Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,233 Year: 5,490/9,624 Month: 515/323 Week: 12/143 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 220 of 410 (458294)
02-28-2008 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by McCartlennstarrison
02-27-2008 11:45 AM


McC writes:
Think with your heart.
You think with your heart and you end up thinking hopelessly wrong.
Try thinking with your brain: that's what it's for after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by McCartlennstarrison, posted 02-27-2008 11:45 AM McCartlennstarrison has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 242 of 410 (458468)
02-29-2008 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by tesla
02-28-2008 9:03 PM


Re: Truth and consequences
Hi tesla, any luck in getting anyone to buy into your assertions? Anyone at all?
tesla writes:
then when you understand that without direction the universe including you and your snowflake, are impossible;
Apart from your personal incredulity what reason do you have to believe the above is correct? What you are in effect saying is that your god is required to build every snow flake: the question is why do you believe this?
Now I know you will reply with nothing exist outside of energy and therefor god exist and it has been shown that your logic is fault.
Remember this?
tesla writes:
i say: nothing outside energy is real.
you say: prove it.
Larni writes:
No I don't! I say (again) that all you are saying is that only real thing are real. Very good. We can all agree real things are real.
tesla writes:
i say: if it isn't energy, it isn't real. it will never be measured. it will never be found, it will never exist. because it would not be real.
you say: what about ghosts? thoughts? space?
Larni writes:
NO I DON'T.
I say that (again) we agree that only real things are real. I don't believe in ghosts or fairies or gods or any of that bullshit.
tesla writes:
i say: ghosts: IF there "real" can only exist in a form of energy, even if you cant measure it with current technology, because if not energy, it isn't real. thoughts: they exist in your mind which is a part of your body, which is a ton of different energy transfers, chemically, and small electric pulses and perhaps other unmeasurable energies. space: 1 cubic liter of space would boil the earths oceans i believe one poster said. (radiation, fields, and light are some measurable energies in space)
you say: none of that makes sense.
Larni writes:
No. I. Don't. I don't believe in ghost and all that crap (as I mentioned). If by space you are talking about vacuum enegy density then you are on very shaky ground with you boiling off oceans idea.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
tesla writes:
i say: how doesn't it?
reality i say, is only what is real. and if it can never be measured, it wouldn't exist. and since we do exist, energy was first that made it possible. and its too perf4ect, too complex and ordered to have just "appeared" out of nothing. so something was the first "genesis" energy.
Larni writes:
This is where you start down the logical fallacy called arguement from incredularity. It seems 'too perfect, too complex etc'. The flaw in your arguement is that it is only your opinion of 'too perfect, too complex etc'. One cannot base conclusions on not being able to imagine something being true.
tesla writes:
so what would we call the genesis energy? well...existence. since that was has to be before anything else.
and so i applied the genesis energy to scientific enquiry and found the "law of existence".
Larni writes:
You continue to dig a hole for yourself. The energy in the nacent universe has no obvious connection to genesis outside of theology. We are in a science forum, not a religious one.
tesla writes:
the only debate that has been brought to me is : well you didn't measure it, so its not there.
Larni writes:
Not so. You have made fallacious logical errors in your thinking to get from things having to be real to energy having to be real to energy having to be first to this energy being 'genesis energy'. No mention of measuring.
tesla writes:
i say: I'm here. the galaxy is there. so it was there. or nothing would be.
Larni writes:
Again you simply state that things have to be real to exist. WE KNOW!
tesla writes:
that's as simple as i can explain it. you can choose to ignore the truth of it, but all your tentative science is a big "maybe" and this law that "i am, so the earth was, so the galaxy was before that, and so the greater energy that was first was there, is sound. perfect. and indisputable.
Larni writes:
Again all you state is that you are real, the earth is real the galaxy real and was once in a highly energetic state right after the big bang. THIS IS OBVIOUS TO ANY ONE!
tesla writes:
that's why you cant change my mind, and never will. because its true. and you can only come to terms with the truth of it if you actually try to debate the soundness of it, instead of looking for reasons to say it isn't sound.
Larni writes:
No one here is argueing that what is real is real.
tesla writes:
the law really is easy to defend. because all true science is supported by it. relativity, because of it all coming from the same start is sound. and point of view of the individual becomes clearer when its understood.
Larni writes:
No one here is argueing that what is real is real.
tesla writes:
its the difference between looking at your life through a window, to looking at your life as whats staring you in the face.
Larni writes:
No one here is argueing that what is real is real.
tesla writes:
I'm not saying you'll agree with me. who out there who doesn't want to accept any religion, would be willing to accept science that proved that nothing could be at all without God?
tesla writes:
so if that's your motivation, all the science in the world wont change your mind.
Larni writes:
The thing is tesla, that all you have managed to say is that energy is real and always was so your god is real. That does not follow. I may as well say that energy is real and always was so Enki is real, or Odin or Zeus. You being correct about energy being real does not make your god or the 'creation model' that you have failed to provide in 190 post real.
tesla writes:
I'm hoping for a scientist who wishes to know the truth MORE than his/her willingness to not change there points of view.
Larni writes:
To do this you need to use the tools of science and you have fallen far short of the mark.
tesla writes:
so then if such a scientist is out there, try to defend this law in the debate against another, and see how easy it is.
Larni writes:
But tesla, you have not defended it. You have said energy is real therefor god is real.
Like the wookie defence; IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
tesla writes:
WRONG you have not examined what i said, or have poor reading comprehension.
No, tesla. You have (again) proved that your arguement is utter bollocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by tesla, posted 02-28-2008 9:03 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 8:18 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 247 of 410 (458501)
02-29-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by tesla
02-29-2008 8:18 AM


Re: Truth and consequences
Tesla.
What I suggest is that you read 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene and then come back here and tell us if you still believe the bullshit you insist on carting out on every sodding post you ever write.
The Fabric of the Cosmos - Wikipedia
Sorry for the tone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 8:18 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 9:51 PM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 256 of 410 (458600)
03-01-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by tesla
02-29-2008 9:51 PM


Re: Truth and consequences
Tesla I implore you to read it. It is about string theory in only one chapter; I guess you are thinking about 'The Elegant Universe'.
tesla writes:
what I'm proposing is based on all logic of reality, what reality means, and where this reality could come from by all observation of tested proven laws of science.
Again you degenerate into unsubstantiated assertion.
Why do you resist the education that is on hand here.
Get the book from a library and read it. Pay particular attention to the chapter on inflation cosmology and the chapter on the big bang being the result of 2 three dimensional branes colliding.
It may simply put the question further from our reach but it pisses over your childlike interpretation of origins.
You are giving me ulcers, tesla: please educate your self.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by tesla, posted 02-29-2008 9:51 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by tesla, posted 03-01-2008 8:14 AM Larni has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 265 of 410 (459017)
03-03-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by tesla
03-03-2008 10:50 AM


Re: fabric within perspective
tesla writes:
larni proposed the string theory in understanding the "fabric" of space time
I did what now?
Nice pictures of planets, by the way.
Edited by Larni, : Nice pictures

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 10:50 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 11:06 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 267 of 410 (459023)
03-03-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by tesla
03-03-2008 11:06 AM


Re: fabric within perspective
Tesla, I was asking you to read 'The Fabric of the Cosmos', not 'The Elegant Universe'.
The former has one brief chapter on string theory. The majoity of the book is about the fabric of the cosmos!
The part I thought you would digg was the sections on Brane theory and the image of two 3 dimensional branes aligning in parallel and touching at T=0.
How you concider it an abuse of science when you pontificate about 'exist is definite' for several hundred posts is beyond me.
tesla writes:
and at T=0 if you have done the math of probabilities
I challenge you tesla, to show me the maths you have done: in maths, not analogy!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 11:06 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 11:40 AM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 269 of 410 (459035)
03-03-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by tesla
03-03-2008 11:40 AM


Re: fabric within perspective
tesla writes:
lets observe math then.
I feel entirely justified in saying what you has presented is mindless bullshit.
What the hell does laying floors have to do with the physics of the early universe?
Or indead anything on this site.
Or indead anything other than laying floors.
To be spoken in the tone of Comic Book Guy.
Worst. Maths. Ever

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 11:40 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 12:34 PM Larni has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 274 of 410 (459058)
03-03-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by tesla
03-03-2008 12:34 PM


Larnis' maths.
tesla writes:
so do your math
Ok.
To understand lets say, the area of a spacetime, you measure the scalar. In n dimensional spacetime if you find the area of spacetime necessary to encompass the observable universe.
But then also, do you need to orientation of the scalar? Say; orthogonal.
So you also must measure the energy level, and the outside variables of the scalar for specific alignment that the observable universe will "appear" saddle shaped, but never can be ideal saddle shaped, unless the observable universe was not in fact orthogonal, because they never are.
So the math is to relative.
The observable universe being not saddle shaped can cause buckling of the scalar field, and an infinite value if not corrected, so then you run the math of probabilities to understand at what level of buckling is acceptable for the observable universe you are modelling.
The math of the singularity for it to be understood, is the math of probabilities.
I give it to you in my analogy for the simple reason that all who do the math come up with different variables, but all workable within the confines of the truth.
For example: Cosmologist A Say's; the proper scaling of the metric to work with universe A, is an eighth of an inch for the matter of appearance, and the scalar field being 3/4 of an inch is acceptable to a saddle shaped universe, and would be acceptable to the observer because the non zero value of the Higgs field is 2 eighths higher than the necessary value needed for a saddleshaped universe.
Cosmologist B Say's; nay, but I say, unless within a sixteenth of an inch , the non zero value of the Higgs fields spontaneously drops of exceeding the necessary parameters for a saddle shaped universe within 7 years, and although it would be accepted now, observable universe is a saddle shaped one and a sixteenth would extend the time frame thrice with the given variables of the foundation on its current platform, which is the scalar field (obviously).
The variables of the saddle shaped universe by the age of the observable universe and the scalar fields current settling from what would have been necessary for the condesation of the Higgs field support the observation.
The math was done by two different cosmolgist, and both would have found a scalar field, metric and saddle shape of the universe, which means A=B, regardless, but one considered a missing variable, while the other ignored it.
So when running the probabilities of the singularity I can say:
Well, if you don't get my point now you never will.
I don't think either of us will put cavediver out of a job.
Edited by Larni, : Changed title.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 12:34 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Admin, posted 03-03-2008 3:07 PM Larni has not replied
 Message 276 by tesla, posted 03-03-2008 3:16 PM Larni 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