Ancient books

[quiet]

Hi. I would like to read opinions regarding the following.

There are old books and there are religions. We know with certainty that religions invoke parts of ancient books to justify the structure of this or that religion. Regardless of that, the old books are full of affirmations of all kinds, including some that we can discuss scientifically today.

Take the Bible as an example, although the same thing appears in other ancient books. Regarding the genesis of what exists, it explains that the formation started from nothing. Do I commit abuse assuming that, in that context, the word nothing equals emptiness? In case of not committing abuse, let's continue. The second affirmation is that light was born from the vacuum. And the third, that light then formed everything that makes up the universe.

Personally, I interpret that sequence as the pure vacuum is unstable and polarizing resolves the  instability, that is producing pairs of linked charges. Each pair of linked charges that appears causes an event that generates radiation. The formation of an electron / positron pair from two photons that collide with each other in a vacuum has been verified experimentally. I have no news of larger mass particles obtained from pure radiation, or from an environment full of photons, electrons and positrons.

That's where I arrived. Opinions?

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, quite said:

Personally, I interpret that sequence as the pure vacuum is unstable and polarizing resolves the  instability, that is producing pairs of linked charges. Each pair of linked charges that appears causes an event that generates radiation. The formation of an electron / positron pair from two photons that collide with each other in a vacuum has been verified experimentally. I have no news of larger mass particles obtained from pure radiation, or from an environment full of photons, electrons and positrons.

You can interpret it that way, but it doesn't;t say that. If that is what they wanted to say, why didn't they say it.

Also, there is no evidence for the model of "creation" that you propose.

So the whole idea seems to be based on two things you have made up with no supporting evidence.

1 hour ago, quite said:

That's where I arrived. Opinions?

Fine. If that's what you want to believe. But there doesn't;t seem to be any science here.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, quite said:

Take the Bible as an example, although the same thing appears in other ancient books.

Actually, this is where the Bible is quite lacking. Very few other texts verify or confirm many of the events written about, and some (a supposed eclipse event leaps to mind) are flat out untrue. Where is the corroboration for the Great Flood from other civilizations around the world? The parting of the Red Sea should have also had a mention in chronicles other than the Bible, but we don't see that. 

[Strange]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Where is the corroboration for the Great Flood from other civilizations around the world?

And, it is not in the least bit surprising that they inherited this story from a civilisation between two large rivers that regularly ... flooded. And they came up with a flood story. Amazing.

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, it is not in the least bit surprising that they inherited this story from a civilisation between two large rivers that regularly ... flooded. And they came up with a flood story. Amazing.

I suppose exaggerating a major local flood into a global flood is excusable poetic license. But then you have all those plagues, miracles, and bizarre rains that surely would have been noted by more than just the Bible's chroniclers. Does the OP know of any ancient books that corroborate the Bible about these events?

[quiet]

Thank you Strange and Phi for All for your answers. The focus of my interest is not on religions. It is in evaluating the possibility of emptiness being the source of everything that exists. Does that possibility violate any physical law, or more than one?

[Phi for All]

37 minutes ago, quite said:

The focus of my interest is not on religions.

And that was readily apparent, but you also seemed to base your interests on the assumption that the Bible was corroborated by other ancient texts, which isn't the case. I'm not even sure why "ancient books" is part of your idea. 

I look forward to your reply tomorrow, when your 5 post maximum first day is over. 

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Phi for All
Added mention of 5 post max on new joiners

[Strange]

9 hours ago, quite said:

Thank you Strange and Phi for All for your answers. The focus of my interest is not on religions. It is in evaluating the possibility of emptiness being the source of everything that exists. Does that possibility violate any physical law, or more than one?

You might want to look at the science around this instead of irrelevant myths

For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

[quiet]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Yes, it's the kind of information I need. My mind does not conceive another kind of universe, only the class whose total net energy is equal to zero. And my mind asks more questions, about the roles that negative energy can play.

Regarding the roles of positive energy, I have fewer questions, because it appears as constituting waves and matter, appears ascribed to movement and, in general, ascribed to phenomena closer to vulgar knowledge.

Net energy equal to zero implies equal amounts of energy of both signs in the whole universe. In other words, it implies an extremely important symmetry, which in one aspect imposes restrictive conditions. In another aspect may involve the freedom to obtain unlimited amounts of useful energy, designing sequences according to symmetry.