Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design == Human Design?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 181 of 196 (563659)
06-06-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by tesla
06-06-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Laymen
tesla writes:
LMAO "apparently infinite" does not mean it is.
I never said it was infinite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 10:18 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 182 of 196 (563671)
06-06-2010 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:49 AM


Re: Laymen
tesla writes:
Thats fine. Go tell everyone i am an idiot. but if im right, even if it takes five or six years, i'll prove it. either way im not going to accept some string bean theory pulled off of an assumtion so speculative its purly a guess.
In essence you're saying, "You could be wrong."
And you're right, science could be wrong.
Or you could be wrong.
So what we're debating here is whose position is supported by the available evidence. In the case of space, the evidence we have indicates it does not have an edge. What evidence are you looking at that tells you space does have an edge?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:49 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:21 PM Percy has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 183 of 196 (563800)
06-06-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Percy
06-06-2010 12:13 PM


Re: Laymen
quote:
So what we're debating here is whose position is supported by the available evidence. In the case of space, the evidence we have indicates it does not have an edge. What evidence are you looking at that tells you space does have an edge?
current evidence is speculation. Unless you examine the vacuum itself.
The vacuum is indicative of an edge.
Reason: if you fill a tank twice the size of a water tower with a metal with a low melting point (ie: aluminum or boron or something else) and suck out all the air until the metal almost reaches boiling, the top of the element would behave with a surface tension like water. and the element would stretch from the top and retain weight on the bottom of the tank.
The vacuum holds the top of the liquid at 0 pressure, whilst as you deepen so does the pressure. in this way, the vacuum supports the surface from collapse, via the edges of the tank.
The math for this dynamic is speculative with my current abilities with math, however, i believe this dynamic to follow observation and provable. But only on a large scale. i could be wrong but i do not believe this dynamic to prove itself on a small scale such us under 100 gallons or maybe more. i could be wrong. but I'm showing the evidence to those who have the mathematical ability now, instead of waiting for my own mathematics to improve. However, if you all choose to disagree with the theories Ive introduced, or the evidence being the vacuum itself and expansion within borders; Well that's fine too. I'll eventually find the answers I'm looking for.
However, for scientists to take theories that are built on top of theory, with need be only ONE misconception to throw off years and years of research and math, and to teach it as if it has no flaw, when its widely accepted superbly tentative on what can be said of singularities or the big bang singularity, It is an outrage and foolishness to not accept new evidence or fresh eyes. You can agree to disagree or agree to ignore, but they cannot call themselves an expert on something NO one has understood. Not without pure foolishness.
Expansion, evolution, and a vacuum indicate a universe inside of a body that it expanded within and from. and evolution shows a singularity is eventual regardless of evolutions because the start was pre evolved. and therefore singular. by this logic: that as long as two things are in an evolved state, before that is a relevant question.
To further demonstrate my proposal the proof would be in the actual utilization of perpetual motion, which is motion within an enclosed system because of an imbalance's attempt to correct itself, with no chance at success.
lets take the earlier proposal of how the double sized water tower full of boron would behave if a line was attached at a specific thickness; to the bottom of that tank where pressure was, to the side of the tank above the vacuum line. have the line closed off and full of the element in the tank, then open the bottom, and then the top valve. if the fluid began to circulate without allowing the top pressure to fall beyond the spring level, the liquid acting as a spring would allow motion that could not correct. again, this is only possible at large volumes IF its possible at all. But who has a true answer? either the experiment must be run, or the math available to find out. So..it CAN be proven that space has an edge if the dynamic that allows the planets to move perpetually in space can be mimicked on earth.
It just hasn't been proven YET.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 06-06-2010 12:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by lyx2no, posted 06-06-2010 11:41 PM tesla has replied
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 06-07-2010 9:46 AM tesla has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 184 of 196 (563831)
06-06-2010 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:21 PM


Lame men
Reason: if you fill a tank twice the size of a water tower with a metal with a low melting point (ie: aluminum or boron or something else) and suck out all the air until the metal almost reaches boiling, the top of the element would behave with a surface tension like water. and the element would stretch from the top and retain weight on the bottom of the tank.
With a melting point of 660.25C, Al can hardly be said to have a low melting point. At that temperature Al has a vapor pressure of 2.2410-6Pa. That is categorized as a high vacuum. Boron melts at 2300C, with a vapor pressure of one-third of a Pa: a medium vacuum, bordering on a high vacuum. The vapor pressure of H2O at its boiling point is 100,000 Pa. In other words, neither Al or B boils under a vacuum as water does, even when liquid.
The math for this dynamic is speculative with my current abilities with math
Skip the math at this point. Try reading.
lets take the earlier proposal of how the double sized water tower full of boron would behave if a line was attached at a specific thickness; to the bottom of that tank where pressure was, to the side of the tank above the vacuum line. have the line closed off and full of the element in the tank, then open the bottom, and then the top valve. if the fluid began to circulate without allowing the top pressure to fall beyond the spring level, the liquid acting as a spring would allow motion that could not correct.
The pressure at the bottom of the tank is cuased by the weight of the column of liquid boron above it. The tube extending from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank contains a column of boron equal in hight to the column of boron in the tank. There would be no net pressure to either to fill the tube farther or to drain the tube. Liquids find their own level.
again, this is only possible at large volumes IF its possible at all.
Volume is irrelevant. It is not possible.
But who has a true answer?
Everyone who has ever put a straw in a glass of water.
either the experiment must be run, or the math available to find out.
Experiment: Put a straw in a glass of water.
Math: Divide the weight of a 300 foot tall, 1 square inch column of boron by the weight of a 300 foot tall, 1 square inch column of boron.
So..it CAN be proven that space has an edge if the dynamic that allows the planets to move perpetually in space can be mimicked on earth.
The motion of the planets in not perpetual.
It just hasn't been proven YET.
True, with the proviso: "On any planet in the Solar system made entirely out of gold."
Edited by lyx2no, : Typos.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:21 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by tesla, posted 06-07-2010 10:23 PM lyx2no has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 185 of 196 (563905)
06-07-2010 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by tesla
06-06-2010 9:21 PM


Re: Laymen
Hi Tesla,
So your evidence that space has an edge is an analogy with matter? What leads you to believe this is a valid analogy? Can you name any scientific theory whose primary evidence is an analogy?
Much of your post left me puzzled, so in case it helps you clarify your thinking here are some comments.
tesla writes:
Reason: if you fill a tank twice the size of a water tower...
Water towers do not come in standard sizes.
...with a metal with a low melting point (ie: aluminum or boron or something else) and suck out all the air until the metal almost reaches boiling...
Did you know aluminum is a common construction material in spacecraft? Have you ever heard of a spacecraft boiling away?
...the top of the element would behave with a surface tension like water. and the element would stretch from the top and retain weight on the bottom of the tank.
Yes, if you apply a vacuum to the top surface of the metal in the water tower, thereby removing the weight of the air, you'll reduce the compressive downward force on the column of metal and it will expand upward a little bit. But the weight of the column of metal measured at the bottom of the tank will not remain the same. It will be reduced by the now absent weight of the air.
The vacuum holds the top of the liquid at 0 pressure...
The metal will not be become a liquid in a vacuum unless you heat it, and if you heat it you'll discover that a vacuum makes very little difference to the melting point of metals and most solid substances.
i could be wrong...
Almost certainly.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by tesla, posted 06-06-2010 9:21 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by tesla, posted 06-07-2010 10:15 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 186 of 196 (564043)
06-07-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
06-07-2010 9:46 AM


Re: Laymen
Ok. This has been a helpful debate. so what i guess is the dynamic of a vacuum is that it can only get as empty as empty is, but never is truly empty, and negative pressure is only negative from the perspective of pressure.
correct?
If true, this will give me some new ideas to entertain.
What is the greatest vacuum pressure possible in a tank of 800 gallons, and with what element and at what volume of the element? this to me is a good question.
i guess if constructed properly the dynamic of the tank compressing would add to the equation somehow.
Edited by tesla, : understood.
Edited by tesla, : understanding some.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 06-07-2010 9:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by DrJones*, posted 06-07-2010 11:33 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 187 of 196 (564045)
06-07-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by lyx2no
06-06-2010 11:41 PM


laymen
quote:
The pressure at the bottom of the tank is cuased by the weight of the column of liquid boron above it. The tube extending from the bottom of the tank to the top of the tank contains a column of boron equal in hight to the column of boron in the tank. There would be no net pressure to either to fill the tube farther or to drain the tube. Liquids find their own level.
liquids DO find there own level. water food coloring and a tube make great levels.
I'm introducing a vacuum to the top side of a large body of water. the top would stretch first not the entire volume correct?
you would have to be able to introduce a powerful enough vacuum for the amount of water. but water would boil before it would have enough of a vacuum to stretch a large body. but what element would? any? by your reckoning?
i will accept i will have to further study for the dynamic I'm trying to understand. so your saying that when you pump out the air of an area you never reach an absolute vacuum, yet you will have a pull of lbs per square inch at a sustained level until it is refreshed.
But is there an element that would stretch in a liquid form under such a vacuum?
lastly..i still cannot see any vacuum that can exist without an edge or border. space is a lame example. you cannot see its edges if any exist they are beyond our vision.
Edited by tesla, : elaboration based on greater understanding.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by lyx2no, posted 06-06-2010 11:41 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2010 12:52 AM tesla has replied
 Message 190 by AZPaul3, posted 06-08-2010 12:39 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 188 of 196 (564053)
06-07-2010 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by tesla
06-07-2010 10:15 PM


Re: Laymen
What is the greatest vacuum pressure possible in a tank of 800 gallons, and with what element and at what volume of the element? this to me is a good question.
Would you mind rewording that so that it makes sense.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by tesla, posted 06-07-2010 10:15 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 189 of 196 (564063)
06-08-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by tesla
06-07-2010 10:23 PM


Re: laymen
the top would stretch first not the entire volume correct?
And would propagate through the column at 1,484 ms-1.
you would have to be able to introduce a powerful enough vacuum for the amount of water. but water would boil before it would have enough of a vacuum to stretch a large body.
The compressibility of water is slight. Dropping the internal pressure 14.7 psi will not have a noticeable effect on the volume. However, when a molecule on the surface of the water has enough energy to snap the hydrogen bonds with the molecules surrounding it it will find it has a clear path to travel rather than being bounced back into the liquid by molecules in the vapor above. Were it bounces back into the liquid it is likely to collided with molecules of lesser energies and reform hydrogen bonds.
In my last post I mentioned vapor pressure. Liquids and solids evaporate when subject to pressures lower than their vapor pressure at the given temperature. Al and B have very low vapor pressures even when heated to their melting points. One can easily draw a good vacuum over them because they have little tendency to boil away. Water, on the other hand, has a high vapor pressure. When a vacuum is drawn over water the water will easily boil away replenishing the vapor above, limiting the hardness of the vacuum that can be achieved.
But the water doesn’t boil away instantly under normal circumstances.
but what element would? any?
Solids are solid because the internal bonds that hold them together are strong. Take an 16d common nail. From end to end it is being compressed by an atmospheric pressure of 3.4 oz. Use the nail to spike an English muffin to the ceiling. Near as damn it you’ve countered the atmospheric compression. How much do you think you’ve elongated the nail?
by your reckoning?
I wouldn’t go by my reckoning.
so your saying that when you pump out the air of an area you never reach an absolute vacuum, yet you will have a pull of lbs per square inch at a sustained level until it is refreshed.
When the air is pumped out of a volume, not that I’ve said anything about that, one does not develop a pull. Vacuum doesn’t pull. The molecules of the materials under the vacuum are moving about (heat) and; therefore, have momentum. That momentum can be overcome by the internal bonding forces of the material or being exchanged with the overlying vapors. If the internal bonding forces are weak and the overlying vapors sparse the momentum of the molecules of the material can move them away from the bulk. But it would more correctly be said that they are being pushed out, not sucked out.
Furthermore, reaching an absolute* vacuum of any size is near impossible in the lab. Any size is measured in nanometers for milliseconds, if I remember correctly. In intergalactic space it may be measured in cubic inches for milliseconds merely by defining a space. But don’t get to close to that space or the trillions of atoms evaporating off of you and your measuring equipment will pollute it.
With continuous cryopumping one can sustain a vacuum of a few million molecules per cm3 for as long as one wants to.
lastly..i still cannot see any vacuum that can exist without an edge or border. space is a lame example. you cannot see its edges if any exist they are beyond our vision.
Vacuum and space are not the same thing, and can’t be talked about as such.
Space is a field. It can flex and bend better than The International Sexy Ladies. Yes, including the blond one.
A vacuum is merely the absence of matter within that space. It is trivial that a vacuum has an edge. It has an edge at every bit of matter that it comes to. But an edge is not a property of a vacuum. It’s only incidental because matter exists.
If you’d like to change your argument to space having or not having an edge you’d be making just as much sense as you are now, but it would no longer be a property of your argument but a property of you not having a clue. It would be an improvement.
Why would space/vacuum requiring an edge signify a need for an intelligence?
*Nor is it necessary for any part of your argument. It’s when you toss stuff in like this we can tell you’re just throwing words you’ve heard together.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by tesla, posted 06-07-2010 10:23 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by tesla, posted 06-08-2010 11:24 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 190 of 196 (564132)
06-08-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by tesla
06-07-2010 10:23 PM


Re: laymen
lastly..i still cannot see any vacuum that can exist without an edge or border. space is a lame example. you cannot see its edges if any exist they are beyond our vision.
There you go with your myopic view from your common sense experience again without understanding the basic concept.
Vacuum does not possess any power. Vacuum does not "suck" things into it.
Here on earth, to maintain a vacuum, it must be contained because the atmospheric pressures outside the vacuum will rush inward to occupy that volume. It is only the pressure differential between a dense atmosphere and a less dense atmosphere that define a vacuum.
In space, the atoms of the earth are held here by gravity. In its absence our atmosphere would migrate out into the less dense regions (vacuum) of space. It is the atoms flowing out, not the vacuum pulling, that would happen.
On a Universal level, as a non-embedded manifold, there is no pressure differential from "outside" against which some kind of "edge" or "containment" is needed.
Edited by AZPaul3, : better syntax

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by tesla, posted 06-07-2010 10:23 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 191 of 196 (564167)
06-08-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by tesla
06-03-2010 10:27 PM


Analagy for expansion......
Hi Tesla
I'll try an analogy for the following:
Is it not? space is a vacuum. it has to have an edge. have you ever seen a vacuum without containment?
The universe is expanding, is this not true? can it expand with no area for the expansion?
This is perhaps a poor analogy but the best I can think of and I hope Cavediver, Son Goku and any other theoretical physicist or cosmologist doesn't wince too hard if the comparison is poor - but...
Imagine a rubber balloon partly blown up. On its surface live two dimensional 'dots'. They have length and width but no height. Nor does the balloon they live on - it's a two dimensional universe they inhabit. The dots can slide around over the surface of the balloon but they can't go into the balloon's interior or come off its surface as that constitutes 'depth' - the third dimension which doesn't exist in their universe.
One dot says to another. "Where is the 'edge' of our universe?" After sliding over the balloon they find there is no 'edge' - they can slide over its surface indefinitely. But the surface is finite - no edges but a finite surface......hmmmm
Now lets have their universe expand. Let’s pump some air into that balloon. The rubber stretches and the dots move apart from each other (sound familiar - our galaxies are moving apart but it is space-time that is actually expanding - rather like the rubber fabric of our balloon instead of the actual galaxies moving).
"What's going on?" says our dots. They can see their universe is expanding - after all the dots are getting further apart and have to travel further to get back to each other for a conversation again....but into what are they expanding? Remember we as 3D creatures have the luxury of seeing their universe expand into the third dimension of depth that they do not have. They (as 2D creations) simply can't imagine what this third dimension could possibly look like - however their maths (if advanced enough) could predict it. The rubber of the balloon is a bit like your vacuum in your analogy - here it is finite and unbounded and 'held' in place only by the dimension unavailable to their perceptions. It makes no sense to the 2D men to say what is our world expanding into? - because that third dimension just doesn't mean anything to them!
Interestingly - they would be also able to deduce that their universe must in the past have been smaller if it is now expanding. No good looking for the point of expansion though - why? Well that point - if it started from a tiny balloon would be in the very centre of the balloon's sphere - which of course is in that third dimension of depth again. - I mention this because at least one creationist in a different debate once asked me to point to the heavens and show me where the centre of the big bang expansion was - as if to say "if you can't show it - it didn't happen!"
So - no edges but not necessarily infinite, vacuum that is not needed to be 'bounded', and expansion into dimensions that would screw our brains - except guys like Cavediver - seriously Tesla - people like these who have got theoretical physics degrees, post-doctorates, and spent decades in the field seriously know what they are talking about.....I'm just hoping he won't be too hard on this poor little analogy - I know it's basic beyond belief and probably wrong in a hundred ways - if so - I'm here to learn - are you??
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by tesla, posted 06-03-2010 10:27 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by tesla, posted 06-08-2010 11:02 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 195 by lyx2no, posted 06-10-2010 6:16 PM Drosophilla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 192 of 196 (564198)
06-08-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Drosophilla
06-08-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Analagy for expansion......
i am not against cavediver or son of goku or anyone. its an overlooked obvios. To assume something is beyond your knoledge capabilities is just a psychological hamper on anyone's given talents.
Lets just say, we know not now, perhaps one day we can, what does it say now, and lets examine the facts first.
The actual data and the facts i do rely on are laws of science and observations that have remained true after constant observation.
Lets take your example from the balloon and dots. the dots should rationalize area for expansion, and that it is energy, since no area is ever absent of energy. what it looks like, who knows? but the inevitable center and the outer edge do not have to be something you can hit or even see..we know they are there. that's all. the center might boggle there mind But they can see it coming from inside of something more logical.
That is, IF these dots are observing the rest of their environment.
Here is my universal analogy: You take a man, and a woman, and they mate. A sperm moves into an egg inside of the female body. That sperm then grows within the egg. it is expanding within an area, and it came from the area that it is expanding in. it then grows inside of that area..expanding..from the benefits of the energy of the woman that feeds it to grow.
It sounds crazy, but it happens everyday. and with the data available to me, our universe seems to fit that analogy best. something cannot expand inside of nothing, and neither can it come from nothing. the body we are expanding in, is the same energy that the universe came from.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Drosophilla, posted 06-08-2010 6:35 PM Drosophilla has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by DrJones*, posted 06-08-2010 11:07 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 193 of 196 (564199)
06-08-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by tesla
06-08-2010 11:02 PM


Re: Analagy for expansion......
That sperm then grows within the egg.
So your grasp of biology is a bad as your grasp of physics.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by tesla, posted 06-08-2010 11:02 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1592 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 194 of 196 (564203)
06-08-2010 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by lyx2no
06-08-2010 12:52 AM


Re: laymen
quote:
Why would space/vacuum requiring an edge signify a need for an intelligence?
My belief in what expansion and evolution have shown coupled with general observations that matter and life are co-existent: i see the universe as a part of a living thing.
Read what i said in the post above for an analogy, but it does fit the observations of expansion, life and matter, and change from a start.
I Have never claimed any education but self education. and what i have stood for or failed in ignorance has been growth not defeat.
The evidence still supports my observation and belief of the dynamic, but i still have to learn and understand enough to prove it.
I do shoot quotes of things Ive heard. but for the most part the language is mine. I am as i am. like me, hate me, help me, ignore me. I'm like Popeye the sailor man. i am what i am and that's all i am.
The questions are important to me because i will continue to believe in a purpose for mankind. that we are not some biological dead soulless existence. And i cannot ignore the evidence of our universe. it is a humbling observation to see what we see of it.
space and its edge and the area its expanding in being also the start, and t=0 being inevitable, and evolution being true, Intelligence is the only explanation for a singularity to evolve with nothing to interact with but itself. so proof of the edge is further proof of the dynamic that leads to the law of existence.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2010 12:52 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 195 of 196 (564481)
06-10-2010 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Drosophilla
06-08-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Analagy for expansion......
No good looking for the point of expansion though - why? Well that point - if it started from a tiny balloon would be in the very centre of the balloon's sphere - which of course is in that third dimension of depth again.
I think your analogy has gone a step too far. Maybe without intention, but relate it to cavediaver's post here. There is no volume within a 2-sphere for there to be a center of either; i.e., the physical diameter of a 2-sphere is zero regardless of the implied diameter. That space only exists in our mind's eye view of the balloon analogy.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Drosophilla, posted 06-08-2010 6:35 PM Drosophilla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Drosophilla, posted 06-10-2010 6:45 PM lyx2no 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