|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
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: |
If time is something more than memory and a comparison of motions as you seem to hint to the cat, Whim, you need to specify that extra something. Draw a mock-up of the thingy like so the judge can see you are not crapping at the mouth in an attempt to put a slur on the prosecution. If you want keep it all mysterious though, the church is two doors on the left. You are welcome there with your babble.
Here is the court session and your bigbangism is in the dock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The universe has existed eternally in the past. That statement according to science is false. Not necessarily. Carroll's notion has time stretching infinitely forwards and backwards.No matter how far you go 'back' (which is an arbitrary direction along the time line according this notion) there will still be universe. 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. If you want to submit that as evidence - I submit to you that you must accept other physics papers as evidence too, right? This would mean you accept that the universe was hotter and denser earlier. As for the paper, I don't think either of us are qualified to understand what's going on there. But maybe they've indeed ruled out certain universe configurations. I've no idea if that includes Carroll's or not.
For any of those to have a begining to exist would require that they begin to exist in and out of non-existence No it wouldn't. It would just mean they would begin to exist. There would be no prior time when there was non-existence, from which it came. There could be no time, as time wouldn't exist.
The universe has always existed in some form. OR The universe began to exist in and out of non-existence. I'm going with the first one. Carroll's notion as far as I can tell, does not have a beginning but I'm not sure it has an infinite 'past' necessarily either. In any event, always existed does not have to mean 'infinite time'. A fence can always be next to a certain road in space, but not have 'infinite length'. The universe could always have existed, but there could be a finite amount of time within it. There wasn't a thing that preceded it. There was neither time nor space in which something could exist, and if there was an alternate region of existence outside our universe/multiverse, there is no reason to say that it exists 'before' the universe, let alone that it might have causal influence upon it. In what time and space could it have caused anything? So yeah - the universe always existed, for however long always is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Panda writes: ICANT writes: The universe has always existed in some form.OR The universe began to exist in and out of non-existence. ORIt was created by a natural phenomena that already existed (e.g. branes) OR It was created by a god-like entity. I would just change your wording to "It was created by a natural phenomena (e.g. branes)"Or maybe call it "existed in a different way" as opposed to "already existed." The "already existed" part is kind of the same fallacy ICANT is falling into when he speaks of "always existed" in some form. The terms 'always' and 'already' imply a usage of time. Time is a property of our universe.There may be some sort of natural process outside/beyond our universe... but it is an assumption to think that "time" (at least as we know of it) would be a part of that process in any recognizable way. It's very weird to consider... because "time" seems so basic to us.But, again, that's just because we're us, and we're here in this universe... that has "time." In contemplating uber-universe scenarios, we can no longer assume the properties of our own universe. Even if they do seem basic and necessary to us.ICANT seems unable to do this (hence his limit to the 2 options), but I don't think that means we should all lower our intellect to the same level... it will only add confusion to anyone actually trying to learn something from all of this. I do agree with your idea, and that your options 3 and 4 are valid. In fact, since this is the beginning of the entire universe, I think it's quite rational to include a "???" option because it is highly likely that something not-based-in-our-universe does not work in ways that we understand from-within-our-universe.I'm also talking out of my ass (so my point of contention may be wrong as well...) just wondering if I'm understanding things correctly or not. If I'm not, I'm hoping someone will correct my error with an explanation as to why I'm wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Stile writes:
Yes. Your wording is probably better.
I would just change your wording to "It was created by a natural phenomena (e.g. branes)"Or maybe call it "existed in a different way" as opposed to "already existed." Stile writes:
I was reluctant to bring the "time only exists in a universe" part of the discussion. The terms 'always' and 'already' imply a usage of time. Time is a property of our universe.There may be some sort of natural process outside/beyond our universe... but it is an assumption to think that "time" (at least as we know of it) would be a part of that process in any recognizable way. I was having enough troubles explaining that ICANT's unsupported conclusion is as valid as any other unsupported conclusion. Stile writes:
True. I would be surprised if the description of what was around "before" our universe didn't require words and concepts that do not currently exist.
I do agree with your idea, and that your options 3 and 4 are valid. In fact, since this is the beginning of the entire universe, I think it's quite rational to include a "???" option because it is highly likely that something not-based-in-our-universe does not work in ways that we understand from-within-our-universe. Stile writes:
Clarification is always good on these difficult to describe subjects. I'm also talking out of my ass (so my point of contention may be wrong as well...) just wondering if I'm understanding things correctly or not. If I'm not, I'm hoping someone will correct my error with an explanation as to why I'm wrong."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Panda writes: I was reluctant to bring the "time only exists in a universe" part of the discussion.I was having enough troubles explaining that ICANT's unsupported conclusion is as valid as any other unsupported conclusion. Understood.
True. I would be surprised if the description of what was around "before" our universe didn't require words and concepts that do not currently exist. Yeah... a bit dwarfing to ponder.Or, at least it is to me. Maybe folks like cavediver and Son Goku actually have a bit more inkling in that direction. Maybe that's what they mean when they say "it's all in the maths!" ...the concepts and words havn't been invented yet. C'mon, astrophysicists, invent concepts and ensure that they are mainstream, already! Slackers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
would just change your wording to "It was created by a natural phenomena (e.g. branes)" Or maybe call it "existed in a different way" as opposed to "already existed." The "already existed" part is kind of the same fallacy ICANT is falling into when he speaks of "always existed" in some form. He also unnecessarily assumes that existence is a binary state - that is something either exists or not. But we don't know that there aren't other states of quasi-existence. If there's upwards of 10 dimensions then who knows what kinds of states of existence there might be. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Stile,
Stile writes: The terms 'always' and 'already' imply a usage of time. Time is a property of our universe. When I say 'always' I am not invoking time. I am invoking eternity.
Stile writes: It's very weird to consider... because "time" seems so basic to us.But, again, that's just because we're us, and we're here in this universe... that has "time." When you speak of time you are referring to existence. If not please explain what time is and how it is determined. You have made the assertion that, "time is a property of our universe". I assume you are referring to time being a demension. Please describe the entity that is time which you say is the property of the universe. Space is an entity, matter is an entity and energy is an entity but what kind of an entity is time? 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 CS,
Catholic Scientist writes: If there's upwards of 10 dimensions then who knows what kinds of states of existence there might be. Where would those 10 dimensions exist? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Where would those 10 dimensions exist? Not in a place such that the question "where" makes any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mod,
Mod writes: Not necessarily. Carroll's notion has time stretching infinitely forwards and backwards.No matter how far you go 'back' (which is an arbitrary direction along the time line according this notion) there will still be universe. Carroll actually said of time:
quote: That says time flows in one direction.
Mod writes: If you want to submit that as evidence - I submit to you that you must accept other physics papers as evidence too, right? This would mean you accept that the universe was hotter and denser earlier. I like what Carroll has to say about the early universe.
quote: I happen to be one of those who doubt them.
Mod writes: No it wouldn't. It would just mean they would begin to exist. There would be no prior time when there was non-existence, from which it came. There could be no time, as time wouldn't exist. Could you explain what time is? Since I know you are going to say it is a dimension of the universe and did not exist until the universe began to exist could you tell me specifically what entity is time?
Mod writes: I'm going with the first one. Carroll's notion as far as I can tell, does not have a beginning but I'm not sure it has an infinite 'past' necessarily either. If it does not have an infinite (eternal) 'past' it had to have a beginning to exist.
Mod writes: So yeah - the universe always existed, for however long always is. Always to me means eternal but I will change the usage and use eternal exclusivly henceforth. 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 CS,
CS writes: Not in a place such that the question "where" makes any sense. So you don't have a clue. 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: |
So you are saying the source I used should not be in the education business of teaching about the Big Bang. I never mentioned that at all, or even insinuated that. I'm just saying Son told you the Big Bang model doesn't deal with T=0 and you want to tell a working physicist that it does. As though somehow you know something he doesn't?
But I was not saying what I believed but what they taught. What that link said was fine, and you should try to learn it if you're this interested in it. Anything you're making up is void of any actual math or physics so, really, it's irrelevant. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
CS writes: Not in a place such that the question "where" makes any sense. So you don't have a clue. lol, wut? I directly answered your question Did you just not understand it? The word "where" implies a location within the 3 spatial dimensions. The 4th dimension, time, doesn't really exist in a place such that you could ask "where does time exist". Similarly, higher dimension aren't really in a place such that the question of where they exist makes any sense. Wait... what the fuck am I doing? I'm trying to explain something to you as if you'll honestly try to understand it rather than just insist on your preconceived notions. Gawsh I'm stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes:
Okay, once again. There is before planck time 10-43. Prior to planck time it is PRESUMED that all 4 fundamental forces were united into one force. In the Big Bang model there is no Planck time. The existence of a Planck time, where gravity begins to behave quantum mechanically, is an extension of the Big Bang theory that a good number of physicists think might be worth trying to develop. There are other ideas. There are several models where the four forces don't unite into one force, that is also just an proposed extension. In the conventional Big Bang model none of the stuff you wrote is even mentioned.
It is also PRESUMED that all the matter, energy, space and time expanded outwardly from the original singularity.
No it isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Alfred Maddenstein writes:
Well I just looked through "The Early Universe" Kolb and Turner, the standard graduate text on cosmology and they don't say such a thing. In fact they only mention the Planck Epoch in the final chapter as a possible extension of the Big Bang theory. I don't know to which exactly sect of bigbangism you personally belong. The orthodoxy mentions Planck epoch and the preceding singularity alright. I guess you're going to say Kolb and Turner is my Bible/Qu'ran or something aren't you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024