ספקות באמיתות התורה

0golan0

New member
ספקות באמיתות התורה

בס"ד שלום לכולם! למי שיש ספק במסקנה האמורה לצאת מקריאת המאמרים ששלחתי כאן ע"י שקרא את תגובות המגיבים אני מבקש מימנו שיסתכל בכל הקשור לתגובות של המגיבים להודעות שלי ויקרא היטב את ההודעה שלי וימצא ברוב או בכל התגובות שבהם להטיל ספק הרבה דברים לא מדויקים. אם בכל מקרה עדיין נראה לכם מההודעות שלי ומהתגובות של האחרים שאין המאמר שהבאתי מדוייק - הבאתי את כל המאמרים מהאתר: "שופר" [למעט מהמאמר בנושא טהרת המשפחה שהוא מהאתר: "הידברות"] תוכלו לישלוח את התגובות למאמרים בדו"אל של האירגונים ואני מאמין שתקבלו במהירות תגובה שתוכיח לכם כמה שהמאמר מדוייק. על-כל-פנים אם ויתאפשר שלי מבחינת הזמן לענות לתגובות של החברים אני בלי נדר יענה. בכבוד רב גולן ב שופר - [email protected] הידברות - [email protected]
 

Providence

New member
כל מאמר שהצגת כאן, טחנתי לאבק

פורח. הכל ראו זאת במו עיניהם. אינך יכול לשלוח אותנו ל"שופר"/"הידברות"/"ערכים"/"שבע-נט"/"מנוף" להצגת שאלות וקבלת תשובות. הדיון מתקיים כאן, בפתיחות ולעין כל, ואני רוצה לראות כל תרוץ שגופי המסיון היהודי הללו מתריסים. זכותי לערער על תרוצים אלה. על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17191657 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17231012 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17191709 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17193588 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17191772 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17218852 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17317607 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17339503 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17317678 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17318390 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17317838 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17318306 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17318891 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17323677 על: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17319013 עניתי: http://www.tapuz.co.il/tapuzforum/main/Viewmsg.asp?id=129&msgid=17334007 תמיד השקעתי והגבתי, וכעת אתה נוטש? אתה משוכנע שהמצנח שלך יפתח? לא עדיף להשאר? מדוע לברוח? לא היית צריך להציג מאמרים אלה כאן, אם לא התכוונת להישאר ולהשיב על ערעורם. שלח נא אלי את ה- e-mail address שלך במסר אישי...
 

יובל199

New member
חזק על חלשים??????

אני בדקתי לעומק את הנסיון המגוכך שלך לשלול את טענת ה-KALAM. לאחר שלא רצית לקבל את תשובת הפילוסופים שהבאתי ל"הפרכות" שלך החלטתי לפנות אל המדענים - וזה מה שקיבלתי - קרא ובכה. שאלה 35.html target=_blank>1 What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness? We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations. The best we can say is that the fundamental field in nature is the gravitational field, and out of this and its weird quantum properties, the stage was somehow set for everything else we can identify in the physical world. We do not, however, understand what the gravitational field 'IS' in any real fundamental way. We know how it OPERATES but that is not the same as understanding its actual nature. שאלה 2 How could laws have been created AFTER the big bang if the universe started out as a 'fluctuation' of some kind? Well...first of all we have no self-consistent theory of gravity which can predict in a meaningful way what these initial conditions were like .This requires understanding gravity as a quantum field, and we only have prototype theories for how to do this. At least mathematically, physicists have created 'toy' universes that start out so hot that even the 'laws' of special relativity are not manifest in the way the fields interact. Curiously, as these toy models are cooled...as in the expansion of the universe...the underlying principles behind special relativity, particularly Lorentz Invariance, begin to materialize in the kinds of correlations that begin to appear. If you can believe 'chaotic gauge theory' as it is called, some or perhaps even all, of the known physical laws are emergent features of nature that are not present initially provided the universe emerges from a very hot state. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations work. Because of this, there seem not to be any correlations built into these kinds of fluctuations because 'law' as we understand the term requires some kind of cause-and-effect structure to pre- exist. Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true. So in the big bang, the establishment of 'law' came after the event itself, but of course even the concept of time and causality may not have been quite the same back then as they are now. שאלה 3 Is there any physical explanation for the Big Bang itself? There are many hypotheses about what these conditions may have been like, but absolutely no facts or evidence that confirms that the theoretical BASIS for these speculations is on the money. We cannot observe/re-create the Big Bang itself, but we can hope to test our understanding of high energy physics UP TO the extreme conditions that were a part of the physics of the Big Bang. So far, these physics are at 35.html target=_blank>10^35.html target=_blank>19 GeV and we can only test our theories at energies of a few 35.html target=_blank>1000 GeV. שאלה 4 Where does space come from? This is a very complicated question to answer...and frankly we do not yet fully understand how to answer it. According to Einstein's General Relativity, which is our premier way of explaining how gravity works, it makes no formal distinction between the description of what a gravitational field is, and what space-time is. Essentially, space is what we refer to as 3 of the 4 dimensions to a more comprehensive entity called the space-time continuum, and this continuum is itself just another name for the gravitational field of the universe. If you take away this gravitational field...space-time itself vanishes! To ask where space comes from is the same as asking, according to general relativity, where this gravitational field came from originally, and that gets us to asking what were the circumstances that caused the Big Bang itself. We don't really know. אין ספק שאתה חיי בעולם של חלומות כאשר המדענים האמיתיים והאובייקטיבים ממש לא חושבים כמוך. (איזו השפלה - לא יאמן)
 

Igra Rama

New member
You shot yourself in the foot

Take your fourth link: How could laws have been created AFTER the big bang if the universe started out as a 'fluctuation' of some kind? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well...first of all we have no self-consistent theory of gravity which can predict in a meaningful way what these initial conditions were like .This requires understanding gravity as a quantum field, and we only have prototype theories for how to do this. At least mathematically, physicists have created 'toy' universes that start out so hot that even the 'laws' of special relativity are not manifest in the way the fields interact. Curiously, as these toy models are cooled..as in the expansion of the universe...the underlying principles behind special relativity, particularly Lorentz Invariance, begin to materialize in the kinds of correlations that begin to appear. If you can believe 'chaotic gauge theory' as it is called, some or perhaps even all, of the known physical laws are emergent features of nature that are not present initially provided the universe emerges from a very hot state. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations work. Because of this, there seem not to be any correlations built into these kinds of fluctuations because 'law' as we understand the term requires some kind of cause-and-effect structure to pre- exist. Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true. So in the big bang, the establishment of 'law' came after the event itself, but of course even the concept of time and causality may not have been quite the same back then as they are now. In other words You are still refuted.
 

יובל199

New member
כנראה יש לך בעיה בהבנת הנקרא

השאלה היתה: How could laws have been created AFTER the big bang if the universe started out as a 'fluctuation' of some kind? והתשובה: Well...first of all we have no self-consistent theory of gravity which can predict in a meaningful way what these initial conditions were like .This requires understanding gravity as a quantum field, and we only have prototype theories for how to do this. At least mathematically, physicists have created 'toy' universes that start out so hot that even the 'laws' of special relativity are not manifest in the way the fields interact. Curiously, as these toy models are cooled..as in the expansion of the universe...the underlying principles behind special relativity, particularly Lorentz Invariance, begin to materialize in the kinds of correlations that begin to appear. If you can believe 'chaotic gauge theory' as it is called, some or perhaps even all, of the known physical laws are emergent features of nature that are not present initially provided the universe emerges from a very hot state. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations work. Because of this, there seem not to be any correlations built into these kinds of fluctuations because 'law' as we understand the term requires some kind of cause-and-effect structure to pre- exist. ******************************************************************** Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true. ********************************************************************* So in the big bang, the establishment of 'law' came after the event itself, but of course even the concept of time and causality may not have been quite the same back then as they are now. שים לב לשורה המודגשת וכנראה שלא קראת את זה: What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations. The best we can say is that the fundamental field in nature is the gravitational field, and out of this and its weird quantum properties, the stage was somehow set for everything else we can identify in the physical world. We do not, however, understand what the gravitational field 'IS' in any real fundamental way. We know how it OPERATES but that is nit the same as understanding its actual nature.
 

Igra Rama

New member
No it is your misunderstanding

Think for a moment use that black box of yours you call a brain. a. Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true b. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations work. a+b-> No cause for the big bang Kalam argument refuted.
 

יובל199

New member
קרא שוב

What sort of quantum field could possibly have triggered the Big Bang out of nothingness? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have no idea. And certainly not one that we can examine and test to confirm the theoretical expectations קבל: a. Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true b. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely תאוריות. a+b ---> כלום
 

Igra Rama

New member
Read again

Accept: a. Quantum fluctuations can precede physical law, but it seems that the converse is not true i.e. Quantum fluctuations could have preceded the bigbang. b. Quantum fluctuations are, at their root, completely a-causal, in the sense that cause and effect and ordering of events in time is not a part of how these fluctuations work. a+b-> Whatever "preceded" the bigbang was a-causal Hence no cause for bigbang. Kalam argument refuted.
 

יובל199

New member
שאלה

לפני שאני ירסק את כל טענותך האווליות. איך אתה מסביר את העובדה שהיקום מתנפח במהירות הולכת וגדלה?
 

יובל199

New member
קרא ובכה

כל כולך מתבסס על תיאוריה במשבר שלא כל כך תואמת את המציאות המוכרת היום. The Big Bang theory concerning the origin of the universe was spawned about 50 years ago, and soon became the dogma of the evolutionary establishment. It has had many dissenters, however, including the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, the Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, and astronomers Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory. Based on the Big Bang theory, cosmologists predicted that the distribution of matter throughout the universe would be homogeneous. Thus, based upon the so-called Cosmological Principle, it was postulated that the distribution of galaxies in the universe would be essentially uniform. No matter in which direction one looked, if one looked far enough, one would see the same number of galaxies. There would be no large scale clusters of galaxies or great voids in space. Recent research, however, has revealed massive superclusters of galaxies and vast voids in space. We exist in a very "clumpy" universe. The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology. Even more recently (January 3, 1991), Will Saunders and nine fellow astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a far-greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies.[4] In an attempt to salvage the Big Bang theory, cosmologists have invented hypotheses to explain the failures of their hypotheses. One of these is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) theory. According to this theory, 90-99% of the matter in the universe cannot be detected. If CDM existed, it would supply sufficient gravitational pull to create large clusters of galaxies. The structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM did exist, it could not account for their formation. Saunders and co-workers thus state that the CDM model can be ruled out to at least the 97% confidence level. In the same issue of Nature, in which is found the article by Saunders, et al, there appears an article by David Lindley in the "News and Views" section (p. 14) entitled "Cold Dark Matter Makes an Exit." Caltech cosmologist S. George Djorgovski, taking into account the astronomical observations that contradict the CDM theory, states that the demise of the notion of the existence of cold dark matter is inevitable.[5] Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.
 

יובל199

New member
המשך

כל כולך מתבסס על תיאוריה במשבר שלא כל כך תואמת את המציאות המוכרת היום If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7° <!#P6MJ239><!#P255DJ0>K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof. Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7] "No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]
 

Igra Rama

New member
Answer

I read and I am not wheeping. 1. Give the link. 2. Have you got an alternative theory ?
 

יובל199

New member
אבל אתה צריך לבכות

על חיים שמבוזבזים על תאוריות שימותו עוד לפניך. תאוריות נוספות? בבקשה: http://www.geocities.com/tibpuzzle/ http://www.erols.com/sclufer/EmUniv.html http://worldmultimedia.biz/Science/ http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~bbn/research/crisis.html ויש עוד עשרות כתובות.... בחר את המתאימה לך. כמו המשפט המפורסם שכל כך הרבה חילוניים לא מבינים את משמעותו וחושבים שהוא מתאים כאן "צדיק באמונתו יחיה".
 

Igra Rama

New member
ירית לעצמך ברגל שוטה קטן

תיאוריית emerging universe מאמצת מודל שאומר שהיקום תמיד היה. ולכן לא נוצר ולכן אין צורך ביהוה שלך. ראה כאן. ובמיוחד שים לב: A new theory of the universe suggests that space and time may not have begun in a big bang, but may have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. איזה נחמד "צדיקים מלאכתם נעשית ע"י רשעים". אני צוחק מאושר כל הדרך אל הכפירה.
 

יובל199

New member
טיפש

בכוונה הוספתי את הקישור לתאוריה המסויימת הזאת. במקום להבין את זה (ואת הקשר ל"צדיק באמונתו יחיה") אתה ברוב טיפשותך קופץ כאילו מצאת שלל רב. מה באמת עשית? הראתי לך שהתאורית המפץ הגדול התנצפה ואתה מהר מאוד אימצת את התאוריה הבאה שתאפשר לך להמשיך ככופר. נראה לי שאתה לא במסלול לחיפוש באמת אלא במסלול לחיפוש הכפירה. פעם האמינו שהיקום קדמון סטטי ולא משתנה וזה נתן סיבה מספיק טובה כדי להיות כופרים - היום הסיבות יותר מתוחכמות אבל הן עדיין סיבות. הן כמובן משתנות כל הזמן היות והמציאות טופחת על פני הכופרים כל פעם מחדש - אבל הם ימצאו את התאוריה הכפרנית הבאה - תמיד. אם לא היית משועבד לרצון הכפירה שלך אולי היית מעכל מה שכתבתי. נב: אתה ממש אבל ממש עלוב. לאחר שצחקתי על החילוניים שמעוותים את מושגים כגון "צדיק באמונתו יחיה" אתה (בלי בושה) מביא עוד מושג ("צדיקים מלאכתם נעשית ע"י רשעים") ומעוות אותו.
 

Igra Rama

New member
טמבלולו, אתה לא עקבי.

או שאתה בעד מפץ גדול ואז הטיעון שלך נכשל. או שאתה נגד ואז הטיעון שלך בכלל לא עומד כי כל תורה חליפית מדברת על יקום שכל הזמן היה.
 

יובל199

New member
ועוד משהו

אני השתמשתי בטיעון ה-KALAM שלי בתאורית המפץ הגדול היות והיא המקובלת ביותר כיום. אך לומר שהיא מדוייקת ומוכיחה קיום ללא אלוקים - זאת אמירה פשוט לא נכונה. היות ואתה מתקשה לקבל זאת הראתי לך שגם הבסיס המוצק הנקרא תאורית המפץ הגדול אינו מוצק כל כך. לגבי התאוריות האחרות - לא כולן - אבל בהחלט רובן משתדלות לתרץ את קיום היקום ללא צורך באלוקים. אך כולן (בלי יוצאת מן בכלל) אינן מצליחות להסביר את כל התוצאות שמקבלים בניסויים. תירוצים לא חסרים למי שרוצה להיות אתאיסט - אבל לטעון שהוא הגיע למסקנה שהמציאות היא כזאת שאין ברירה אלא להיות אתאיסט (אחרת אתה דתי הזוי) היא חלק מפנטזיה אתאיסטית שאין לה קשר למציאות.
 
למעלה