Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Laws of Conservation?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 86 (501161)
03-04-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Richard Townsend
03-04-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Time
I was being a smartypants when I used the word event
You don't have to explain that to me, dude. I once thought the BB was an event. Before college I was one of those that thought the BB refered to an actual 'explosion' - a BIG BANG. Why the fuck would they name it that and totally confuse me? Why didn't they just call it Cosmological Expansion in the mainstream, I guess it's not as catchy as BIG BANG?
But I learned and now have a better understanding of it. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It serves it's purpose when approaching an answer, mainly, that it's wrong in comparison to what is right.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-04-2009 5:24 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 03-12-2009 5:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 77 of 86 (501163)
03-04-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Richard Townsend
03-04-2009 3:56 PM


Re: Time
No, but I see the following logical possibilities.
- The universe may have begun without time, which emerged 'subsequently'.
- Time may have come into existence before the big bang, in some kind of precursor to our universe.
Yes, both of these are highly plausible and are contained in multiple hypotheses and higher "theories". Though you need to highly caveat your use of words such as "begun"...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Richard Townsend, posted 03-04-2009 3:56 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
Black
Member (Idle past 5184 days)
Posts: 77
Joined: 11-28-2008


Message 78 of 86 (502677)
03-12-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by cavediver
03-02-2009 1:54 PM


cavediver,
so, are you saying that for example, the shape of a balloon or anything for that matter is just an illusion? Could a Balloon's internal division not be considered isolated since there is a division wall from it to the external space?
Edited by Black, : grammitcal edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by cavediver, posted 03-02-2009 1:54 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 86 (502679)
03-12-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by onifre
03-04-2009 7:04 PM


Re: Time
Why the fuck would they name it that and totally confuse me?
"Big Bang" was the name Hoyle coined as a derogatory remark (he never really accepted the Big Bang theory). But, as often happens, the name was so silly that it became adopted by the theory's adherents.

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 03-04-2009 7:04 PM onifre has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 80 of 86 (513666)
07-01-2009 12:17 AM


Conservation Mass energy
The book is in my bedroom. So, I might misquote a little. David Mills who seems like a reasonably smart dude wrote in chapter 2 about Law of Conservation/Mass in his best selling book Atheist Universe.
David explained this law states matter can not be created or destroyed. He went on to say that matter & energy are the same. He mentioned that we are all made up of this mass/energy stuff. He mentioned none of this isolated system stuff.
Although he did not put it this way: It is unreasonable to pick from hundreds of uncreated invisible creators because this one or that one suits your fancy. Not forgetting by their very supernatural nature these things(gods?) are forever unknown to the human mind. Then to have the callousness to say it is my invisible thing in another dimension not yours that created the known using magic from an unknown location ex-nihlo not yours. If you disagree I might desire to convert you and argue. IF that fails death and torture might be likely. Oh ya you might be punished if you continue to worship your thing.
Now he did go on to say that because we are made of this stuff and it can not be created or destroyed and the volume of this stuff has not and can not changed based on this accepted law it is obvious that it is this stuff that has existed forever. He also pointed out until it can be demonstrated this can be proven untrue it is what it is. Therefore a god did not do it.
**it is my understanding that energy of some sort is wizzing around at light speed. Some type of unknown omnipresent field that can not be turned on or off slows this energy allowing it to become mass or gain mass or some shit like that. **
This is what David said in his book. Oh ya he also said some hardcore physicists might simply say before time a beginning is not mathematically possible. Which some of you have? I think he implied this is just elitist attitude and the question is better delt with by saying, "We dunno but we lookin".
PB

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 5:49 AM Purpledbear has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 81 of 86 (513696)
07-01-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 12:17 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
David Mills who seems like a reasonably smart dude
Seems like someone who should stick to writing on subjects about which they actually know something...
matter can not be created or destroyed
Of course it can, and it happens all the time. E.g., electrons and positrons (matter) annihilate to give two photons (not matter.)
He went on to say that matter & energy are the same
No, they are not the same at all. Even saying that *mass* and energy are the same is too much of a stretch, unless you explicitly mention your context.
it is obvious that it is this stuff that has existed forever
No, it is not obvious. Which is why we spend quite a bit of time on research, trying to find out the answer.
I think he implied this is just elitist attitude
Yeah, and given his level of mis-understanding, he'd be one to know

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 12:17 AM Purpledbear has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 10:37 AM cavediver has replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 82 of 86 (513728)
07-01-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by cavediver
07-01-2009 5:49 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
quote:
No, they are not the same at all. Even saying that *mass* and energy are the same is too much of a stretch, unless you explicitly mention your context.
He did say Mass & Energy not matter.
Here is his site:
http://davidmills.net/Atheist-Universe-Excerpt.pdf
quote:
2 Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural? 65
I wonder if I just completely misunderstood what he was saying.
I found his book online. Removal Notice | Scribd. I am not sure if this is legal or not. So, I would not suggest you go there. Rather consider this a historical reference. Page 71-81 are where his conversations on this topic begin.
This book for quite a long time was an Amazon best seller. Still one of the top selling 4,500 books I believe. I understand the amount of copies a book sells has little to do with it's truth. I will re-read it as I fear my interpretation might be wrong. However, based on the fact it has done so well and I have found no one else suggesting it is wrong For now I will view him as the authority.
quote:
Yeah, and given his level of misunderstanding, he'd be one to know
I wonder if he is the idiot? Am I misunderstanding? OR you? I guess I will re-read then write him. If he is in fact wrong(doubtful it must be me). But if he is I do doubt it is intentional and he needs to fully understand why
OH CRAP I AM CONFUSED - DEAR JESUS!
Thanks cave!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 5:49 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 10:54 AM Purpledbear has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 86 (513732)
07-01-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 10:37 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
Thanks for the link to his book. His comments about mass and energy are ok to a point, but then he decides that he is suffciently equipped to make his idiotic pronouncement than cons. of mass/energy implies that there had to a be pre-big-bang and essentially an eternetal universe. This is crap. Does he not think that we may have mentioned this in the context of big-bang comsology at some point in the last forty years if it was so obvious??? Or perhaps we missed it, and he's just managed to stumble upon it using his enormous intellect?
No, he's simply wrong... Conservation of mass/energy is a *local* conservation law, and does not necessarily apply globally. When talking about the whole Universe in the vicinity of the big bang, we are necessarily talking globally.
Example: on the surface of a very large doughnut, locally, you can always shrink a circle into a point. Globally, your circle might encircle the doughnut hole, or it might encircle the dough-ring, and in neither place can your circle be shrunk to a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 10:37 AM Purpledbear has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 11:17 AM cavediver has replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 84 of 86 (513736)
07-01-2009 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
07-01-2009 10:54 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
I do not understand why you are saying he is wrong nor do I want to clutter a thread with my misunderstanding. At this point it is just too complicated. However, my understanding of the law discussed in this thread came from his book. I would also be willing to bet that there might be thousands like me - this is an atheist best seller. I was curious if others in this thread agree with Mr.Diver and if anything from the book adds any value to this discussion.
If it was incorrect I wonder if it is intentional deception. It disgusts me when either side prints such lies with such authority(bible cough cough). Legally I do not believe it should be allowed. Perjury is illegal! This is no court room but the seriousness of such discussions should make the offense more serious. That said I have nothing additional to add in public forum
t_schwartz317@sbcglobal.net
Edited by Purpledbear, : Need to switch up some of the words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 10:54 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 11:47 AM Purpledbear has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 85 of 86 (513744)
07-01-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Purpledbear
07-01-2009 11:17 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
If it was incorrect I wonder if it is intentional deception.
I'm certain it is not. It is just typical layman exuberance. It wouldn't matter if he were correct - an eternally existing Universe can be divinely created just as easily as a Universe with a finite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 11:17 AM Purpledbear has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Purpledbear, posted 07-01-2009 1:39 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Purpledbear
Member (Idle past 4772 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 86 of 86 (513761)
07-01-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
07-01-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Conservation Mass energy
I lied, I am back. Last time I promise. Firstly, I find it very discouraging that he is incorrect. This is because he and I are on the same side - god did not do it. Again it disgusts me when even I present false information on a forum. I do my best to double or triple my facts and I am just posting on a forum. The fact someone would write a book about it and not check the facts - all he needed to do is ask you. Add to that the fact he has probably earned thousands or tens of thousands of dollars through presenting this and other information. Anyway I apologize and understand if this post is deleted as a rant or clutter of an intelligent thread. On my journey it just seems impossible to determine who is right and who is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 11:47 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024