|
Author
|
Topic: Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
Message 78 of 301 (465054)
05-02-2008 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Rrhain
05-02-2008 6:10 AM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: Huh? What do you mean "appearing"? Are you implying that it isn't? The universe did not exist at T=0. The universe is at T=10 -43. The universe does not exist and one Planck time later it does sounds like magic to me. It had to appear from somewhere or did it. Come from an absence of anything. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2008 6:10 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 79 of 301 (465055)
05-02-2008 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Rrhain
05-02-2008 4:42 AM
|
|
Re-NitPick
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: I'm sorry, I don't see how that responds to my point. You quoted exactly what I said: The Bible claims the universe is big. It does not say that it is still expanding. I need chapter and verse in the Bible as I can't find where the Bible says it is big.
Rrhain writes: But that isn't what astronomy says, either. Stars still shine, even when they collapse. And in some cases, they explode and make new stars. Yes some supernovas explode and make new stars. Yes until a star goes out expends all its energy it shines. Science says that in time a white dwarf will become a black dwarf when there is an absence of light. It will be dark forever.
Rrhain writes: Are you seriously claiming that there was no such thing as journalism before the invention of the TV? And that the Bible "prophesied" journalism? I said before satellite TV it would be impossible for the world to see the bodies of two men lying in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 days. The Bible gives a direct prophesy that it will happen.
Rrhain writes: Except it isn't. Let's not play dumb here. The gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same god. Why do you think there is such strife in the Middle East? First I said they claim. Strife in the Middle East is caused because one brother stole the birthright of the older brother. It will continue until Jesus comes back and sets up His kingdom on earth. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2008 4:42 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 6:49 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 82 of 301 (465059)
05-02-2008 2:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by Rrhain
05-02-2008 4:07 AM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: And that inflation is not the same as expansion, yes? As I understand it inflation, 'super expansion', lasted a very short time. Inflation is a hypothetical field. It is a fudge factor to account for some predictions of the Big Bang that would falsify the Big Bang if inflation was not inserted. If the inflationary epoch really took place, it could cure the problems of Horizon, Flatness, and Monopole Expansion is the growing of space between the objects in the universe. Although I can't figure out how some space can grow and other space can't grow.
Rrhain writes: What do you think the red-shift is a measure of? Rrhain, I am a Bible thumper. Nevertheless. There are several ideas of what red-shift is and what causes it. To me and my theory it makes no difference. If it is caused by expansion that is OK as God has stretched out the heavens to His satisfaction.
Rrhain writes: What do you think the various experiments into dark energy are about? Bible thumper version. Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy. It seems like expansion is increasing and we need something to explain how that could happen.
Rrhain writes: What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts. I never switch the goal posts. The goal posts are set at true knowledge. Now as far as this topic I thought it was about origin. But I am willing to talk about the hypothetical Inflation field, or Expansion.
Rrhain writes: But you seem to be reaching toward that perennial creationist claim that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything. There are many things that are observed, and can be duplicated. Unless our observation is tainted we can know many things. But when you have to add assumptions to get things to match what you observe that is not knowledge. That is guessing that what you believe is the best answer. Concerning the origin Hawking said: "Cosmology can not predict anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions." Now if you make the right assumptions you get the right answer. If you make the wrong assumptions you get a mess.
Rrhain writes: Incorrect. You are confusing "unknown" with "unknowable" and "unfalsifiable." No I am trying to point out that the assumptions are unfalsifiable. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by Rrhain, posted 05-02-2008 4:07 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 7:43 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 83 of 301 (465061)
05-02-2008 3:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by Blue Jay
05-02-2008 1:59 PM
|
|
Re: My Understanding
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes: So, roughly speaking, "singularity" = "inability for a theory to explain a phenomenon." Got it? Thanks for the beautiful, insightful explanation but sorry I don't get it.
Here you can find Hawking's definition of singularity.
Hawking writes: A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but can not be embedded in a larger spacetime. The universe starts at a singularity filled with radiation at an innite temperature. As it expands, the radiation cools and its energy density goes down. Is Hawking wrong? Hawking even describes how a singularity is formed when gravity curves spacetime. Now if you want to say it is a point in a math equation that the math breaks down and can tell us noting that is OK with me. That tells me there is nothing at T=0. God Bless.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by Blue Jay, posted 05-02-2008 1:59 PM | | Blue Jay has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 84 of 301 (465063)
05-02-2008 3:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
05-02-2008 2:05 PM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: There is no point in time at which the Unvierse does not exist. So time does not exist at T=0. No time = No universe. Rahvin the Big Bang with a singularity did not happen. cavediver skips the singularity and goes to imaginary time. Why do you think Hawking proposed his hypothesis of imaginary time and no boundary?
Rahvin writes: You do not understand the Big Bang model enough to make any statement of accuracy regarding the model, even on the most basic layman's terms. You probably right that is the reason I quote Hawking and http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/index.html quite often among many others. They seem to know what they are talking about. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 2:05 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 87 of 301 (465069)
05-02-2008 4:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by Blue Jay
05-02-2008 3:43 PM
|
|
Re: My Understanding
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes: Well, it shouldn't. What it should tell you is that there isn't a way for us to know what's there, because the math gives weird answers. The problem is it gives no answer. I checked the link and it works. I have the latest adobe. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by Blue Jay, posted 05-02-2008 3:43 PM | | Blue Jay has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 05-02-2008 4:34 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 89 of 301 (465071)
05-02-2008 4:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Rahvin
05-02-2008 4:13 PM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: Excuse me? I don't recall cavediver talking much about imaginary time. i recall you doing that, as if you follow along with Hawking's hypotheses. He doesn't talk about it.
Herecavediver says, I agree, it's a tough one. I guess I've always gone with Hartle Hawking, as it seems more in tune with the spirit (or my perception of the spirit) of FRW and GR in general. If you can appreciate the globe (north pole, south pole) analogy of a closed FRW, you have gained a real insight into GR. You can then take that picture and easily expand into the current FLRW picture.
Talking about pushing through the singularity, while quite possibly what happened, does not give such the large-scale insight. So I guess I'm more reacting out of defense of my own presentation, and others may well say that FRW with its singularity is more in tune with your picture than mine, where I ignore the singularity by silently invoking No-Boundary. He just inserts it and goes on with the Hartle Hawking hypothesis.
Rahvin writes: you don't know what the word "singularity" means. You right but Hawking says it is:
Here you can find Hawking's definition of singularity.
Hawking writes: Defnition of Singularity A spacetime is singular if it is timelike or null geodesically incomplete, but can not be embedded in a larger spacetime. Rahvin writes: ICANT. From now on, I'll just post the word "Wrong" under each false statement you make. Then you won't expect me to answer your posts. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 05-02-2008 4:13 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2008 10:09 PM | | ICANT has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: Are you afraid to answer the question or are you unable to answer the question?
I answered the question you asked me. If you have a question ask it. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by molbiogirl, posted 05-02-2008 7:54 PM | | molbiogirl has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 94 of 301 (465094)
05-02-2008 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
05-02-2008 10:09 PM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes: The above is likely correct but to simplify for us layfolk I was just answering a question concerning me not knowing what a singularity was.
Buzsaw writes: T=0 to T=10-43. Buz the amount of time there is, the time it takes for light to travel Planck's length. A Planck's length is the shortest distance that there is. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2008 10:09 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 97 by Buzsaw, posted 05-03-2008 9:11 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 95 of 301 (465095)
05-02-2008 11:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by molbiogirl
05-02-2008 10:47 PM
|
|
Re: Ask and ye shall receive.
Hi molbiogirl,
molbiogirl writes: Answer my question. why do you have problems with Islamic prophecies which followed xianity? There is no such thing as xianity therefore there is no question. Since xianity does not exist Islamic would have to be before xianity as you or someone like you created it if it exists. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by molbiogirl, posted 05-02-2008 10:47 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 96 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:01 AM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 149 of 301 (465777)
05-10-2008 9:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
04-27-2008 10:02 AM
|
|
Re-Point #1 OP
Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes: 1. The universe (everything existing) including it's designer, Jehovah, the Biblical god have eternally existed, Jehovah being the omnipotent source, manager and supreme majesty of all of the universe and the energy of it. I have a problem with this statement so please help me out. Do you mean to say that the universe has always existed in the state we see it today or that it always existed in some form? In Message 145 you state: my eternal system Does this mean that the universe as we see it today will always be as we see it today? Or will it be changed as Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:10-12? God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 04-27-2008 10:02 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 150 of 301 (465778)
05-10-2008 10:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by Buzsaw
05-09-2008 11:23 PM
|
|
Re: You Never Left the Starting Gate
Hi Buz,
Buzsaw writes: All energy and matter observed today once allegedly compacted as properties of a submicroscopic speck of space beginning at T=0 having no outside of or before contrary to all LoTs of science. According to Big Bang Theory that space was inside of the submicroscopic speck as was the entire universe. My problem with that is there was an absence of anything or anywhere for the speck to be. If there was nowhere the speck could exist then it could not exist. That is why I like my theory better. Let me run it by you. In the eternity halls of heaven God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit was counting the angels go by as they took care of their tasks. God the Son said I am bored, I need to do something. God the Father said here take this self contained programed universe give it a kick start and then you must take care of it. God the Son took the self contained programed universe in His left hand and with His right index finger gave it a super thump. The universe expanded at a super rate for a short time due to the super thump. Then it settled down to expansion at the speed seen for billions of years. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2008 11:23 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 151 of 301 (465782)
05-10-2008 11:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
05-03-2008 7:43 PM
|
|
Re: Origin
Hi Rrhain I was quoting from Hawking's personal website, Lectures not a book.
Rrhain writes: quote:
quote:
What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts.
I never switch the goal posts.
Oh, really? Let's see what I originally said...you know...the part you cut out:
Rrhain writes: What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts. Are we talking about origins? Inflation? Expansion? What?
It seems you don't know what you are trying to deny. We can measure inflation and expansion which is what we were talking about:
Buzsaw writes: Message 17The three unknowns relative to the expansion
Rrhain writes: Message 33Incorrect. We actually know a fair amount about it. Where is your evidence that we don't know?
ICANT writes: Message 38I am told that we know what happened from T=10-43. I am also told that GR breaks down at this point and can not tell me what if anything is before T=10-43. You are the mathematician so what does the math say?
And thus, my reaction:
Rrhain writes: Message 70What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts. Are we talking about origins? Inflation? Expansion? What?
Buzsaw and I were referring to the expansion of the universe. I pointed out that the expansion of the universe is a measurable quantity and that we know a fair amount about it. You jump in and suddenly talk about origins. That's shifting the goalposts. Since Buzsaw's claim about the expansion of the universe is false, you shift the goalposts and insist we come up with an explanation of origins and hope to high heaven that nobody notices. Fron: Buzsaw writes: Message 17The three unknowns relative to the expansion
1. The origin of neither can be falsified.
2. The means of neither can be falsified.
3. The age of neither can be falsified. As I understand Buzsaw he is saying expansion is false because none of these 3 things can be falsified. Maybe I misunderstood. The # 1 unknown by Buzsaw is origin. So how did I shift the goalposts. Buzsaw singled these 3 out in Message 17 God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 7:43 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2008 7:51 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 153 of 301 (465788)
05-10-2008 12:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
05-03-2008 7:43 PM
|
|
Re: Inflation
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes: ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Inflation is a hypothetical field.
Incorrect. It's a measured occurence. We know that inflation happened. What we don't quite understand is how. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdf The Idea of Inflation, seen with many years of hindsight, is actually rather obvious. Inflation does not replace the hot big bang theory; it is a bolt-on accessory attached to improve the performance of the theory. Inflation solves the flatness problem more or less by definition. The relic abundances can only be solved if the energy density of the universe can be turned into conventional matter without recreating the unwanted relics. The horizon problem and homogeneity predicted by the Big Bang Model can not be accomplished by the Big Bang Model. Ensuring that light can travel much futher before decoupling than it can afterwards can only be achieved by inflation. Inflation has to have something to drive such an expansion. This driving force is provided by cosmological scalar fields. I quote LIDDLE. "No fundamental scalar field has yet been observed." God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 05-03-2008 7:43 PM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.7
|
|
|
Message 157 of 301 (465805)
05-10-2008 6:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 156 by Son Goku
05-10-2008 4:00 PM
|
|
Re: Singularity
Thanks Son Goku,
Son Goku writes: The singularity does not go anywhere because it wasn't there in the first place. It is simply a sign of the breakdown of General Relativity. Let's see if I can put this puppy to bed. The singularity is a point at which the math of General Relativity does not work. Therefore It does not allude to or speak to anything that might or might not be at the point it breaks down and don't work. Is this correct with your thinking or do I need to modify? God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 156 by Son Goku, posted 05-10-2008 4:00 PM | | Son Goku has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 159 by Son Goku, posted 05-10-2008 7:33 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2