us and that can reveal itself to us in a more direct way than by perceptions. Then we could "have" the truth. If we have the truth, we can judge everything by it and see whether it is true or not. We don't have to infer "truth" any more from what we see, in an uncertain way, but we apply that certainty to what we see.

This is one way indicating that there exists God, owing the truth in its pure form and sending it to other intelligent beings.

(cont'd below)
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
(cont)

Is it definite proof? Well, if God is infinite then how are we humans to ever prove he exists? Can we contain him in our minds? We may escape from uncertainty of perceptions, but I don't think we could comprehend or prove God, at least not on our own. It would be as if a dog were studying maths following his master; in fact it would be far less than that, since both humans and dogs are finite and thus comparable.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
Gigel, there is a possibility to learn the truth about all the causes of the phenomenon, but above all we must understand the structure of the universe and of human beings. Science has long since escaped from the truth because it does not want to find out the structure of the universe.
The universe is two-entity, just like humans. The fundamental creative entity of the universe is the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), the Creator of everything else in the other entity, that is, in the material and energy entity of the universe (MEEU). The comprehensiveness of the knowledge and states in both entities takes place under the patronage of the Absolute Universe Consciousness (ACU), (this can be understood as the existence of God). With us, human beings, the MEEU is the body, and the SEU is the Soul.
nikola_milovic_378
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
And many people have Individual Consciousness (IC), which should have an association with the ACU, through intuition. Consciousness is the power to know the true causes of the phenomenon and the power of creation. The one who does not recognize and does not know the existence of the SEU and the ACU, this remains at a low level of awareness and all his knowledge is unnatural. That's why science walks through the universe of the universe, which is a great stranger to it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
Hey gigel nice flood
This is indeed a subtle question and the answer is probably a subtle one too. Why does he let us do evil in the first turn, anyway? Why doesn't he step up and stop us each time we do something bad?
Well the bigger question is why would he write a book about people who never existed and things that never happened? Or if they did, why would he go to the trouble of obliterating all confirming evidence and replacing it with totally convincing contrary evidence?

Which leads us to the final question, why would the god that is the source of all that is good and honest and just, have to lie to us in order to find out how much we trust him?

That one's a tuffy yes?
Well, if he would do that we wouldn't be free any more
Sheep arent free.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
In fact I think there is a Roman Catholic dogma stating this fact: that what we perceive is according to reality. I am not absolutely sure on this dogma though
Of course not because you don't know what you're talking about.
This is where another form of knowledge takes place: divine revelation. This is a straight link with the truth, not by science or our own discoveries, but by action of God
This is called 'hallucination'. But perhaps you can offer one example of where a divine revelation informed us of some physical property or law that was subsequently confirmed by experiment?
We have no definite proof that "nature" is really there
- This is referred to as 'bullshit poetry' among other things which any schoolkid can refute for you. But perhaps Feynman can explain it more authoritatively.
https://youtu.be/X8aWBcPVPMo

-It's the kind of insidious deception that religionists use to confuse and demean.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
One explanation is that with the fall of man all creation fell and evil became part of it
A more illuminating explanation is that before you can get people to believe in religious nonsense you must first get them to distrust their own ability to think and reason, and to make them feel ashamed for even attempting to do so.

With dogs you swat them on the tail with a rolled up newspaper. Exactly the same thing.

'Bad doggie! You ate the apple and so the messiah had to die for it! Shame on you!'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
One more point to make
Is it definite proof? Well, if God is infinite then how are we humans to ever prove he exists?
It's important to understand the difference between theist and deist gods. Theist gods write books full of lies and ignorance and bigotry and are thus easy to disprove... utterly, finally, and conclusively.

Whenever perfect gods reveal their imperfection they are then by definition non-existent.

Deist gods in contrast were invented by philos. They are by design impossible to disprove but easy to argue about. The purpose for their invention is to provide job security for philos, as are all such unaddressable philos concepts.

But religionists will commandeer them whenever backed into a corner by evidence.

For instance gigel evokes the indefinable term 'infinite' to avoid the discomfort of evidence, just like the scoundrel descartes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
"The third meditation says, "But these properties [of God] are so great and excellent, that the more attentively I consider them the less I feel persuaded that the idea I have of them owes its origin to myself alone. And thus it is absolutely necessary to conclude, from all that I have before said, that God exists…."
Descartes, René. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy

what_rubbish
rderkis
5 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
Wow, a few of people on here are certainly long winded. Most of these same people will tell you how morally right they are, and how the rest of us are corrupt. While at the same time circumventing the rules any time they feel like it.

Quote rules "Brevity is the soul of wit: 1000 characters left"
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
Quote rules "Brevity is the soul of wit

and the mother of stupidity, I would add :) Some things simply can't be discussed in 1000 characters.

Anyone has definite proof that God doesn't exist, preferably in 1000 characters?

Btw, that question may be a trap. See my argument on proving the existence of an infinite being.
Gigel
not rated yet Sep 03, 2017
But perhaps Feynman can explain it more authoritatively.

Feynman explained something but proved nothing. In fact he went around the problem by stating that hunger shows food is real. Note that fact would work perfectly for a simulation of a hungry philosopher and his food :)

Well, any schoolkid could go around the problem, but that is not proof of anything.

I remember some geometry classes, when a problem was proposed and the proof of the hypothesis had to be found. Sometimes facts that were obvious to anyone appeared, yet obviousness was not proof. They had to be proved in detail and that was hard and annoying.

What I'm trying to say is that obviousness is not an argument in strict logic. Not that one should stay strictly within logic in proving God. As I stated, I don't think a proof of God's existence (or non-existence) can be brought. God is not strictly in the realm of our logical calculations.
rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2017
Some things simply can't be discussed in 1000 characters..


Discussed or taught? And what do you expect to achieve? Turn a atheist to be a christian or the reverse? It's not going to happen.
Isn't it amazing how 95% of the commenters on here can keep it under 1,000 characters. Are you telling me that 95% of the people on here are smarter than you?
Please don;t get me wrong. One time in a hundred you need almost 2,000 characters but there is no excuse for using over 2,000 characters.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2017
(cont)

Is it definite proof? Well, if God is infinite then how are we humans to ever prove he exists? Can we contain him in our minds? We may escape from uncertainty of perceptions, but I don't think we could comprehend or prove God, at least not on our own. It would be as if a dog were studying maths following his master; in fact it would be far less than that, since both humans and dogs are finite and thus comparable.

The one god that is infinite is (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)ata...
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2017
The one god that is infinite is (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)ata...

That is down right laughable. :-) You were making a joke right?
We as human beings know little more about the universe than ants. And you in the arrogance you just demonstrated are pathetic.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2017
Anyone has definite proof that God doesn't exist, preferably in 1000 characters?
YOUR god doesn't exist.

He claims to be perfect. He wrote a book about things that never happened and people who never existed. Ergo, he doesnt exist.

That's 100 characters.
Btw, that question may be a trap. See my argument on proving the existence of an infinite being
See my argument explaining how deist gods have nothing to do with your phony theist god. Doesn't matter whether you can accept it or even understand it. That's the problem with evidence.

But thanks for the opportunity to post it again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2017
Feynman explained something but proved nothing. In fact he went around the problem by stating that hunger shows food is real
No, he demonstrated in a very real way how the problem is nonsense. The fact that you religionists continue to bring it up as if it's something worth serious consideration, makes it a tragedy.

Look up the word tragicomical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2017
The other empty ignorant argument;

"Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can't prove a negative? That's right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it's easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I'll spare
you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable
negative. Wait… this means we've just proven that it is not
the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a
negative. So we've proven yet another negative! In fact, 'you
can't prove a negative' is a negative so if you could prove
it true, it wouldn't be true! Uh-oh."

- More bankrupt godder illogic.
Dingbone
Sep 04, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2017
The one god that is infinite is (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)ata...

That is down right laughable. :-) You were making a joke right?
We as human beings know little more about the universe than ants. And you in the arrogance you just demonstrated are pathetic.

And you just demonstrated arrogant ignorance...
nikola_milovic_378
5 / 5 (1) Sep 05, 2017
What is discussed in this article? All scientists, who imagine the big bang as their Gog, really deserved to call them retarded adult participants in the poisoned science. Every human being has all the ability to think independently, study and understand what are the true causes of the phenomenon. Those people whose consciousness is destroyed by stupid theories will never comprehend any true cause of the phenomenon. Why ? Because they are used to using the "scientific pearl" that sucks throughout their lives, and the poor do not know that the poison is poisonous and that it destroys their awareness, and consciousness is the power to grasp the true causes of phenomena and even the power of creation.
nikola_milovic_378
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
It is necessary to know, above all, how the matter forms, and afterwards, we study the various combinations of the formation of various forms of matter and energy obtained from matter.
LEARN AND SHOULD ALL-COMMAND!
The universe is a sphere of infinite radius and is filled with the substance AETHER, from which matter is formed, through high vibrations of matter, when strings are formed in three spatial directions, and in their crossings the matter arises, which is the "solid state" of the matter (quarks and gluons binding them "and" liquid state "of matter (free gluons, obtained by annihilation of electron-positron pairs).
nikola_milovic_378
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
Aether and the "firm state" of the matter cause a phenomenon -GRAVITATION, which has the task of bringing matter back to the form of an aether (black hole).
Aether and the "fluid state" of matter cause the appearance of MAGNETISM, which has the task of forming photons and all forms of electromagnetic properties and matter and energy with the aether. As all this unfolds, it's a much longer story than the one that can be published here.
I'm sorry to write so, but all those who do not understand it have the right to be angry, but they have to reinstall their awareness to understand this.
This is my copyright and I hope it will change the understanding of the universe !!
rderkis
not rated yet Sep 05, 2017
The one god that is infinite is (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)ata...

That is down right laughable. :-) You were making a joke right?
We as human beings know little more about the universe than ants. And you in the arrogance you just demonstrated are pathetic.

And you just demonstrated arrogant ignorance...


Well I guess that makes me a better person than you because I can admit my arrogant ignorance.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.