|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the matter and energy come from? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Indeed sir, I would sir.
And I have way to manage this duel that will be hopefully acceptable. 1: both parties name a second (many thanks to you, good sir, for stepping into the breach, at the eleventh hour) and be accompanied by his physician. 2: the challenged party chooses weapon to be used: sword, pistol or cannon. 3: a constable or impartial referee is selected (who must be a gentleman of no small character and repute). 4: the time is selected for satisfaction by the aggrieved party. 5: the aggrieved party decides whether to seek 'first blood' or 'to the death'
This is where we diverge from the Code Duello (and many thanks to that renown brain-box Mr Ager-Cawley for making the relevant adaptions to the modern electronic Field of Honour). 6: both parties roll a dice at the prescribed time and PM the opposing second with the result. Failing to PM the opposing second with the result is considered cowardly and base behaviour and forfeits all honour. Man will shun him and God will turn His face from him. 7: one hour after the agreed time the constable or referee flips a coin. This result is PM to all parties. If heads, the highest dice roll wins. If tails, the lowest rolls win. A tie indicts both parties suffer the consequence of loosing (see below) but honour is satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten. 8: if to first blood the looser must refrain from posting for one day if sword was the weapon of choice, two if pistol or three if cannon were used. These values are trebled if the duel was to the death. 9: once the looser has refrained from posting in the relevant thread for the appropriate length of time honour is considered satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten. It is my hope that Code Duello de Larni will regulate uncivil behaviour in discussion forums from now ever after.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Forgive my ignorance. I always thought that the singularity was essentially everything in one place at one time. I don't really understand time during or "before" the singularity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Forgive my ignorance. I always thought that the singularity was essentially everything in one place at one time. I don't really understand time during or "before" the singularity. You put "before" in quotes as if you understand that there is no real before. What does "before" mean? It seems you are saying, "Yeah, there was no before, but what really happened before???
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Forgive my ignorance. I always thought that the singularity was essentially everything in one place at one time. I don't really understand time during or "before" the singularity. You also previously used the word "static" in describing the early, super-compressed Universe. How can a thing be in a static state when "before" doesn't mean anything? How can something be unchanging when there is no past for a different state to potentially exist in? There has never been a static state Universe. As cavediver said, there was no cosmic egg waiting for the right "moment." The singularity wasn't a bomb waiting for some divine mover to press the button and make it explode. Instead, the Universe has always been expanding, for literally every moment of time. We aren't talking here about bodies at rest remaining at rest until acted upon by an external force - we're talking about the Universe, which was always expanding. You can choose any two coordinates in the entire timeline, it doesn't matter which two, and the spacial component of the Universe will be larger at the coordinate where entropy is greater. You can pick the first two milliseconds, or the first two billion years, or the first two trillionths of a nanosecond, and you'll still see that the Universe is larger at the later coordinate.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Rahvin writes: Still boggles. Granted the universe is larger the first two nanoseconds. But what about the very first googlesecond? You can choose any two coordinates in the entire timeline, it doesn't matter which two, and the spacial component of the Universe will be larger at the coordinate where entropy is greater. You can pick the first two milliseconds, or the first two billion years, or the first two trillionths of a nanosecond, and you'll still see that the Universe is larger at the later coordinate. How small is "it" initially? Edited by Phat, : added
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Still boggles. Granted the universe is larger the first two nanoseconds. But what about the very first googlesecond? So far as we can tell thus far, given any two real coordinates in time, the space of the Universe will be larger in the later coordinate than in the earlier coordinate.
How small is "it" initially? Well, that's why we call it a "singularity." It's physics-speak for "the math stops working here, we don't have enough relevant observations to predict exactly what was going on." If you follow the expansion backward in time, you eventually wind up with a Universe that existed as a single, dimensionless point at the very first moment of time. There's nothing to compare that sort of "size" to, just as you can't describe the third dimension of a 2-dimensional line.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Still boggles. Granted the universe is larger the first two nanoseconds. But what about the very first googlesecond? How small is "it" initially? Hey Phat, think of like an asymptote. Here's a plot of f(x) = 1 / x:
As 'x' increases, the value of f(x) gets smaller and smaller, but it can never actually reach zero, the x axis. Asking, but what about when x is a brazillian-gazillion, still doesn't get you to actual zero.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
whytera  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 4538 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
where did all the matter and energy contained in the big bang come from or, what form did the matter and energy (for want of more accurate labels) have at that point?
Buy WOW Gold EU Tera Gold zyy.com supports spam. tera4sale.com supports spam. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle, nuke spam links, add message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portillo Member (Idle past 4191 days) Posts: 258 Joined: |
If the big bang truly was the beginning of everything, then there couldnt possibly have been matter and energy before. Since those things came into existence after the bang.
Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, kinda.
The matter and energy that makes up this universe didn't exist.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I don't understand how you can read this entire thread and make such a comment.
Are you impervious to knowledge?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I thought that matter could neither be created nor destroyed. (OOPS...that disproves a Creator )
The matter and energy that makes up this universe didn't exist.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I thought that matter could neither be created nor destroyed. In this universe that is correct, sort of. But it has no bearing on what may or may not happen "outside" our universe. Besides, if the net energy of the universe is zero, then it's still technically a gain of nothing, just like virtual particles can be created, but generally they cancel each other out so there is no net gain.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
The way I look at it is the cosmos is the ultimately balanced equation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hugenot Junior Member (Idle past 4447 days) Posts: 7 From: palm beach gardnes, fl Joined: |
There was no big bang, God created the Earth and the universe 6000 years ago through His Word.
Planets cannot form out of nothing, and organise themselves and start turning in organisez fashion! It is just impossible! http://www.bible-tube.com/hovind-1-age-of-the-earth.php Edited by Admin, : Disable the link.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024