The Physics of God

[jedaisoul]

There is some physics involved in the Origin of Religion. The physics I speak of is the Image on the Moon. This image can be interpreted as a 'fetus' in a womans womb because the 'menstral cycles of women and the Moons periods around the Earth are almost equal.

 

So I am certain that the females during that early period were aware of this coincidence and then could have practiced or contolled their desires to become pregnant or not by avoiding their fertility periods that are about 10 days long. This could be an example of the first 'family' planning.

 

However, we can say that this is not a spirit created coincidence unless you would portray the ''genes' within these woman as created to be in tune with this heavenly body. In other words, the Moon was here long before the human race was created.

Even if you are correct that women used the lunar cycle to predict their menstrual cycle, where is the religion, let alone the physics, in this?

 

Then the separation of the bibles 'day' and 'night' that has established the lion as the biblical spirit god is another example that the Sun was here long before the lion established himself as the Sun god.

What?

 

These two creations, I would have to consider as subjectively modified genes by the creatures themselves over long periods of time IMHO.

Unless you have some evidence to support your theory of the capacity to subjectively modify genes, there is no science involved, and certainly no physics. And even then, where is the religion in this?

[Mike C]

Even if you are correct that women used the lunar cycle to predict their menstrual cycle, where is the religion, let alone the physics, in this?

 

The cycles of the Moon that is a physical object is physics, is it not?

 

What?

Unless you have some evidence to support your theory of the capacity to subjectively modify genes, there is no science involved, and certainly no physics. And even then, where is the religion in this?

 

The fact that you have a physical object (Moon) that is linked to the female menstral period is a remarkable coincidence, is it not?

But the more remarkable link between a living person and an object that was created billions of years ago is a remarkable coincidence, is it not?

Then how do you explain this coincidence between two things that were created billions of years apart?

To me, the only solution I can see is that the womans genes were matched/modified to conform to the Moons image.

Certainly, the Moon could not have been mosified to create this link.

So you have to look to the 'evolution' of the womans genes to cause the match. This, of course is my opinion.

My evidence is that I 'think'.

 

Mike C

[CraigD]

The fact that you have a physical object (Moon) that is linked to the female menstral period is a remarkable coincidence, is it not?

It’s a coincidence of convenience, I’d say.

 

The lunar cycle is currently precisely 29.53 days.

 

The length of the menstrual cycle varies among normal women between 21 to 40 days, the average being roughly 28 days. About 23% of normal women have average menstrual cycles less than 25 days or more than 31. Variation of up to 8 days between lengths of menstrual cycles by a particular woman are considered clinically “regular”, while greater variation is not necessarily an indication of health-threatening abnormality. Also, age and environmental factors such as diet, exercise, exposure to sunlight, and many others effect menstrual cycle length. (Sources: Knowing your Menstrual Cycle and Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine - 3(4):387).

 

So there’s not a very strong match between the length of most women’s menstrual cycles, and the length of the lunar cycle. Practically, the predictive value of the phase of the moon is more of a matter of “I began my menstrual period when the moon was roughly in this phase, so when its approaching this phase again, I should expect it again, but not be surprised if it’s a few days early or late” than of astronomical precision. I’m unaware, either through personal experience or from any literature, of any woman whose menstrual periods occur with significantly greater frequency when the moon is in any particular phase – although, through purposeful, atypical use of oral contraceptives (“the pill”), such synchronization is, I suspect, possible in principle, though not medically advisable.

 

This is not to say that strong natural selection pressures have not contributed to the length of menstrual cycles in humans - which is much shorter than the typical cycle of other primates, a much-written-about subject of evolutionary biology. However, I’m aware of no evidence of any causative connection between the human menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle.

[Mike C]

Craig

 

You will admit that the average menstral periods average out to the Moons cycles.

This is still a physical/biological link.

 

The Egyptians have linked their god Ra as a Sun god and creator. This is also a link to a physical body.

The Jews have promoted their YHWH as white and linked to the Sun as a 'day' god.

Their chauvinism is portrayed by the lion as a day god in opposition to the Moon as the darkness representative of the apes and bison/oxen. This is another link to a physical object (Sun) to surrounding biological life.

So you can say that the two astronomical objects are the subjects of religious doctrine.

 

Mike C

[jedaisoul]

The cycles of the Moon that is a physical object is physics, is it not?

Yes, but relating it to women's menstrual cycle is not.

 

The fact that you have a physical object (Moon) that is linked to the female menstral period is a remarkable coincidence, is it not? But the more remarkable link between a living person and an object that was created billions of years ago is a remarkable coincidence, is it not?

It is up to you to show why you think this is remarkable.

 

Then how do you explain this coincidence between two things that were created billions of years apart?

I don't have to. I'm not claiming that it is anything other than a coincidence.

 

To me, the only solution I can see is that the womans genes were matched/modified to conform to the Moons image. Certainly, the Moon could not have been mosified to create this link. So you have to look to the 'evolution' of the womans genes to cause the match. This, of course is my opinion.

You are arguing that women's periods have evolved to loosely match the lunar cycle. That is nothing to do with the moons image. You have given no evidence to support the claim that this is anything other than a coincidence, so your claim is un-scientific. And, even if it were correct, that is biology, not physics, nor religion.

 

My evidence is that I 'think'.

That is not evidence. It is supposition. Where's the physics in this. Where's the religion in this?

[questor]

Why not discuss the idea of a creator instead of retreading the overworn ground of ''is there a God'? Since we exist and the universe exists, was the universe created or did it just occur? Was there a Big Bang or some seminal event that occurred? If so, wasn't it supernatural? It was a one time event with no repeats= supernatural even if it followed physical laws. Did gravity, light, matter, physical laws and life all occur without cause? Can one imagine the odds of all the things we see occurring without cause and maintaining

equilibrium? If there was a cause, the cause was supernatural, no matter what name you call it. I believe there was a beginning and a cause, but I don't believe the cause was an old man with a beard that cares deeply about us.

[wigglieverse]

My evidence is that I 'think'.

That is not evidence. It is supposition. Where's the physics in this. Where's the religion in this?

What's "evidence"? What do you, think it is?

[jedaisoul]

What's "evidence"? What do you, think it is?

I use the term in what I believe is a standard interpretation.

[paigetheoracle]

God is a being whose centre is nowhere and whose circumference is everywhere, someone once said. By this they meant that God is the eternal within and the infinite without - God is everything that exists: The infinitely small (microcosmic world of the atom) and the infinitely large (space/ the planets). God cannot be encapsulated or described, only experienced as a feeling of awe. The mundane or known isn't God but death, which is really only a measurement of absence (non-existence). In terms of emotion Go(o)d is elation (positive feeling) and The (D)evil is depression (absence of feeling/ lack of impulse - gravity as opposed to levity* - that which inflates us with vigour and purpose as opposed to drains us with despair and hopelessness). Like water or energy God saturates everything and 'is' everything.

 

In human terms God is the journey into this world and reflects the novices awe at the newness of everything around and within them as opposed to the journey out, which is ages jaded, satiated, debauched, worn out, cynical approach to everything (Knowing as opposed to mystery - the magic trick exposed as just another con, just another mechanism to attract your attention and being disclosed, the audience (older and wiser us) moves on).

 

God is not a person but a force, a feeling that permeates everything. It cannot be blamed for everything that happens in our lives - it is not a 'sacrificial' RAM (Responsibility Acceptance Mechanism) or SEP (Supreme Excuse Machinery), nor even a son of SEM. God is on the borders of 'now'. It is having the courage to step into the light (in both senses of the word) and abandon the safe past for the uncertain future (Release yourself from the prison cell of limited consciousness that is the known). God is you and me working together instead of working apart or falling apart: We make God in our unity and the Devil by our disunity (Our fears push us apart - our courage unites us to step forward together into the future with faith, hope and trust). It is the journey not the destination.:lol:

 

* See Elation/ Depression pictures on my website (Gallery - first part) for my representation of this http://www.aliensociety.org

[questor]

If we discuss man's concept of God, we always segue into the world of mysticism and the thousands of different concepts of who/what God is or isn't. We also get into discussions of the Bible or Koran or other man-made books or theories. Why can't we just concentrate on creation. This occurred billions of Years before man ever conceived of God. If man did not exist or if the earth was destroyed, the universe would still exist. The question is: what/who made the universe and all the components that make it work. If the universe was created, then the creator was supernatural and all powerful.

If it was not created, that means it occurred without cause...a concept I have trouble with. It is useless to continue to give opinions on the gender, physical description or place of residence of God who only appeared with the advent of man.

[CraigD]

You will admit that the average menstral periods average out to the Moons cycles.

This is still a physical/biological link.

No, I don’t consider these claims to be true.

 

As I noted in post #20, the moon’s cycle length and the average menstrual cycle don’t agree well, being about 1.5 days (.6 standard deviations) different. More than half of all women’s average menstrual cycle length differs my more than 2 days from the lunar cycle length, about 7% by more than 4 – simply not a very good match. Combined with normal variation in individual women’s cycle lengths of about 8 days, the match is even less good.

 

The length of the lunar cycles is the result of astronomical factors related to the formation of the Earth and moon. The human menstrual cycle is the result of biological evolution. The moon is believed to have formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The genus that would eventually contain humans is believed to have split from the one that would eventually contain our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees (which have a roughly 36 day average estrus cycles length). So while it’s difficult to say how recently humans or their ancestor species’ average menstrual cycle length reached roughly 28 day, it’s unlikely to have been earlier than 5 million years ago.

 

Obviously human beings are aware of the existence of many astronomical objects, and often ascribe mystical significance to them. This doesn’t imply that humans and the moon – or any other celestial body - have a common origin, that one caused the other, or that similarity between human and the moon is anything but unrelated coincidence.

[wigglieverse]

Isn't the human-lunar cycle synchronicity, just co-evolution (for whatever advantage)?

Women who co-habit tend to start having their cycles at the same time, similar to the way coupled oscillators do this (try putting two pendulum clocks on a wall next each other). Synchronicity is a pretty common thing in Nature. Any cycle usually 'tries' to find a state of minimum energy.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Questor, I believe Paige has also made a clear seperation between God and the creator. I definitly agree that by categorizing God one begins to actually move farther away from what God is. It has no definition. You choose to associate it with creation, which I agree with. I've always described God as the source of all creation and the force that binds all things to balance perfectly. Some people add their own views to this idea, and I am fine with that, because neither idea is negated. It is when a "belief" attempts to disprove an "idea" that I have a problem.

 

And scientists generally use the "magician in the sky" illustration to convey their disbelief in God because it is so absurd. They don't want to believe in God, and therefore they create plenty of evidence against it. But if God is a concept or force, why try to disprove it?

[freeztar]

Isn't the human-lunar cycle synchronicity,

 

CraigD debunked that above.

 

just co-evolution (for whatever advantage)?

 

Evolution does not occur without an advantage. What would be the evolutionary advantage of having a menstrual cycle that matches the phases of the moon? Why wouldn't we see this in other creatures?

 

Women who co-habit tend to start having their cycles at the same time

 

This is true as far as I've heard from women.

 

similar to the way coupled oscillators do this (try putting two pendulum clocks on a wall next each other).

 

So two pendulum clocks on the wall will eventually synchronize and swing in unison? I've never tried, but I find that impossible to believe. What would be the forces involved in this?

 

Synchronicity is a pretty common thing in Nature.

 

I once heard a story from a friend that some doctors had a beating heart and they cut a piece of it off and when the piece was taken away from the vicinity of the heart they beat asynchronisly (is that a word?), but when the piece was brought near the heart they beat together. Has anyone ever heard of this? Sounds bunk to me, but I can't find anything on the internet either way.

 

Any cycle usually 'tries' to find a state of minimum energy.

 

In the case of the clocks, I would say that the state of minimum energy would be stopped, rather than synchronicity with one another.

[CraigD]

Isn't the human-lunar cycle synchronicity, just co-evolution (for whatever advantage)?

I don’t believe so.

 

No data of which I'm aware from personal experience or literature suggests that womens’ menstrual cycles “synchronize” is any detectable fashion with the phase of the moon. There appears to be no greater number of women menstruating at any particular phase of the moon than at any other, nor any particular woman who menstruates more frequently during any phase of the moon than during any other.

 

Interestingly, I found this reference to a theory proposing precisely what no evidence appears to support: “ Lunaception”, according to the linked article an idea proposed by a woman named Louise Lacey in a 1974 book on natural contraception and improved conception. According to the linked article, however, the theory has never been tested in a well-controlled manner, only offered as self-help advice.

Women who co-habit tend to start having their cycles at the same time …

Until moments ago, I believed that this was a well-established scientific theory, known as the “McClintock effect”. It appears in my notes from an undergraduate psychology class in the late 1970s. However, there appears to be widespread doubt that this effect has actually been demonstrated in the well-controlled manner, or as clearly and dramatically, as I believed it had. (This “Strait Dope” article appears to have a good account of this contraversy) Particularly in dissagreement with my pre-conception is the limited effect claimed by McClintock in later papers seeking to confirm the effect: From an average difference in onset of menstural period from 7 days (what one would expect to occur by pure random chance) to an average of 5 days – far from my impression of “synchoronized”.

 

Lunaception and the McClintock effect appear a lesson in how untested theories can come to be accepted by even well-read, skeptical people. Both make sense – Lacey’s idea proposing that women’s visual perception of light at night is the mechanism for the proposed synchonization, while in McClintock’s, the proposed mechanism is pheromones in women’s sweat or menstural blood, detected via their sense of smell. Both involve claims by other researchers to have independently and in a well-controlled manner reproduced the effect. Both are widely believed by many people both in and outside of scientific and academic professions. Both are commonly believed to be easy to experimentally verify, the sort of thing that an ambhitious high-school science fair contestant might undertake. This last belief appears justified, as the theorized effects are distinct and unambiguous, with well-defined procedures for testing them

 

When actually tested by objective, independent researchers, however, neither effect appears to actually exist – a lesson in the importance of being skeptical of claims for which you’ve not actually reviewed the experimental data, or better still, personally conducted well-controlled experiments.

[wigglieverse]

Any cycle usually 'tries' to find a state of minimum energy.

In the case of the clocks, I would say that the state of minimum energy would be stopped,

Some 'clocks' don't stop, though. We use Ce atoms to keep accurate track of "Time", or change, by counting hyperfine transitions in electron energy levels, or quantum states of "oscillation" around a cesium nucleus.

Momentum doesn't "go" anywhere, it gets 'transferred', energy is alway conserved. And it tends to 'level out', or find a relaxed state, in any system.

 

P.S. If you don't know what "coupled oscillation" means, try any first-year Physics text; google it: "I google, therefore I find"

[freeztar]

Some 'clocks' don't stop, though.

 

Of course, but you mentioned pendulum wall clocks, which do stop without occasional maintenance.

 

P.S. If you don't know what "coupled oscillation" means, try any first-year Physics text; google it: "I google, therefore I find"

 

Honestly, I didn't know what coupled oscillation meant. I looked it up and am that much more enlightened. Thanks!

 

In light of that knowledge, I still would like an answer to my question about the two wall clocks. :)