How I think mass forms

[Tjufsen]

From the very beginning, the start of the universe, there was a collection, of energy only, a kind of sun, but since energy weighs something, it collapsed under its own weight, that's why we have gravity too, because we have a kind of momentum from the collapse, you can't make something out of nothing, so we needed this collapse to have gravity at all, and energy went in orbits, so when this collection of energy, started to cool down a little bit, it became different types of petrified energy, what we call mass today, iron, stone, and so on, that is why if mass is not fed with a constant flow of energy from suns, that it becomes petrified only over time,

quite special really, suddenly there was a collection of energy just, in an infinite, empty space, it's gravity, too, that makes us have life, because it works a bit like a will, it pushes forward, so if you have a planet then, with warm water, and a stable environment, over time, this energy will push forward and sprout into plants, after plants comes more advanced life, such as animals, and humans, so everywhere in the universe where there is warm water and a stable environment, then life will sprout, plants have souls too, the roots themselves, same with trees too, but it is primarily this "will" that makes it sprout,

that brings me to then, why aren't we just brain dead, wandering around, not self-aware? Yeah, I think this energy is alive a little, it's not just flames, the whole foundation of everything that exists is that it's alive, was there a god who made this collection of energy to begin with? Well, a being like that would have to have created himself then, but maybe that's what makes a god special too, that he just creates himself out of nothing

 

[AV1611VET]

From the very beginning, the start of the universe, there was a collection, of energy only,

Where did that energy come from?

 

[B Griffin]

From the very beginning, the start of the universe, there was a collection, of energy only, a kind of sun

The Webb telescope can see stars where they were 13.7 billion years ago, which is very close (99% of the way) to when the big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. The problem for the big bang theory, which depends on everything being in a tiny single space 13.8 billion years ago, is that the Webb telescope can see stars in every direction that are each 13.7 billion light years away from earth. See the problem? Stars were not all really close together 13.7 billion years ago. It won't be long before we have telescopes that can see stars 13.8, or 14.0, or even 20.0 billion light years away. I guess they'll need to update their theories on the when the big bang occurred.

There's another thing to consider. How is it possible that physical space can extend out infinitely in every direction? An even harder question is, how can it stop? What would be on the other side? There are no answers to these questions outside of an all-powerful wonderfully brilliant God.

 

[jayem]

I’m not a physicist or an expert on cosmology. It’s my understanding that mass is acquired through interaction with a boson in the Higgs field. Which permeates the entire universe. And appeared at the same time as the Big Bang, or seconds later.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From the very beginning, the start of the universe, there was a collection, of energy only, a kind of sun, but since energy weighs something, it collapsed under its own weight, that's why we have gravity too, because we have a kind of momentum from the collapse, you can't make something out of nothing, so we needed this collapse to have gravity at all, and energy went in orbits, so when this collection of energy, started to cool down a little bit, it became different types of petrified energy, what we call mass today, iron, stone, and so on, that is why if mass is not fed with a constant flow of energy from suns, that it becomes petrified only over time,

quite special really, suddenly there was a collection of energy just, in an infinite, empty space, it's gravity, too, that makes us have life, because it works a bit like a will, it pushes forward, so if you have a planet then, with warm water, and a stable environment, over time, this energy will push forward and sprout into plants, after plants comes more advanced life, such as animals, and humans, so everywhere in the universe where there is warm water and a stable environment, then life will sprout, plants have souls too, the roots themselves, same with trees too, but it is primarily this "will" that makes it sprout,

that brings me to then, why aren't we just brain dead, wandering around, not self-aware? Yeah, I think this energy is alive a little, it's not just flames, the whole foundation of everything that exists is that it's alive, was there a god who made this collection of energy to begin with? Well, a being like that would have to have created himself then, but maybe that's what makes a god special too, that he just creates himself out of nothing

Your general ideas hare are slightly like those of theoretical physicist, Frank Close.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your general ideas hare are slightly like those of theoretical physicist, Frank Close.

Close, but no cigar.

God created matter ex nihilo.

The earth was the first object in the universe that had mass.

Then God built up the rest of the universe around the earth.

In short, the level of mass/energy started out at zero.

Then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[partinobodycular]

God created matter ex nihilo

But even the great Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas realized that the concept of "creatio ex nihilo" needed an asterisk, because creating something from literally nothing, is impossible.

The argument is pretty straight forward, in order for God to create something it must first have had the potential to be created, and potential in Aquinas' view wasn't the same as nothing, it's one of the two things that absolutely everything except God is made of...potentiality and actuality. Both Aristotle and Aquinas referred to this eternally existing potentiality as "prime matter", and it's that out of which God created everything that actually exists. So technically, it wasn't "creatio ex nihilo", it was creation from "prime matter"

 

[AV1611VET]

The argument is pretty straight forward, in order for God to create something it must first have had the potential to be created, and potential in Aquinas' view wasn't the same as nothing, it's one of the two things that absolutely everything except God is made of...potentiality and actuality.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument right now, that Thomas Aquinas' view is correct.

If that is true -- that God created the universe, not from nothing, but from potentiality.

If that's the case, I submit that that potentiality is LOVE, not PRIME MATTER.

God is love.

And love requires an object.

Thus God created the heavens and the earth to love.

So if Aquinas is right -- and I don't think he is -- he would be right about the non-existence of nothing, but wrong about what that potential was.

 

[sjastro]

Let's say, just for the sake of argument right now, that Thomas Aquinas' view is correct.

If that is true -- that God created the universe, not from nothing, but from potentiality.

If that's the case, I submit that that potentiality is LOVE, not PRIME MATTER.

God is love.

And love requires an object.

Thus God created the heavens and the earth to love.

So if Aquinas is right -- and I don't think he is -- he would be right about the non-existence of nothing, but wrong about what that potential was.

St Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker and brought into question if God is omnipotent.

 

[partinobodycular]

If that's the case, I submit that that potentiality is LOVE, not PRIME MATTER.

Fair enough. If that's how you want to interpret it that's fine with me. Someone else may choose to interpret that PRIME MATTER as quantum fields, out of which reality spontaneously emerges simply because it's the nature of fields to fluctuate... and in doing so to create things. I have no idea if love or consciousness is involved in that process, but anything's possible.

My point being, don't be too quick to dismiss things that may at first seem contrary to your chosen worldview. And that goes for everybody.

 

[dlamberth]

Let's say, just for the sake of argument right now, that Thomas Aquinas' view is correct.

If that is true -- that God created the universe, not from nothing, but from potentiality.

If that's the case, I submit that that potentiality is LOVE, not PRIME MATTER.

God is love.

And love requires an object.

Thus God created the heavens and the earth to love.

So if Aquinas is right -- and I don't think he is -- he would be right about the non-existence of nothing, but wrong about what that potential was.

If I understanding what your saying, Love, the way it's presented here, looks more like the driving force to create. Where as the actual creating act itself brings in other elements to cause the physical realm to exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

St Thomas Aquinas was a great thinker and brought into question if God is omnipotent.

Excellent video!

Thanks for sharing it!

 

[partinobodycular]

If I understanding what your saying, Love, the way it's presented here, looks more like the driving force to create. Where as the actual creating act itself brings in other elements to cause the physical realm to exist.

Now let's consider something else. The generally accepted paradigm is that matter, in a sufficiently complex arrangement can produce consciousness. But what of other things? Could quantum fields in a sufficiently complex arrangement, produce consciousness? Or is matter, for some unknown reason, the only thing that can produce consciousness? That would seem to be a bit presumptive.

If those fields can produce consciousness then it may not be inaccurate to describe the spontaneous act of creation as a conscious act of love. Who am I to argue otherwise just because it doesn't fit into some currently existing worldview.

Sure I want to know what's true, it's what I'm here for, but the first step in that process is determining what's possible.

Is it possible that quantum fields could produce consciousness? If the answer is maybe, then maybe we need to reconsider possibilities that we've here-to-fore dismissed.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point being, don't be too quick to dismiss things that may at first seem contrary to your chosen worldview. And that goes for everybody.

10-4!

Thanks for the advice!

 

[AV1611VET]

If I understanding what your saying, Love, the way it's presented here, looks more like the driving force to create. Where as the actual creating act itself brings in other elements to cause the physical realm to exist.

Correct.

 

[dlamberth]

Correct.

It makes me ask: Beyond just saying "God", I wonder what's IN that Love that causes Creation to happen?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Yeah, I think this energy is alive a little, it's not just flames, the whole foundation of everything that exists is that it's alive, was there a god who made this collection of energy to begin with?

Perhaps consciousness is the fundamental nature of reality. Imagine the willpower it takes to create anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

It makes me ask: Beyond just saying "God", I wonder what's IN that Love that causes Creation to happen?

Again, God is love.

And in the beginning, there was nothing.

And by nothing, I mean NOTHING.

But love requires an object, and so God created an object to love.

That object is the universe.

Specifically us humans.

 

[dlamberth]

Again, God is love.

And in the beginning, there was nothing.

And by nothing, I mean NOTHING.

Sounds very Zen.

But love requires an object, and so God created an object to love.

That object is the universe.

Specifically us humans.

Rather than the object, l'm looking at the source right at the moment of Creation.
There must be more than just "nothing" in God's Love at that moment.
I point to that because God's Divine Love birthed Creation. That's pretty powerful stuff right there.
So it seems pretty clear to me that there's a lot IN God's Love, more than just a need to Love an object.
And that's what I'm asking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds very Zen.

Zen can take a hike.

Rather than the object, l'm looking at the source right at the moment of Creation.

The object is the universe.

The source is God.

There must be more than just "nothing" in God's Love at that moment.

If so, He didn't tell us what it is.

I point to that because God's Divine Love birthed Creation.

No, it didn't.

God spoke creation into existence.

You're making God out to be some sort of catalyst between love and the universe.

That's pretty powerful stuff right there.

But it's wrong.

So it seems pretty clear to me that there's a lot IN God's Love, more than just a need to Love an object.

Don't go assuming there's more in a safe than what the safe keeper tells you is in there.

You can assume it holds a gun, a book, shoes, anything.

The safe keeper knows, but you don't.

And that's what I'm asking about.

I don't know.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.