|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The one and only non-creationist in this forum. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, you might consider suing the institution you got your Ph.D from. They need to return your tuition fees with a good compensation to boot. You got Ph.D in math and you cannot spot the elementary arithmetic errors the big bunk hypothesis is founded upon? That's a disgrace casting a heavy shadow on the whole education system in your country.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: Is there a mechanism where the universe could exist eternally? I don't know of but one and you would not accept it. Therefore I will say existence exists. Now if you have a mechanism whereby existence could begin to exist in and from non-existence I will conceed that I might be wrong about existence being eternal. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mod,
So you do not believe the universe began to exist from non-existence but rather came from something that existed in the past of the universe. In your opinion is it possible for the universe to begin to exist in or from non-existence? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Panda writes: I don't know of but one and you would not accept it. Is there a mechanism where the universe could exist eternally?I think you made a typo and you actually meant "I Well, I can think of a method for how existence could begin to exist - but you would not accept it. ICANT writes:
I agree, but it says nothing about how existence originated.
Therefore I will say existence exists. ICANT writes:
So, you are asking me to supply a mechanism for existence beginning to exist that is acceptable to you - but you are unable to describe a mechanism for how existence could exist eternally that is acceptable to me. Now if you have a mechanism whereby existence could begin to exist in and from non-existence I will conceed that I might be wrong about existence being eternal.In summary: we don't have an accepted mechanism for how either option could happen. But, arbitrarily, you have chosen one.I suppose there's nothing wrong with you plucking one at random - but it has no more credibility than the other option. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Son,
Son Goku writes: Why do you (and ICANT) keep asking questions or making points based around something that is not mentioned in the model at all? I ask because I can. Also the answer is important. There is before planck time 10-43. Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force. It is also PRESUMED that all the matter, energy, space and time expanded outwardly from the original singularity. Nothing is known about this period. Things are just presumed. Not much is known about the periods that followed. So yes the models do refer to the singularity and what followed. Source:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...astro/planck.html#c2 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force. So you feel it's nothing more than blind guesses based on pure imagination, and not based on any mathematics?
So yes the models do refer to the singularity and what followed. Telling a working physicist what the models actually say, who is going out of his way to help you understand where you are worng... that's your best one yet ICANT! - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sean Carroll is a serious quack. He looks like an able-bodied robust fellow who might be useful doing some simple construction work instead of mentally farting in public in this manner. He's done more to earn my respect in this topic than you have, that much could be said of him.
The whole projection of the psychological linear time on the whole of existence is hilarious. Time is an alternative relative measure of distance. That can be mapped in any direction or no direction at all depending on the model. Attributing direction to a sequence is a fallacy otherwise. The entire point of the discussion was to explain why there is apparent direction in a universe of directionless physics. Since you've assessed Carroll's argument thoroughly, you know that already.
You claim that the putative primordial quark-gluon soup is the state of highest possible order. Pray, explain to yourself in what way or respect the soup is more ordered than you or yours truly? Or anything else for that matter? It seems strange to compare the entropy of the whole system to a subset of it. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, or even what use it would do. Are you telling me that you think the universe was less ordered in the past (say before humans came along)? Because that would involve contravening the laws of thermodynamics. And that's what quack's like to do. I can say that the universe is less ordered (ie more diffuse, less workable energy, less probable) today than it was yesterday. And that reasoning applies all the way back to the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So you do not believe the universe began to exist from non-existence but rather came from something that existed in the past of the universe. I hold no beliefs at all on the matter. I don't know, I don't pretend to know. The universe may have no past and may simply exist. It may have a past. I really don't know.
In your opinion is it possible for the universe to begin to exist in or from non-existence? As best as I can understand your meaning, no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, Mod. You've missed the point. Mapping time in any direction has nothing to do with Sean Carroll's inane fantasies about baby universes and suchlike. It means that assuming light signal's speed is constant in any direction, the perceived chronological order of cosmological events may depend on the location of the observer in respect to the locations those events are occurring at.
Thus no universal conformal time of bigbangist dogma may have any physical meaning. There is neither common universal past nor shared universal future destiny. Time is an abstraction of motion while the direction the objects move in is strictly relative. Simple. You evaded the question with your talk about sets and subsets. The question was: in what respect any subset of the alleged primordial quark soup represents a higher order or structure than yourself or yours truly Cheshire?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Oni,
onifre writes: Telling a working physicist what the models actually say, who is going out of his way to help you understand where you are worng... that's your best one yet ICANT! So you are saying the source I used should not be in the education business of teaching about the Big Bang. I agree with that. But I was not saying what I believed but what they taught. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Time is an abstraction of motion This seems to be a recurring issue. Time and relative motion are certainly related, but you can't go from realising that two distinct concepts are related, to saying that they are the same thing, or that one is an abstraction of the other. It's like temperature and motion again, (or your earlier temperature and density faux pas). I get that you would like the universe to be simple and easy to comprehend - and maybe your desire to reduce the whole marvellous complexity of it to simple Euclidian motion is part of that desire - but it ain't that simple.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: As best as I can understand your meaning, no. Thanks. The universe has existed eternally in the past. That statement according to science is false. Even though they have devised many ways to get around the singularity problem. Eternal inflation, cyclic evolution, and the emergent universe, are three proposals. According to a paper (arXiv:1204.4658) submitted April 20, 2012 by Audrey Mithani, Alexander Vilenkin none of those could be eternal in the past. "The first two of these scenarios are geodesically incomplete to the past, and thus cannot describe a universe without a beginning." "The third, although it is stable with respect to classical perturbations, can collapse quantum mechanically, and therefore cannot have an eternal past. " For any of those to have a begining to exist would require that they begin to exist in and out of non-existence, as does the beginning to exist out of a singularity as the singularity was non-existence. So the delima I have presented. The universe has always existed in some form.OR The universe began to exist in and out of non-existence. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ICANT writes:
OR The universe has always existed in some form.OR The universe began to exist in and out of non-existence. It was created by a natural phenomena that already existed (e.g. branes) OR It was created by a god-like entity. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3997 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I don't know to which exactly sect of bigbangism you personally belong. The orthodoxy mentions Planck epoch and the preceding singularity alright. It is irrelevant whether it all is kept as vague as it is in the orthodox interpretation or is repudiated completely as your sectarian approach may suggest, the bottom line is: there is no physical justification for whatever that may be claimed to come afterwards in the hypothesis. Therefore you do not even have any hypothesis and your presentation may be dismissed for what it is- an incoherent guessing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No, Mod. You've missed the point. I'm reasonably sure I was the one making the point, but OK.
Mapping time in any direction has nothing to do with Sean Carroll's inane fantasies about baby universes and suchlike. Any reason you are calling them 'inane fantasies' when in fact they are merely 'consistent with what we know speculations'?
It means that assuming light signal's speed is constant in any direction, the perceived chronological order of cosmological events may depend on the location of the observer in respect to the locations those events are occurring at. That's just standard relativity, albeit filtered through your mind, isn't it? Carroll and I were talking about ideas beyond relativity, since relativity clearly isn't quite right.
Thus no universal conformal time of bigbangist dogma may have any physical meaning. There is neither common universal past nor shared universal future destiny. Time is an abstraction of motion while the direction the objects move in is strictly relative. Simple. You can argue with the physicists about the meaning of 'the universe began 13.7 billion years ago' in terms of relativity. I've seen it explained, but I don't have the capacity to do so myself.
You evaded the question with your talk about sets and subsets. The question was: in what respect any subset of the alleged primordial quark soup represents a higher order or structure than yourself or yours truly Cheshire? In the sense that it had a higher density of workable energy or a lesser density of entropy. As I've explained several times, contrary to your claims I've evaded the question. I've never actually claimed that I as a human happen to be more or less ordered than the big bang. What I have claimed is that the universe now, is less ordered than it was in its earliest stages.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024