Origin of the Universe

Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Origin of the Universe

"In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then God said, "Let there be light!"  And there was light."

With these 17 words begins the Old Testament.  If you bothered to read any farther, you should check into the local hospital and have your head scanned, because you clearly don't have a brain.   In the beginning, was there nothing, or was there God?  And who is he talking to?  Does God talk to himself?  What was there before the beginning?  Where did God come from?  These 17 words are so ludicrous as to clearly indicate that the book you're holding is worthless, might as well toss it on the fire and read something better like The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkein.

 If the answer to that last question sounds anything like "God is eternal; he always was and always will be", why don't we just do away with the middleman here and apply that statement to the universe itself?  "The universe is eternal; it has always existed and always will" makes a lot more sense!

 "In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then there was a Big Bang.  Then there was matter, energy, space, and time."

i'm sorry, but this explanation is every bit as ludicrous as the first one!  What was there before this Big Bang?  And what caused this Big Bang? Needless to say, it doesn't help matters for atheists trying to explain science and reason to theists when the "scientific" notion of the origin of the universe is every bit as nonsensical as the biblical one!

 Here's what happened in a nutshell:  Scientists - Albert Einstein in particular - began with the preconceived notion that the universe was finite -- which was undoubtedly the result of growing up within a religious paradigm.  A finite universe cannot be static, it would eventually collapse upon itself, so it must either be expanding or collapsing.  It looks like it's expanding, so with a bit of careful observation and mathematics we should be able to calculate just exactly how long ago it was all at one point and this expanding began.  So we'll know the age and the size of the universe!  Won't we be smart!  And so for the past century cosmologists have been writing articles of ever-increasing complexity that nobody ever reads because they don't make any sense and nobody believes them anyway.

 It's plainly obvious that the universe is not finite.  It's infinite in all spacial directions, as well as in time both forward and backward.  The first concern, that the universe must be either expanding or contracting, evaporates -- an object in an infinite universe is surrounded by an infinite number of other objects in all directions, there is no net gravitational attraction that would cause an eventual collapse.  If the objects within 20 billion light-years of our home planet appear to be flying away from each other, so what?  It certainly is of little importance in the grand scheme of things, such as what's happening 20 quintillion light-years from our home planet!

 In an infinite universe, the questions are ever so much more interesting.   I'll point out a few:

 Occam's Razor:  The theory that, if the universe were infinite and there were an infinite number of stars out there and have been for an infinite amount of time, the night sky would be as bright as day.  Mathematically, this would be true -- if one were to presume that light, once emitted by a star, travels indefinitely through space without degradation.  Clearly, light does not travel indefinitely through space without degradation!  Maybe we should be looking into exactly what happens to light as it travels for 15 billion years or so.

 The "red shift":  The basis for the theory that the entire observable universe is expanding, that the light from all visible stars is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum as though they are moving away from us, and the farther away the star is, the faster it appears to be moving away.  Perhaps.  However, perhaps -- considering the degradation of light that must be occurring as described under Occam's Razor -- these stars aren't moving away from us at all, the red shift is merely a consequence of light travelling for billions of years.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:  Clearly this cannot hold on a universal scale, because there has already been an infinite amount of time passing, everything would have fallen into utter disorder by now.  Apparently there is some mechanism by which order is restored.  I suspect order is gained whenever space dust aggregates into a planet or star.

Mass vs. Energy:  Each star is burning hydrogen in a fusion reaction, converting mass into energy.  Since that can't go on forever -- but has been going on forever -- clearly there is some mechanism in the universe by which energy is converted back into matter.  Perhaps as light travels through space for billions of years, each photon gradually becomes a tiny particle of space dust.  Or perhaps there's something going on in black holes.

 The cyclical nature of everything:  Everything that is happening now has happened an infinite number of times before.  Everything is cyclical.  Obviously, it'd be very interesting to study all the various cycles involved.

 I would very much like to be reading articles discussing theories on these issues -- but all we get from the cosmologists is more garbage about the Big Bang.  I'd like to slap them.

--  Kirbert 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
http://www.spacedaily.com/re

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Endless_Universe_Made_Possible_By_New_Model_999.html

According to a paper recently released by researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill, the universe can be cyclic without any problems (if dark matter behaves a particular way). In a nutshell, as well as I can understand it (Feel free to correct me on this if I'm mis-reading the article):

How to cycle the universe:

1. Universe as we knows it expands more and more rapidly due to the influence of dark matter. Eventually everything is broken down due to this expansion.

2. Individual patches of the universe are now isolated from each other since the expansion is greater than the speed of light, so these individual patches can then collapse upon themselves and bounce out (big bang-ish) forming a new universe.

3. For each patch, repeat 1.

Because the patches can't interact with one another, entropy is in patches too far away (It sounds like some patches contain the entropy and others are fresh), so the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is still good.

Personally, I don't understand where the new matter/energy comes from in these new universes. Does the expansion itself cause particle/antiparticle pairs to pop out of the fabric of space-time?

-Triften


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 "In the beginning, there

 "In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then there was a Big Bang.  Then there was matter, energy, space, and time."

This is only "true" in the sense because scientists, following only what they can observe, cannot make assumptions about what is outside the Big Bang, because we simply don't know.

I however think it's safe to assume that we're being very egotistical here if we really seriously consider the known universe(the one created by the big bang) to be the only universe.

How old is this universe, by way of Big Bang? Is it 14 billion years? Give me a break, the Universe and time is infinite. The number 14 billion is a cosmic nano-second on such a scale.

Time has no backwards and forwards persay.. I guess this is a matter of debate, but it is almost widely accepted that there is only the present. The concept of future and present is a construct of the concious mind so that we can put events in order.

If the universe is ever expanding at the speed of light by way of the Big Bang, then the Earth and the solar system is always moving at the speed of light. Of course, relative to the fairly still world, I am of course not running at the speed of light, but because I am apart of a system which is moving at the speed of light, I am moving in the speed of light.

Once an object is moving at the speed of light, time stops. Therefor, time is non-existent, for the universe has always been in the present due to the ever expanding nature of the universe.

St. Augustine had a more philosophical approach by saying that because the past is not real(you can not physically reach out and grab the past) and that the future is not real(as well, physically, the future is impossible to just reach out and grab) then there is only the present.

Kirbert wrote:

there is no net gravitational attraction that would cause an eventual collapse.


I have my own theory on the eventual collapse of the universe(the one created from our Big Bang) but it is merely theory, and has no mathematical basis. Once I've explored it a little more indepth, I would love to share it on these boards. It's pretty far out. I however do believe that this universe will evenetually collapse in on itself. We may never know.

How exactly would things be falling into utter disarray by now? Wouldn't the second law just cause it to get colder and colder? I think I'm missing a key part in that law?

Kilbert wrote:

clearly there is some mechanism in the universe by which energy is converted back into matter.  Perhaps as light travels through space for billions of years, each photon gradually becomes a tiny particle of space dust.  Or perhaps there's something going on in black holes.


Law of conservation states that something can't just gradually become something else without some force behind it. E=mc^2 states that mass is energy and vice-versa. A photon is mass. Very little mass, but regardless, it has mass. There is nothing in this universe that has no mass. Dark energy, dark manner, anti-particles, gluons, W and Z bosons, all have mass. Though energy is not considered directly to be matter, all matter has mass. And all mass is energy. Therefor matter is energy.

I am with you on the black hole part. Because nothing, not even light can escape a black hole, under the immense pressure of singularity, the mass of all particles, the energy of all particles, are being compressed infinitely smaller and smaller. This build up of pressure and mass and energy leads to something. By theory of worm holes, it simply is spitting out that energy in another part of the Universe in the form of quasars. Maybe that mass is being transported into another dimension of reality. We wouldn't know, unless we tempted the awesome power of a black hole.



You say that there can not be just nothing. Dark energy is believed to be what fills up 70 percent of the energy which is in the known universe. Dark energy is believed to have negative pressure equal to it's energy density, by way of thermodynamics(causing this cosmic expanision) It is energy which is the cost to just have "nothing" in deep space however, so it must have mass as it is energy. Therefor mass and energy must infinite as the universe is infinite.

Inifinite is not a number, therefor, the megaverse is ever expanding, always, trying to reach infinite. Therefor, mass and energy has to be always ever expanding. If it wasn't ever expanding, then over the course of time, there wouldn't be any more dark energy to fill up the regions of space. What happens then? You said yourself, there can't just be nothing. And if there was nothing, there would be no dark energy to cause this ever expansion, then matter would be static, and you said yourself, the universe can't be static.

But, mass increasingly ever-steadily goes against the laws of conservation because energy just can't be made out of thin air(nothing rather)

So where did this energy come from? The universe is, and always was, and energy and mass is and always was.

Yet, the energy that we know of(what's in the known universe) WAS nothing more then a single point in time and space. The Big Bang was a point of immense singularity. All the energy in the known universe wasn't the size of a baseball, or the head of a pin. It was the size of something so enormously small, it was actually infinitally small. The size of the universe at that time couldn't be ZERO because that would mean there is no energy or mass, and that violates the law of conservation.

With the immense gravitational force of this point of singularity however, the volume of the universe could not have been a fixed size. It was constantly reaching a volume closer and closer to zero.

I don't know where I'm going with that, but I know it's mind boggling, and my head hurts.

What I can get to is that if black holes cause such awesome events as worm holes, or whatever you want to theorize,

Then what happens at this perpetual black hole which was the universe prior to the Big Bang? What "laws" where there for this universe.(it is said that in black holes, there are no laws, down is up, left is right) WHY was this universe at a point of singularity at one point in time and space. What forces made for that to be the case? Is it a cycle of expansion, collapsing, expansion, collapsing, over and over again? Is this the only universe that does this, or in the cosmic megaverse, is there an infinite number of these Big Bangs and Big Crunches happening each and every cosmic nano-second?

If the law of conservation is true, then WHERE did all this matter(energy) come from? It couldn't just come from nowhere, and the amount of it can't ever change. So how was the distribution of energy spread among the megaverse..say...an infinte seconds minus one second ago. But, an infinite minus one is simply infinite. So, I ask, what was the distribution of energy, and where did the energy come from, an infinite amount of seconds ago?

I believe it was, and always was. Why? As in the words of Brian37, Just Because.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How exactly would

Quote:
How exactly would things be falling into utter disarray by now? Wouldn't the second law just cause it to get colder and colder? I think I'm missing a key part in that law?

Think of two glasses of water, one hot and one cold.  You can mix the two and end up with two glasses of lukewarm water -- but you cannot reverse that action.  This is the second law at work.  Basically, it says that eventually everything in the universe will be lukewarm per se, a uniform level of energy.  This law has been proven conclusively for things on Earth; things always move towards less order (the hot water will gradually cool, the cold water will gradually warm, just be being near each other) and restoring order requires the expenditure of energy (reheating the one glass of water, chilling the other).  But as I said, clearly the law cannot hold on a universal scale; somehow lukewarm dust floating around in interstellar space must be able to become fiery hot stars all by itself. 

 --  Kirbert


Bodhitharta
Theist
Bodhitharta's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Quote: How

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
How exactly would things be falling into utter disarray by now? Wouldn't the second law just cause it to get colder and colder? I think I'm missing a key part in that law?

Think of two glasses of water, one hot and one cold.  You can mix the two and end up with two glasses of lukewarm water -- but you cannot reverse that action.  This is the second law at work.  Basically, it says that eventually everything in the universe will be lukewarm per se, a uniform level of energy.  This law has been proven conclusively for things on Earth; things always move towards less order (the hot water will gradually cool, the cold water will gradually warm, just be being near each other) and restoring order requires the expenditure of energy (reheating the one glass of water, chilling the other).  But as I said, clearly the law cannot hold on a universal scale; somehow lukewarm dust floating around in interstellar space must be able to become fiery hot stars all by itself. 

 --  Kirbert

 

Entropy has nothing to do with order. I can now see why you thought that "The beginning" was somehow referring to more than creation. Of course God was "In" the Beginning. If you examine just those three words you can perhaps reach enlightenment. "In The Beginning" then it says "GOD". BTW, Entropy only refers to heat death or the dissipation of energy.

Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
The law does hold true

The law does hold true always in the universe, because nothing is colder then absolute zero. Heat will always diffuse to reach absolute zero. I have my own ideas on what happens when the universe does reach absolute zero, but it will happen simply because the second law does hold true in the universe.

    What's wrong with a uniform level of energy? Aren't we always told that balance is almost always more stable then a world of extremes? The only "order" I could imagine you are speaking of is that naturally, the universe will keep attempting to reach absolute zero. That is the 2nd law working to effect, but mind you, this "order" is only due to the near stopping of molecules because it is so cold(and this is directly related to the pressure being exerted on the molecules. More pressure means there more times the molecules bump into each other, which causes friction. Think of a computer duster can getting cold after the pressure is released rapidly)

    The thing is, this function where the 2 glasses of water can't be made hotter is ridiculous.(of course the glass[the universe] will get colder because of the ever expansion of the universe-less pressure, less friction, less heat) The glass CAN get hotter, and will get hotter by way of the Big Crunch, the heat death of the universe, whatever you want to believe in in the final stages of this universe.

    The only order in this universe is not by way of heat or coldness. Order is only achievable in this megaverse because infinity and zero lets it be so. That's some pseudo new age kind of thing to say, but in all reality, I really can't help but really reaffirm that, at least to myself. If the universe was not infinite, then it would be near impossible to keep order. If zero was not an intergral part of the universe, then atoms would not be able to balance itself out(thus, chaos) A proton with +1 charge, a neutron with 0 charge and an electron with -1 charge creates a hydrogen atom, with overall, zero charge. Think about how many things in this universe equals zero. Nothing. There is not on object that just equals zero. Energy is mass. For there to be energy, it must have mass. Mass can't be zero because then it would not be mass. Zero creates balance in the universe. Infinity is what drives the balance to astronomical porportions, while still maintaining balance. Fucking beautiful if you ask me.

    Dust floating around in space will NOT become fiery hot star by itself. After a supernovae explosion, those microscopic particles of dust will gather to form a new star, and if lucky, planets. Actually, most of this interstellar dust you talk about can only be created after a supernova. After the Big Bang, and the cooling of the gluons and plasma, there was only hydrogen, a little helium, and maybe trace amounts of slightly heavier atoms(think nitrogen, carbon)

    After the collapse of a star, those hydrogen and helium atoms within the nuclear reactor fuses into heavier and heavier elements. All that dust afterwards is just hydrogen that has fused into your gold, uranium, neon, iron elements. I'm pretty sure there is nuclear fusion happening at the core of our earth? This is why the planet has such heavy elements as uranium. There was no uranium in this solar system until the star that was before the sun collapsed, and it's dust was collected as the rudimentery collection of "earth" was being formed some 4.6 billion years ago.(is that year correct?)

    Anyhow, because of gravity, most of this dust doesn't just float off into deep deep space. Sure, some will, but more likely then not, it will be pulled in by a planet, a star, or black hole.


Triften--

The universe can't be expanding faster then the speed of light, because nothing can expand faster then the speed of light, unless the expansion is using a method by way of an alternate dimension or reality. But wait, we can't discuss such things here because that is irrational and illogical. There can't be something else there if we can't see it, right?

The only flaw I see is that the expansion universes would most certainly have to be much much smaller then the previous Big Bang. Therefor, going back in time, and one will find itself at a point where there was an extremely large collection of mass and energy, in a very very small space. Such effects upon space-time would be inconceivable, even if one were to even begin to imagine what black holes are like let alone a black hole of universal porportions. All this energy in one area would cause this area of space to collapse on itself, and that would mean, at one point of this patch of universe theory is that at one time, there was the megaverse at a point of singularity. That is impossible because the universe was, is, always was, and always is. Unless, gasp, the megaverse is always a point of singularity on the cosmic scale.

Also, with these little patches, always isolating itself, sooner or later there will be a little big bang where there is not enough matter for the patch to contract in on itself. Where does this rogue patches of matter go? Just dissipates in deep space? Simply, sooner or later, because the law of conservation always hold true, there would be no patches of mass that would contract on itself, creating a universal dissipation of "space dust" throughout the megaverse. If time is infinite, then why hasn't this happened already? That's a reasonable concept because if time is inifinite, then all these events should have occured a near infinite amount of time ago, because there has been such a long amount of time for this dissipation of matter to occur already.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Black Holes

Quote:
I am with you on the black hole part. Because nothing, not even light can escape a black hole, under the immense pressure of singularity, the mass of all particles, the energy of all particles, are being compressed infinitely smaller and smaller. This build up of pressure and mass and energy leads to something. By theory of worm holes, it simply is spitting out that energy in another part of the Universe in the form of quasars. Maybe that mass is being transported into another dimension of reality. We wouldn't know, unless we tempted the awesome power of a black hole.

I think we basically agree here, but I'd like to clarify a point I was making:  It may very well be true that black holes harbor such interesting things as singularities, worm holes, rifts in space and time, etc., etc.  But they might not; they might be simply what they look like, extremely dense objects developing extremely powerful gravitational fields.  The theories about worm holes and the like come from cosmologists desperate for explanations to support their Big Bang theory of a finite universe about 16 billion years old.  Once you accept an infinite universe that is eternal, there is no need for black holes to harbor such features.  They still might, but we need to theorize about them from a rational standpoint before we can even develop reasonable assumptions.

 --  Kirbert 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Entropy has nothing

Quote:
Entropy has nothing to do with order. I can now see why you thought that "The beginning" was somehow referring to more than creation. Of course God was "In" the Beginning. If you examine just those three words you can perhaps reach enlightenment. "In The Beginning" then it says "GOD". BTW, Entropy only refers to heat death or the dissipation of energy.

 Thank you so much for that reply.  It helped a great deal in explaining how outwardly rational people, even engineers, can rationalize something as irrational as theism.

--  Kirbert 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Ripple

Ripple wrote:

Triften--

The universe can't be expanding faster then the speed of light, because nothing can expand faster then the speed of light, unless the expansion is using a method by way of an alternate dimension or reality. But wait, we can't discuss such things here because that is irrational and illogical. There can't be something else there if we can't see it, right?

I misstated that bit. It's when the universe is expanding AT the speed of light. If space expands at the speed of light, then light from one point can't reach another and so they are isolated from each other.

Ripple wrote:


The only flaw I see is that the expansion universes would most certainly have to be much much smaller then the previous Big Bang.

This theory is for an infinitely large universe so the first item is a non-issue. One can divide an infinitely large space into an infinity of infinitely large spaces. So each of these expansion universes is also infinitely large.

Ripple wrote:

That is impossible because the universe was, is, always was, and always is. Unless, gasp, the megaverse is always a point of singularity on the cosmic scale.

It's been mentioned by many already in previous threads, but: Time is a part of our universe. As long as time existed, the universe existed. Even if the big bang is "the start of it", that's when time itself began, so saying the universe always was doesn't constrain any of these things. I'd recommend reading Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield's "The Arrow of Time."

Ripple wrote:



Also, with these little patches, always isolating itself, sooner or later there will be a little big bang where there is not enough matter for the patch to contract in on itself. Where does this rogue patches of matter go? Just dissipates in deep space? Simply, sooner or later, because the law of conservation always hold true, there would be no patches of mass that would contract on itself, creating a universal dissipation of "space dust" throughout the megaverse. If time is infinite, then why hasn't this happened already? That's a reasonable concept because if time is inifinite, then all these events should have occured a near infinite amount of time ago, because there has been such a long amount of time for this dissipation of matter to occur already.

I don't think it's a matter of matter. It's the isolated "causal patches" of space collapsing in on themselves.

As I already said, I'm not sure exactly where the "new" matter and energy come from. I haven't read the whole paper and I'm sure that if I did, I wouldn't understand half of the deeper explanation.

No one says it hasn't happened already. If it has, we just happen to be around 15 billion years or so into one of these universes.

-Triften


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The law does hold

Quote:
The law does hold true always in the universe, because nothing is colder then absolute zero. Heat will always diffuse to reach absolute zero.

Absolute zero would mean that energy has ceased to exist. That never happens, and that's not what the second law says.

Quote:
What's wrong with a uniform level of energy?

We're not at a uniform level of energy. Since an infinite amount of time has already passed, if everything were to eventually reach a uniform level of energy, we'd be there -- and we'd have already been there for an infinite amount of time.

Quote:
The only "order" I could imagine you are speaking of is that naturally, the universe will keep attempting to reach absolute zero.

No, it doesn't. Where did you get this idea?

Quote:
That is the 2nd law working to effect...

No, it's not.

Quote:
The thing is, this function where the 2 glasses of water can't be made hotter is ridiculous.

Clearly you didn't read it. Making the two glasses hotter would involve heating, which involves energy, not entropy. The point was that you cannot make one glass hot and the other cold again without expending energy to do so. By mixing the hot and cold water, you have increased the level of entropy (disorder) in that system, but you cannot restore it to its original level of order without introducing energy from an external source.

Quote:
Infinity is what drives the balance to astronomical porportions, while still maintaining balance. Fucking beautiful if you ask me.

I agree. In fact, that was kinda my point.

Quote:
Dust floating around in space will NOT become fiery hot star by itself. After a supernovae explosion, those microscopic particles of dust will gather to form a new star, and if lucky, planets. Actually, most of this interstellar dust you talk about can only be created after a supernova.

I think we're agreeing here, actually. I was speaking of the cyclical nature of everything, and my point here was that dust floating around in space will gather to form planets and stars all by itself, there is no need for an external input of energy or other extraneous assistance for it to happen. The fact that the interstellar dust was once part of another star or planets goes without saying. In fact, it has been parts of other stars and planets an infinite number of times. It is all cyclical, it has always been cyclical, it will always be cyclical.

Quote:
After the Big Bang...

The Big Bang, if it happened at all, concerns me not in the least, because it would have been an insignificant event in the universe. I want to know what happened before the Big Bang and what was going on one trillion light years to the southwest at the time.

Quote:
After the collapse of a star, those hydrogen and helium atoms within the nuclear reactor fuses into heavier and heavier elements.

Possibly before the collapse, too. But the point is, all this takes place without any external input. And it somehow must be reversible, otherwise everything would be heavy elements by now.

Quote:
There was no uranium in this solar system until the star that was before the sun collapsed, and it's dust was collected as the rudimentery collection of "earth" was being formed some 4.6 billion years ago.

True. But that star was made of dust that coalesced, and that dust came from a yet previous star, and so on and so on. Each of these stars was presumably creating uranium during their death throes. Since this has happened an infinite number of times, why isn't everything uranium?

Actually, the question is why isn't everything iron, since all elements lighter than iron are gradually fusing to move towards iron, while elements heavier than iron are fissioning to move towards iron. So, why isn't everything iron? Somewhere in this universe there must be a process going on that breaks iron down into hydrogen and helium.

The black holes might be involved. They collapse atoms down into a solid plasma of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Elements as we know them cease to exist. At the end of the life of a black hole (yes, there must be an end, everything is cyclical), perhaps there is some sort of explosion in which all of these protons, neutrons and electrons are reassembled into elements -- and it may be that hydrogen is the element most readily assembled under those conditions, so gobs of them are created.

Quote:
(is that year correct?)

Yeah, 4.6 billion years is as good a number as any for the age of the Earth. Actually, the problem I have is that, as far as I know, nobody has assembled a plausible and cohesive description of the physical condition of the Earth from those days until the present. I think it would be completely unreasonable to presume that, 4.6 billion years ago right after the Earth coalesced from dust, it was the same diameter as it is today, contained the same mass, rotated at the same rate, had the same gravitational pull, etc., etc.

As a first instance: the Earth is gathering dust from space today, which would seem to mean the mass is increasing at some rate. I suspect the rotation rate is also slowing, as the angular momentum is probably unaffected by this gathering of dust, yet the increase in mass and moment of inertia will require that the angular velocity decrease in concert.

Such changes, over 4+ billion years, would undoubtedly have many implications. For example, the dinosaurs may have been living under different gravitational conditions than we are today, which may help explain why some of them were so large.

Are we far enough off track?

Quote:
The universe can't be expanding faster then the speed of light, because nothing can expand faster then the speed of light...

Well, therein lies another level of hogwash in the Big Bang theory. If there was such an explosion that resulted in everything in the observable universe flying away from one central point, it's true that the various stars and planets would each be travelling at a different rate so they'd end up scattered, with the only observable characteristic that each one is growing more distant from every other one. But light emitted from the Big Bang would have radiated outward from the point of origin at the speed of light. Unless we just happened to be travelling at the speed of light ourselves, we'd never see it again, it has long since left us and gone. Yet cosmologists talk about the Cosmic Background Radiation as though this energy is just mulling around waiting for us to observe it. I'm sorry, but the "Cosmic Background Radiation" is simply the collective emissions of the radiant heat of all the interstellar dust, most of which is very close to absolute zero. Very simple, no cosmological implications worth musing about.

Quote:
Therefor, going back in time, and one will find itself at a point where there was an extremely large collection of mass and energy, in a very very small space.

And my favorite question: What was happening two feet to the left at the time?

The Big Bang is hogwash. If it happened, it happened within the universe, not as a cause of its existence. Until we ditch this entire concept that the universe is finite and had a beginning, we'll never move on to realistic theories about the structure and nature of the universe.

And someday we're going to look back on the days of extensive theorizing about the Big Bang the way we look back on how people could possibly think the world was flat.

-- Kirbert

 

 

 

 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Even if the big bang

Quote:
Even if the big bang is "the start of it", that's when time itself began, so saying the universe always was doesn't constrain any of these things.

Understood.  My point is that I think this is all a crock.  There is no reason whatsoever to postulate that time itself had a beginning, and in fact postulating such is an exercise in fantasy -- kinda like some other fantasies we all know and love.  Let's forget all that hogwash and begin anew with the very reasonable presumption that the universe always was and always will be and that time and space had no beginning and will have no end.  And then let's start to work on rationally explaining the universe as we see it today.

 --  Kirbert 


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Photons

Quote:
A photon is mass. Very little mass, but regardless, it has mass.

Actually, a photon is a very interesting critter.  It is an electromagnetic wave which contains no matter and would therefore have zero mass -- if it were moving at any speed slower than the speed of light.  Any matter moving at the speed of light would have infinite mass.  So, mathematically, a proton's mass is zero times infinity -- which is indeterminate, could be anything.  It therefore has been measured empirically, and the above statement is correct, it's a very tiny mass.

 This is a bit off track of my original contention, though.  I was suggesting that light must degenerate as it travels through space -- a requirement that follows from Occam's Razor -- and as long as it is degenerating, it might provide an alternative explanation for the observed red shift as well.

 Then realizing that energy cannot be destroyed, one must ask oneself what becomes of that photon when it has degenerated to the point where it is no longer light?  It cannot simply cease to exist.  The simplest explanation may be that it is simply absorbed by space dust to become heat, perhaps later to be re-emitted as radiant heat.

But I was postulating that it might somehow become a tiny particle of space dust via some conversion of energy into matter that science has not observed or postulated yet.  There must be a mechanism for energy to convert into matter somewhere in the universe, because there's a dreadful lot of matter being converted into energy in each star, and balance is being maintained somehow.

--  Kirbert 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Quote: Even

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
Even if the big bang is "the start of it", that's when time itself began, so saying the universe always was doesn't constrain any of these things.

Understood. My point is that I think this is all a crock. There is no reason whatsoever to postulate that time itself had a beginning, and in fact postulating such is an exercise in fantasy -- kinda like some other fantasies we all know and love. Let's forget all that hogwash and begin anew with the very reasonable presumption that the universe always was and always will be and that time and space had no beginning and will have no end. And then let's start to work on rationally explaining the universe as we see it today.

-- Kirbert

Proof by incredulity?

I'm agreeing with the idea that the universe "always was" because time began with the universe, so there was no "before".

Scientists do try to explain the universe rationally. It seems that your stance that this is "a crock" is more likely based off of a lack of information on your part than a failure of physicists to think rationally.

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
A photon is mass. Very little mass, but regardless, it has mass.

Actually, a photon is a very interesting critter. It is an electromagnetic wave which contains no matter and would therefore have zero mass -- if it were moving at any speed slower than the speed of light. Any matter moving at the speed of light would have infinite mass. So, mathematically, a proton's mass is zero times infinity -- which is indeterminate, could be anything. It therefore has been measured empirically, and the above statement is correct, it's a very tiny mass.

Where do you get zero times infinity from?

A photon has energy. Energy equates to matter, therefore the photon has mass.

Also, are you ignoring the particle-wave duality that we've observed?

Kirbert wrote:

This is a bit off track of my original contention, though. I was suggesting that light must degenerate as it travels through space -- a requirement that follows from Occam's Razor -- and as long as it is degenerating, it might provide an alternative explanation for the observed red shift as well.

How does that follow from Occam's Razor?

Light "degenerates" when it interacts with things. When light collides with something it transfers some of its energy to the thing it struck. If light just travels through empty space, it doesn't give up energy to anything.

Kirbert wrote:

Then realizing that energy cannot be destroyed, one must ask oneself what becomes of that photon when it has degenerated to the point where it is no longer light? It cannot simply cease to exist. The simplest explanation may be that it is simply absorbed by space dust to become heat, perhaps later to be re-emitted as radiant heat.

Radiant heat is EM. Those are photons as well.

Kirbert wrote:

But I was postulating that it might somehow become a tiny particle of space dust via some conversion of energy into matter that science has not observed or postulated yet.

A photon can spontaneously change into a matter/anti-matter pair of particles. Nothing is created/destroyed since the matter/anti-matter pair would release energy equal to the photon if they collided.

Kirbert wrote:

There must be a mechanism for energy to convert into matter somewhere in the universe, because there's a dreadful lot of matter being converted into energy in each star, and balance is being maintained somehow.

-- Kirbert

It doesn't take much matter to create a whole lot of energy.

-Triften

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: In the

Kirbert wrote:
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang. Then there was matter, energy, space and time."

I'm sorry, but this statement is every bit as preposterous as the first one!

Not really. Here, take a look:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

This page presents a brief overview of some cosmological models for how a universe might be generated. None of these models violate any laws of physics. I plan on adding some more info concerning scientific ex nihilo accounts for the universe. Again, none of these theories violates any laws of physics.

Quote:
It makes no sense at all,

Really? Well, here's a counter proposal for you to consider: perhaps they don't make sense to you, because you don't really understand what cosmologists are actually saying... Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the brightest minds in the world: Hawkings, Linde, Guth, Ferris, Greene, have all managed to avoid coming up with cosmological models that make 'no sense at all', and that, in actuality, you don't really know enough about what they actually do say. What do you think?

Quote:
and again fails to explain what existed before this big bang

You're off the mark several levels. 1) Brane theory holds that there was 'something' before the big bang, and accounts for what this 'something is - look into it.

2) Hawking's theory holds that the universe is finite but boundless timewise, ergo the part of your question relating to 'before' the big bang makes no sense in his model.

3) Smolin points out that there are three possible ways to decribe the nature of a singularity (i.e. beginning point), not just one.

4) Ex nihilo theories would hold that nothing existed in the first place!

Quote:
or what caused the big bang to occur.

Well, the first problem here is using 'causality'... if something 'caused' the universe, then there was 'something already existent. Now, brane theory can deal with this... as can any multiverse theory. But ex nihilo theories would hold that talking about 'before' and'causality' are basic errors... there wouldn't be anything prior to the big bang to cause anything!

Quote:

IMHO, the cosmologists are completely off their rockers,

I'd hardly call this a humble opinion.

Quote:
And I think I know why: they began with the preconception that the universe is finite -- because they were raised to believe so, thanks to Christianity!

Why not read what a cosmologist actually says before you psychoanalyze their errors? You might find out that these errors don't actually exist in their work in the first place.

Quote:

I have confirmed this in one particular case: Albert Einstein.

Hardly a modern cosmologist.... in fact, hardly a cosmologist at all in the modern sense of the term....

Quote:
Einstein was troubled by the fact that all the objects in the observable universe seemed to be standing still. Given gravity and the enormity of time, they should all collapse together.

Actually, this is an old error, the problem and the solution predate Einstein. I think you are talking about the universal constant.

Quote:
When he was told that the observable universe was not standing still but in fact appeared to be expanding, he was greatly relieved.

Really?

Quote:
And, being the greatest mind of his time and considered infallible,

Infallible?! No. Come on. Proving Albert wrong became a hobby for the quantum physicists. Neils Bohr in particular ate Einstein's lunch on a regular basis. If their debates were a boxing match, the ref woulda stopped it in round 1. No one considered Einstein infallible.

Quote:
the fact that Einstein was relieved at this development told cosmologists that they were on the right track

Where on earth do you get this from?

Quote:
- and they've been heading down that track ever since.

But what do you base this judgement on? What if your basis itself is flawed due to lack of current knowledge of cosmology?

Quote:
But it's clearly the wrong track. If you toss the Bible in the trash where it belongs, the universe is obviously infinite in both space and time.

Oh, obviously.... of course. Actually, big bang theory demonstrates that our universe is in fact finite... all matter must have been relegated to an infintesimal point.... so I really don't know what grounds you are holding to here.... Of course, you could employ Hawking's finite but boundless model, but I doubt that's on your mind here.

Quote:
There is no end in any direction, and there was no beginning and will be no end in time. And if Einstein had believed that, his reactions would have been exactly the opposite: there would be no problem with the objects in the universe appearing stationary, as each one is surrounded by an infinite number of other objects in all directions, and there is no net gravitational pull it in any one direction.

Actually, that doesn't solve the problem! If that were the case, then all matter would still coalesce in one point! Newton's argument for an infinite static universe fails! Here's why:

"The failure of Newton's reasoning is an illustration of how careful one has to be in thinking about infinity. From a modern viewpoint, an infinite distribution of matter under the influence of gravity would unquestioningly collapse. One way to correctly understand the problem is to imagine approaching the infinite distribution of matter by considering a succession of fintie spheres with larger and larger radii. Suppose that two spheres of mass A and B have the same density of matter, but sphere B has twice the radius of sphere A. Suppose further that each sphere consits of a distribution of particles such as stars, that are very small compared to the distances beween them. Since the stars will not start to press agianst each other when the spheres begin to contract, there will be no pressure forces to resist their contraction. It can then be shown that gravity will cause both spheres to collapse in exactly the same amount of time! We can imagine doubling and redoubling the size of the sphere in a vain attempt to avoid the obvious, but the time required for the collapse will not change! Since an infinite distribution of matter can be defined as the limit of a sphere when the radius is increased indefinately, it follows that the infinite distribution of mater will collapse in the same time as any finite sphere." - Alan Guth.

As Guth says "If you are able to grasp this, pat yourself on the back, as you are able to recognize a problem that the great Sir Issac himself couldn't grasp!"

By the way, if you are thinking "if the matter is spread evenly throughout an infinite universe, how would it choose a center to collapse?" - here's the answer: matter can contract uniformly without choosing a center... each observer would view himself as the center.... think of it as reverse expansion phenomena.... I ask you to read "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth for more on this.

Quote:
Conversely, when he heard that the universe appeared to be expanding, that would be mildly troubling, and would lead one to want to know why. It would be clear, though, that if any such expansion were actually going on, it would be a local phenomenon, and would have no bearing on the universe as a whole. Something that is infinite cannot be expanding.

You need to bone up on cosmology before you continue. We all do, no offense. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple

Ripple wrote:




Triften--

The universe can't be expanding faster then the speed of light, because nothing can expand faster then the speed of light, unless the expansion is using a method by way of an alternate dimension or reality.


But the expansion doesn't concern matter traveling through the universe, its an expansion of the universe itself..... so applying the speed of light limit might be a fallacy of composition.

Quote:
 

But wait, we can't discuss such things here because that is irrational and illogical.

Nice try, but you didn't really think this would work, did you? Megaverse theory, multiverse theory. Brane theory or other theories that attempt to argue for more than one universe are NOT supernatural claims! 

 

 

There can't be something else there if we can't see it, right?

 

This is a childish strawman of the scientific method. The method does not rely on real-time observation, as this claim implies, it applies on rational-empirical methodology.

 

Considering the rest of your post was well reasoned, I'm hoping you were just joking around.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Incredulity

Quote:
Proof by incredulity?

Certainly! Isn't that what this site is all about?  Smile

Quote:
Scientists do try to explain the universe rationally. It seems that your stance that this is "a crock" is more likely based off of a lack of information on your part than a failure of physicists to think rationally.

It's not a lack of information; I've read a staggering amount on this subject. I have no doubt that the scientists are trying to explain the universe rationally. My contention is that they are failing miserably due to incorrect presumptions.

It wouldn't be the first time scientists were wrong. And the scientists themselves should welcome such criticism and doubt, or they have no business calling themselves scientists.

Quote:
Where do you get zero times infinity from?

Mathematics and the theory of relativity. I didn't make that up, that's an established analysis of the mass of a photon. Relativity tells us that any matter moving at the speed of light will have an infinite mass, and there's an actual formula for what the mass of any amount of matter will be when travelling at some proportion of the speed of light. In nuclear physics, they often describe the speed of accelerated electrons in terms of their mass, which gets to being quite considerable as they approach the speed of light. They can never get there, though.

If you plug any amount of matter into the same equation and figure what its mass would be at the speed of light, it would be infinite -- there's a zero in the divisor.

A photon is moving at the speed of light. Fortunately, it contains no matter, which is the only reason it can. It therefore becomes a mathematical anomaly, zero matter moving at light speed, mass = zero times infinity.

Quote:
If light just travels through empty space, it doesn't give up energy to anything.

I understand that's the prevailing theory. My contention is that it is incorrect -- just as my contention is that the universe is infinite, not finite as the prevailing theories hold.

Of course, I'm not contending that the light's energy simply ceases to exist. It does not, cannot. The energy becomes something. One possibility, for example, is that it somehow transfers its energy into the various gravitational fields that it passes through.

Quote:
It doesn't take much matter to create a whole lot of energy.

And therefore it takes a whole heap of energy to create a small amount of matter. Doesn't alter the fact that it must be happening. We are talking about the infinity of time, here; if matter is being converted into energy, then energy must also be being converted into matter, otherwise we would have run out of matter long, long ago and have nothing but energy left.

-- Kirbert

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Photons have relativistic

Photons have a relativistic mass, according to their wavelength.  Their rest mass is zero.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Blind Faith in the Big Bang

Quote:
Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the brightest minds in the world: Hawkings, Linde, Guth, Ferris, Greene, have all managed to avoid coming up with cosmological models that make 'no sense at all', and that, in actuality, you don't really know what they actually do say. What do you think?

I think all those minds are wrong. And I think that blindly accepting the preachings of such great minds simply because they must be capable of understanding things we mere mortals cannot would be a disservice to science -- as should well be understood on this forum of all forums!

It's fortunate that Newton and Einstein didn't simply accept the teachings of those that preceded them as being correct and beyond their own understanding.

Quote:
Actually, big bang theory demonstrates that our universe is in fact finite... all matter must have been relegated to an infintesimal point...

I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong. Saying that it's right based on the theory itself is the kind of reasoning I'd expect from a theist!

Quote:
Actually, that doesn't solve the problem! If that were the case, then all matter would still coalesce in one point!

No, it obviously would not. In fact, we can readily observe what happens: as matter begins to coalesce into clumps, it eventually ignites into luminous stars, burns for a few billion years, and then explodes, scattering light and particles all over tarnation once again. This is the sort of cycle that those brilliant minds should be investigating.

Quote:
You need to bone up on cosmology before you continue.

I've read quite enough of cosmology. I'd just as soon not waste any more time reading such nonsense.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps, just perhaps, some of the brightest minds in the world: Hawkings, Linde, Guth, Ferris, Greene, have all managed to avoid coming up with cosmological models that make 'no sense at all', and that, in actuality, you don't really know what they actually do say. What do you think?

I think all those minds are wrong.

But you've not read them! You don't even know what they say!

So you are just asserting this, out of ignorance!

Doesn't this bother you?

Quote:

And I think that blindly accepting the preachings of such great minds

I am not blindly accepting their teachings! You are blindly rejecting their teachings! You have it backwards, and you know it, but you have no choice to do this, because the alternative would require that you concede you haven't even READ ANY OF THESE WRITERS!

I on the other hand, am reading what they have to say and considering what they actually say critically.

Two things you steadfastly refuse to do!

Quote:

simply because they must be capable of understanding things we mere mortals cannot would be a disservice to science

But blindly rejecting what they say is rational thinking?!

You cannot be taken seriously!

Reading what they say, and responding to their actual arguments, critically considering their works is rational.

Just blindly naysaying them, without even knowing what they say, is ridiculous! Yet you seriously think you can turn this around and claim that others are just blindly accepting their work, when you in fact blindly reject their work, takes gall.

Quote:

-- as should well be understood on this forum of all forums!

You have everything backwards! YOU are willfully ignorant of what they say. YOU refuse to read them, and evaluate their works and critically examine the actual arguments!

You've not proven that anyone here is just dogmatically accepting their word, but I can demonstrate that you are dogmatically rejecting their works! That's infinitely worse! It's one thing to accept an argument from authority, it's quite another to reject authority without EVEN KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE REJECTING!

Quote:

It's fortunate that Newton and Einstein didn't simply accept the teachings of those that preceded them as being correct and beyond their own understanding.

It is... it's fotunate that they actually READ THE PEOPLE THEY ARE TRYING TO CRITICIZE AND ACTUALLY CRITICALLY EXAMINED THEIR WORKS.

 

Quote:
Actually, big bang theory demonstrates that our universe is in fact finite... all matter must have been relegated to an infintesimal point...

Quote:

I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's wrong.

But you have no reasoned grounds on which to do so! You don't know what you're talking about! You've not even read what cosmology has to say! You didn't even try to respond to all the points I made! You haven't even reviewed even my cursory coverin of the topic, let alone read a book on the subject written in the last 60 years!

 

Quote:
Actually, that doesn't solve the problem! If that were the case, then all matter would still coalesce in one point!

Quote:

No, it obviously would not.

Obviously, it would, as I just demonstrated! You just ignored it!

The error is an error that is refuted in first year physics! You're inability to correct this blatant, old error just demonstrates how little you know what you're talking about!

Try whistling past that graveyard!

Quote:
You need to bone up on cosmology before you continue.

Quote:

I've read quite enough of cosmology.

I have demonstrated that you have not even read enough to avoid a blunder concerning static universes that was solved decades ago!

Quote:

I'd just as soon not waste any more time reading such nonsense.

Nonsense?! 

So you happily admit to willful ignorance? You cannot be taken seriously! You're representing the very worst sort of dogmatic naysaying not even seen in most theists!

Please reconsider and read about the topic you're speaking on first. We all need to learn more about cosmology, it's a difficult topic, there's no embarrassment in conceding that.

I'm far more informed than you are on the matter, yet I'm no expert either.. imagine how much more an informed expert knows, and then extrapolate from that how silly it is for you to make grand pronouncements on cosmology!

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Quote: How

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
How exactly would things be falling into utter disarray by now? Wouldn't the second law just cause it to get colder and colder? I think I'm missing a key part in that law?

Think of two glasses of water, one hot and one cold. You can mix the two and end up with two glasses of lukewarm water -- but you cannot reverse that action. This is the second law at work. Basically, it says that eventually everything in the universe will be lukewarm per se, a uniform level of energy. This law has been proven conclusively for things on Earth; things always move towards less order (the hot water will gradually cool, the cold water will gradually warm, just be being near each other) and restoring order requires the expenditure of energy (reheating the one glass of water, chilling the other). But as I said, clearly the law cannot hold on a universal scale; somehow lukewarm dust floating around in interstellar space must be able to become fiery hot stars all by itself.

-- Kirbert

It's called "chemical reaction". Energy is just another form of mass; mass is just another form of energy.  As long as there exists one speck and one other speck, there will be interaction when conditions warrant it.  And in the universe, conditions do change. 

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


Clara Listensprechen
Clara Listensprechen's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-02-02
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Photons

todangst wrote:
Photons have a relativistic mass, according to their wavelength. Their rest mass is zero.

 Like I was just saying. Eye-wink

I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible. {Michael Bakunin 1814-1876}


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: But you've not

Quote:

But you've not read them! You don't even know what they say!

Doesn't this bother you?

I haven't read the Bible either. Don't need to, don't see the need to waste my time.

Quote:
But blindly rejecting what they say is rational thinking?!

Do they, or do they not, postulate that the universe began about 16 billion years ago with a big bang, and that everything that exists sprang from a spot that was small enough to fit in your hand? Do I really need to read any more?

Quote:
So you happily admit to willful ignorance? You cannot be taken seriously! You're representing the very worst sort of dogmatic naysaying not even seen in most theists!

Like I'm the one insisting that what's been written must be true. "Because it says so in the Bible" is every bit as good a logic.

Hey, if you're sold on this Big Bang nonsense, more power to ya. I'm sure Stephen Hawking et al would appreciate your support. I just won't have any of it. I used to read the articles on cosmology in the literature, but I gave up on it, I just don't buy any of it any more, they're way too far off track for me.

-- Kirbert

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote:Quote:

Kirbert wrote:
Quote:

But you've not read them! You don't even know what they say!

Doesn't this bother you?

I haven't read the Bible either. Don't need to, don't see the need to waste my time.

False analogy. The bible is a claim based on theistic faith.

Scientific theories are complex explanations of phenomena that rely on data.

You can reject a faith because faith is not taken on rational grounds to begin with.

You can't just blindly reject a scientific theory, particularly when you don't even know what it is, because theories are based on rational-empirical methods. Cosmology is a complex subject, thinking that you can encapsulate it without even reading what any cosmologist has to say, is pretty dogmatic of you.

 

Quote:
But blindly rejecting what they say is rational thinking?!

Quote:

Do they, or do they not, postulate that the universe began about 16 billion years ago with a big bang, and that everything that exists sprang from a spot that was small enough to fit in your hand?

Do you really think that's the sum total of what Hawkings, Ferris, Hartle, Linde, Guth, Rees, Smolin, Greene, Vilekin, Tryon, and a good deal of the rest of modern cosmologists have to say about cosmology?

Do you even know who any of these people are, other than Hawkings? Can you tell me something about any of their work? 

Again, we're not talking about something that can be boiled down to a faith.  

 

Quote:

Do I really need to read any more?

Yes, if you don't want to make a complete ass of yourself.

 

Quote:
So you happily admit to willful ignorance? You cannot be taken seriously! You're representing the very worst sort of dogmatic naysaying not even seen in most theists!

Quote:

Like I'm the one insisting that what's been written must be true. "Because it says so in the Bible" is every bit as good a logic.

You're being so dishonest with yourself here.

No one is saying that you must accept what is written as true dogmatically.

Again, what is really being said is that you can't just blindly write of a theory that you haven't even bothered to learn about it.

 By the way, I notice how you've studiously avoided responding to any of the points on cosmology I provided you with here.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Awesome! I  guess I came

Awesome! I  guess I came up with something similar to the Brane theory a good half year ago(from what little has been said about it.) without reading any material on such. I think I watched the Elegeant Universe or something, and just thinking about the bubbles passing through each other, all I could imagine was a peice of matter(could be so small as a particle or large as a galaxy) hitting a peice of matter in another and thus, kinetic energy. todangest, you have any suggestions on some readings on this Brane theory?


Kirbert, the assumptions you make about the universe, and specifically your assumptions on what I hold the universe to be, startles me.

Kirbert wrote:

Once you accept an infinite universe that is eternal, there is no need for black holes to harbor such features.

I not only accept, I KNOW the universe is infinite and eternal. No need for black holes to harbor such features? You said yourself, you don't KNOW the features of such objects(singularity) that are as natural as space and time itself. Since you don't know, you have no RIGHT to speak of on the matter of any object harboring any feature, because you simply DO NOT KNOW.


triften wrote:

I misstated that bit. It's when the universe is expanding AT the speed of light. If space expands at the speed of light, then light from one point can't reach another and so they are isolated from each other.

Several ideas and theories on worm holes and alternate realities/dimensions might be able to dismiss this isolation. Might.

triften wrote:

This theory is for an infinitely large universe so the first item is a non-issue. One can divide an infinitely large space into an infinity of infinitely large spaces. So each of these expansion universes is also infinitely large.


Then you are stating that mass, and specifically energy is infinite. If there was only a 100 "bushels" of energy(finite amount of energy in the universe), then these infinite amount of packets of universe will gradually seperate into universes with 50 bushels, then 10, then 1, then less then 1, closer and closer to zero. Eventually, there will not be enough matter in these expansions to cause a recollapse because gravity would not be strong enough. What happens then?


I believe you misunderstood my point on singularity. I was simply stating that by way of this thinking, the universe would have been singularity. By thinking inside the box, this would mean that the universe is finite, as if one was able to step outside of that megaversal singularity, then one would be suspended in nothingness. This is impossible, as something can not exist in nothing, and as well, the universe is infinite, and therefor this step outside of the singularity would be stepping outside the universe. Impossible. I was simply trying to convey the fact that no matter how singular the megaverse will be, it will still be infiniately huge because space can always get smaller and smaller. Thus my "megaverse is always a point of singularity on the cosmic scale" statement.

triften wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of matter. It's the isolated "causal patches" of space collapsing in on themselves.

Like I said, the major flaw is that eventually these packets will not be massive enough to sustain collapsing. Unless energy is infinite.

triften wrote:
As I already said, I'm not sure exactly where the "new" matter and energy come from.

Well, if energy was infinite, it would not be a matter of "new" matter, but rather matter, and energy that simply always was, and always will be. Other then that, there can't just be "new" matter, unless it came from an alternate reality.

kirbert wrote:

Absolute zero would mean that energy has ceased to exist.

What. Absolute zero means the molecule ceases to move. Are you telling me that a molecule, which has rest mass, has no energy? Please explain this and where you are getting this energy ceasing to exist thing from.

kirbert wrote:
No, it doesn't. Where did you get this idea?

Well see, you notice how the universe has gradually been getting colder and colder? Yeah. That's where I got the "idea"

Fine dude. Fuck the second law. The second law is gayer then Oakland playing Tampa Bay in the Super Bowl. Lets just focus on thermodynamics.
Roughly
thermos meaning heat=energy in transit
dynamics relates to movement.

This is the constant movement of moving to balance itself out. Therefor, if this universe is ever expanding, sooner or later, the universe is going to get colder and colder.

Making the glass hotter is not a matter of heating up the glass(expendinture of energy). It's a matter of making the glass smaller and smaller. I'm done talking about this..I don't think you are even attempting to get on my level on this one.

kirbert wrote:
The Big Bang, if it happened at all, concerns me not in the least, because it would have been an insignificant event in the universe. I want to know what happened before the Big Bang and what was going on one trillion light years to the southwest at the time.


uhh, I just want to wish you good luck on this quest. Let me know ANYTHING you might learn. For FUCKS SAKE how can you even WANT TO KNOW about such a thing if you won't even attempt to read about what might be so for the KNOWN universe. For all you know, your 2nd fucking law of dynamics might not have even applied to the universe until 14 billion years ago, in THIS universe. Once you start to realize that you are NOTHING on the cosmic scale of things, then maybe you might begin to understand that your rules might mean absolutely NOTHING 10 trillion years ago. The simple fact is, you will never know because you won't take the time to ponder everything. That's what seperates you from people like me, todangest, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene and many other brilliant minds. Me or todangest neither claim to even have a glimpse of expertise on the universe, because the simple fact is, we as HUMBLE creatures realize that we ALL may be COMPLETELY WRONG. Take that into consideration, then begin to talk about 10 trillion light years away, let alone 14.9 billion years, 1 nanosecond, and TWO FEET outside of your little fucking hole under a rock which is our measily existence on the cosmic scale of things.


Everything is not heavy elements now because black holes rips all material existence into something much smaller then even a hydrogen atom.

Well, take a high school chemistry course, and you find out that everything is not uranium by now because uranium partakes in radioactive decay.

Yes, breaking down iron into hydrogen...

kirbert wrote:

The black holes might be involved. They collapse atoms down into a solid plasma of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Elements as we know them cease to exist. At the end of the life of a black hole (yes, there must be an end, everything is cyclical), perhaps there is some sort of explosion in which all of these protons, neutrons and electrons are reassembled into elements -- and it may be that hydrogen is the element most readily assembled under those conditions, so gobs of them are created.


Man..this sounds like something..real..familiar. Oh yeah. It's called THE BIG BANG THEORY.

You know nothing about cosmic background radiation...


You realize that we all understand that the Big Bang is simply the cause of the observable universe? So lets just assume that the Big Bang occured in this megaverse we are all assuming exists. Can you begin to explain what happened 2 feet away from that singularity? I guarantee that if you were to transport there to observe, you would not have adequete time to observe, for you will be of the singularity in matter of mere moments, if not instantly. You have not even began to ponder what the effects of such immense gravity upon space-time would implicate 2 feet outside of the pre-Big Bang existence which is our observable universe. You don't even know what happens in the center of a tiny black hole, and you probably don't even know what happens 2 feet outside of the same black hole, because you refuse to read Stephen Hawkings work, because it's "rubbish" like the Bible. I'm going to spare the rest of these members my INCESSENT RANTS on people like you, because we all know it leads us to nowhere...

kirbert wrote:

And someday we're going to look back on the days of extensive theorizing about the Big Bang the way we look back on how people could possibly think the world was flat.

Okay kirbert, the known universe is not flat. So, what shape is it then? You seem to be a pioneer of Pythagoras porportions, whats your theory on the universe.

How is light degenerating following Occams Razor??? Seriously. What?

A photon does not DEGENERATE. Where did you get this from? Of course it doesn't just become not light. That is seemingly retarded.

kirbert wrote:

Then realizing that energy cannot be destroyed, one must ask oneself what becomes of that photon when it has degenerated to the point where it is no longer light? It cannot simply cease to exist. The simplest explanation may be that it is simply absorbed by space dust to become heat, perhaps later to be re-emitted as radiant heat.

But I was postulating that it might somehow become a tiny particle of space dust via some conversion of energy into matter that science has not observed or postulated yet. There must be a mechanism for energy to convert into matter somewhere in the universe, because there's a dreadful lot of matter being converted into energy in each star, and balance is being maintained somehow.



Are you seriously claiming to be following Occams Razor on this? Normally, I would pick this shit apart for its shear lack of intellect, not to mention logic. But holy shit. I won't.


todangest wrote:

matter can contract uniformly without choosing a center

Help me understand this.. Do you have any models? The only way I can sort of imagine this is through some other, unseeable dimension(string theory perhaps)


todangest wrote:

But the expansion doesn't concern matter traveling through the universe, its an expansion of the universe itself..... so applying the speed of light limit might be a fallacy of composition.


Aye, the megaverse is most certainly expanding at an infinite speed. However, the Big Banged universe and it's matter(maybe only it's matter) is bound by some law which seems nearly cornerstoned around this speed of light. Violating such a law(speed of light) would probably be only due to an alternate dimension.


Hehe, your views of my childish strawmen attempt is actually my sarcastic attempt at relaying to you my notion of God, unseeable something that we can only idealize(How much serious evidence is there for the megaverse theory? I believe in the megaverse and multiverse theorems, but I have absolutely little if any evidence on it. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, as goes with my views of God. Doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe in such things. I guess I'm just trying to balance the views and reasoning on just why complex matters(the megaverse OR God) are so hard to comprehend and defend to another person unwilling to logically accept that anything is possible. I mean, kirbert might become a world-renowned particle physicist... but then again.. he might not.

Kirbert.... you CAN'T multiply zero and infinity together. Such a task is for God alone. To say that zero times infinity equals every number is a great concept, one that actually might be right. But I can only attempt to "rationalize" such concepts because my idea of "rational" is that anything is possible because God can just do that. YOU however, CANNOT rationalize zero times infinity, because you seem to base your rationalization in what scientists call the natural world. Well guess what, in the natural world, zero and infinity are NOT real numbers. They are place holders for concepts of nothing and everything. Nothing times anything is nothing. Everything times anything everything.

Okay, you understand mathematics. Then you accept that zero is not a number because it is nothing. It's a placeholder. Just as 3.14 is a place holder for a set of digits we try to equate exactly, forever, and never get there. Infinity may be treated as a number. But it is not. Infinity has no set digit, therefor it is not a number.

Trying to multiply 2 things that aren't numbers is like me trying to multiply a lion with a tiger. Guess what, you aren't not dealing with ligers and tigons, you'll be dealing with God, IMHO.


kirbert wrote:

If you plug any amount of matter into the same equation and figure what its mass would be at the speed of light, it would be infinite -- there's a zero in the divisor.

A photon is moving at the speed of light. Fortunately, it contains no matter, which is the only reason it can. It therefore becomes a mathematical anomaly, zero matter moving at light speed, mass = zero times infinity.


No, this HAS to stop. You are seriously, not thinking correctly.

Please, PLEASE show how you are using e=mc^2 on this. If you aren't using e=mc^2 then what equation are you using? A zero for a divisor? Where?



What IS on track for you Kirbert?

 Todangst, is there much mathematical support for alternate dimensions or realities? I haven't looked at string theory in a pretty long damn time. Meh, string theory.. I like the concept, immensely. It actually fits with my perception of God's all present connection through the universe. I however, don't like the vibrating strings concept. I would like to think of the universe in it's smallest and largest views as simply being folded in on itself it some weird, extra-dimensional shape at each and every point, allowing for worm holes, quantum entanglement, and other seemingly supernatural occurances.

You know much about Einstein-Bose condensate todangest. Man..I took a hiatus from quantum physics thinking, and I forget some of this shit. A while back ago I came up with something pretty fucking cool in my head..I seem to forget it right about now.. I'll get back to it.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Response from the Idiot

Quote:
No one is saying that you must accept what is written as true dogmatically.

Good. Because I don't.

Quote:
By the way, I notice how you've studiously avoided responding to any of the points on cosmology I provided you with here.

I notice how all your points are the same: you've read more than I, therefore I'm an idiot.

I have read that, when the Hubble Telescope was first put into service, cosmologists hoped to be able to see to the farthest reaches of the universe and hence to the beginning of the universe. Didn't work, so they revised their estimate of the size and age of the universe. Then when the Hubble was upgraded with better optics, they hoped again, and again failed, so they again revised their estimate of the size and age of the universe. It apparently has never even occurred to them that there is no farthest reaches of the universe nor a beginning of the universe.

It has occurred to me, however. I'm not the idiot here.

-- Kirbert


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Mass of Moving Objects

Quote:
Quote:

If you plug any amount of matter into the same equation and figure what its mass would be at the speed of light, it would be infinite -- there's a zero in the divisor.

A photon is moving at the speed of light. Fortunately, it contains no matter, which is the only reason it can. It therefore becomes a mathematical anomaly, zero matter moving at light speed, mass = zero times infinity.

No, this HAS to stop. You are seriously, not thinking correctly.

Please, PLEASE show how you are using e=mc^2 on this. If you aren't using e=mc^2 then what equation are you using? A zero for a divisor? Where?

OK, I looked it up. Mass of a moving object is its rest mass times "gamma", with gamma being

1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2)

Sorry that's a bit difficult to read in text, not having the symbols to work with, you can look at it all at

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/ltrans.html#c4

Anyhow, when the object is travelling at the speed of light, v=c, so

(v^2/c^2)^1/2 = 1

so

1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2 = 0

so

1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2) = infinity.

-- Kirbert


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A photon has zero rest

A photon has zero rest mass, so the formula for increase of apparent mass vs velocity is not applicable. A photon has a precisely defined energy equal to its frequency multiplied by Planck's constant.

Its relativistic mass is related to its energy by Einstein's classic

e = mc^2, ie, m = e/c^2.

NOTE: Multiplying zero by infinty is undefined. So talking about it as if it was an actual calculation is a bit silly.

The idea of photons 'degenerating' explicitly contradicts quantum theory, which requires that a photon of a particular wavelength either exists or it doesn't.

They do steadily increase in wavelength as space expands, effectively losing energy and hence changing wavelegth toward the red end of the spectrum. Maybe this is what you meant.

The energy lost is effectively transferred to the potential energy of the gravitational field, I think, which increases as the Universe expands.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: "In the

Kirbert wrote:

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang. Then there was matter, energy, space, and time."

i'm sorry, but this explanation is every bit as ludicrous as the first one! What was there before this Big Bang? And what caused this Big Bang? Needless to say, it doesn't help matters for atheists trying to explain science and reason to theists when the "scientific" notion of the origin of the universe is every bit as nonsensical as the biblical one!

All that you are expressing here is our inability to understand what "nothing" really means.  The terms "nothing" and "infinite"are equally meaningless, paradoxical and indistinguishable.  Their definitions are only relevant through comparison to something else, but all comparisons become irrelevant the minute you admit the validity of the definition.  In an infinite universe, nothing can exist because anything with boundaries is infinitely small.  In a condition where nothing exists, everything also exists because "nothing" has no limits.

We should do away with both terms (as most cosmologists have wisely done) and continue our investigation of the universe and its boundaries without reference to imaginary "ultimate" states.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Nothing and Infinity

Quote:
All that you are expressing here is our inability to understand what "nothing" really means. The terms "nothing" and "infinite"are equally meaningless, paradoxical and indistinguishable. Their definitions are only relevant through comparison to something else, but all comparisons become irrelevant the minute you admit the validity of the definition. In an infinite universe, nothing can exist because anything with boundaries is infinitely small. In a condition where nothing exists, everything also exists because "nothing" has no limits.

Speak for yourself. I have no problem with the concepts of nothing and infinity -- perhaps because I don't arbitrarily require they be defined as relevant to something else. Just because space is infinite doesn't mean every object in it is nothing; insignificant, perhaps, but not nothing.

-- Kirbert


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: "In the

Kirbert wrote:

"In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang. Then there was matter, energy, space, and time."

i'm sorry, but this explanation is every bit as ludicrous as the first one! What was there before this Big Bang? And what caused this Big Bang? Needless to say, it doesn't help matters for atheists trying to explain science and reason to theists when the "scientific" notion of the origin of the universe is every bit as nonsensical as the biblical one!

The Big Bang hypothesis is that, at some point, all matter and energy, in fact our whole known Universe was extremely small, and it rapidly expanded from that point. We have quite a lot of evidence for this.

Just what happened before that, where it 'came from, is still a matter of conjecture.

NOTE: it does not describe a Big Bang causing matter and energy etc, to come into existence, it describes what happened from the point at which it was in that highly compressed state. The Big Bang is that initial expansion of the Universe.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote:Quote:No

Kirbert wrote:

Quote:
No one is saying that you must accept what is written as true dogmatically.

Good. Because I don't.

What you mean to say is: you don't actually read anything on cosmology in the first place.

Quote:
By the way, I notice how you've studiously avoided responding to any of the points on cosmology I provided you with here.

Quote:
 

I notice how all your points are the same: you've read more than I, therefore I'm an idiot

No, those are not my points. Why is is that with each and every response, you must lie about my posts?

The points have to do with 1) refuting all the basic errors in your claims (post one, which you dodged) and 2) providing brief reviews of various cosmological theories that you haven't even addressed. (which again, were in post one, which you dodged)

Quote:

It has occurred to me, however. I'm not the idiot here.

 Oh, I'm sure that sort of self serving, face saving thought occured to you.

However, let me again point out what was actually said. 

No one's called you an idiot. What I've said is that you don't know what you're talking about. I've demonstrated this.

As far as calling anyone an idiot, it would seem that only you are out to catigate people - cosmologists... and again, it would make sense for you to actually read what they say, and know what they are talking about, before you decide to write them all off.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
But Tilberian, I believe

But Tilberian, I believe the concepts of nothing and everything ARE so damn relevant to our world, and in that they are not meaningless in any way shape or form.

Yes, as an infinite universe, the universe is thus infinitely small. Because of that, the universe can't have NOTHING because it is everything.

Therefor,
"In a condition where nothing exists, everything also exists because "nothing" has no limits."
is so untrue its ludicrous. Because the universe is everything, there is no such thing as nothing. So this condition where nothing exists, doesn't exist. Everything exists because nothing does not exist. This universe is made intirely out of something. If there was nothing(I mean, just:nothing) in any point of this universe, then I have no doubts that the universe would collapse and be thrown into utter dissaray. This isn't so, because if that were true, this chaotic state would have already been achieved an infinite amount of time ago.

For this universe to be maintained infinitely, it must hold true that this universe is expanding, at an infinite amount of velocity, for an infinite amount of time, in an infinite amount of volume of space. The place holder what ever is out there(dark energy?) must be something that is tangible, some sort of material existence.

In this, nothing is in a way meaningless for nothing is in all actuality non-existant in this universe. It is however important once you begin to deal with the massive properties of the universe(theory's state that the universe's mass might equal 0 due to anti-particle and particles balancing out) and when it comes to electrical charge(w/o a balance(being zero) of charge in the universe, the universe would collapse due to imbalance)

In this also, "everything" is very meaningful, because its boundless limitations is just that-Boundless. The limitations that is so, is simply the laws of nature which says 0=0 and infinite=infinite. This creates for an ability of the universe to balance itself out.

This is why this "notion" of zero times infinity is really bugging me out. It is an untangible concept to the mortal mind, and the only entity that would be able to make since of such a concept would be God itself.

But when it comes to numbers itself, zero is not meaningless because it's actually one of the "numbers" that we can explain in logic and reason. Zero is simply a placeholder for nothing. If I have no pencils, I have zero pencils. I don't have 3 pencils, or half a pencil. Zero pencils.

And yet, infinity is obviously not a meaningless "number" because it is so important in the funcion of this universe, and we maybe be able to understand and explain the "concept" but to say that we have logic and reason for such is LUDICROUS. How in the world can you explain that I have an infinite amount of pencils?

Because that is exactly what the universe is. One may be able to explain and logic a potential universe that was just nothing. It was zero. As you state Tillberian, a state of nothing would lead to everything because everything would be nothing. Reasonable, absolutely not because there is something there. Logical, sure.

As for what the universe really is-Infinite, we may be able to reason it(universe must be boundless for several reasons) but to put logic behind it is as well absolutely ludicrous. Just how do you explain that you have an infinte amount of pencils? The only way is by saying that my stack of pencils is growing constantly(at an infinite rate of speed) to an infinite amount of pencils. Therefor, my stack of pencils would instantly take up a space of of every peice of space known or unknown, as that stack grows at a rate faster then anyone could imagine.

I guess what I'm trying to get to, how can anyone, or anything really claim to grasp that concept, and the astronomical porportions of an infinite realm. Either nothing can(the universe is nothing) or everything can(everything is everything)

My concept of what everything is, is God for that is the only "logical" concept to date of how to explain just exactly why the universe is how it is.

By saying the universe is just because..well that would imply that nothing can grasp the magnitude of the infinite realm. If nothing can grasp the magnitude, then what forces of nature put forth the fact that the universe itself is everything, and infinite. It couldn't. No law of nature, mathematically speaking, could probably explain just how the universe really is infinite.

Therefor
a.)the Universe is bounded in time and volume
The universe would be bounded by time, because once again, no mathematical structure would be able to explain how time is infinite. The only way it is explained that time is infinite is because time is non existant. Time is non-existant because in the whole cosmic scheme of things, we are all already moving at the speed of light(the big bang-ed universe is moving through the mega-verse at the speed of light, or faster(question of validity on the faster part)
Because things moving at the speed of light, exhibits no change in time due to the nature of space-time curvature, we are therefor suspended in a realm of no time.

The universe would be bounded by volume, because nothing could explain just how the universe was unlimited. This would mean the universe has a set boundary.
If this is so, then vast quantities of objects could not be moving at the speed of light, because at some point in time, that object will reach the outskirts of the universe, and nothing(other then simply going to ther otherside [think of the game Asteroids] could explain what happens when you do reach the outskirts.

Therefor, things aren't moving at the speed of light, and therefor, time is existant, at which point, not a thing(a mathematical equation at least) can explain how time is limitless.(I really do believe the only way time is limitless is because time doesn't even exist, other then us creating the ideas of future and past)

B.)The universe is bounded by nothing for it is nothing. It is merely a construct of the human mind, to explain the unexplainable. I could accept this, for it is just as good of an explanation of anything.

C.)There is something(god-like) that could explain just how the universe works.

This is done by
I. Saying that it is just because.(Cool, but not logical)
II. Saying that it is because time is this, space is this, reality is this, unreality is this so on and so on.
III. Saying that we as mortal beings will never understand, and therefor we should be humble to the awesome power of such a driving cosmic force.

It seems the only way that science minded people would be able to accept option C is by way of option II.(I know, my lists are confusing, but bear with me)

Option II however is not possible because if we were given that power of knowledge, our heads might explode(it would be cool if it imploded though, whateva)

Therefor option III is the only way to go after that because

Option I would never be accepted by any logical thinking person(as we have come so far in understanding the universe, it would be unthinkable to conceive that in all reality, our reality is just because. That doesn't make sense...)


Option D.) would state that since forever, the laws of nature was, always was, is, and always will be. This is good enough to explain a lot of things in the world. But it is not good enough for me. What made the laws of nature(strong, weak nuclear forces, gravity thermodynamics, pressure, the speed of light, e=mc^2, plancks constant, so on and so on) Something in me is itching to just ask, just WHY does the rest mass of a particle equal 3, while the rest mass of another particle is 5, while the rest mass of another particle is ZERO. Why? Why is that so? Just because? Just because it's been like that since always. Well fuck that. Because we already dismissed that in option A of C.) The only reason that A wouldn't be accepted is because of the notion of a God.

However, the notion that it is JUST BECAUSE without God, is perfectly reasonable to some of you???????

(please, please tell me I'm misunderstanding this point of you from some of you guys???)



Bob, wouldn't that energy "lost" just be diluted(not lost) by way of the wavelengths getting bigger(the energy is spread out more evenly across the wavelength)?


Kirbert, you really expect, that with a man-made object(only 400 or so years after the first one was made) we will be able to see the entirety of the cosmos, especially 10 years ago, let alone in a hundred years? Kirbert..you're misunderstanding on the universe is one of much perseverance for IGNORANCE. You're a smart guy, obviously, because you can somewhat "grasp" concepts which most people don't even want to hear. However, your "grasp" is that of a misunderstanding, making you NO BETTER then any Christian who "GRASPS" the universe, because they read it in some book. That is YOU, my friend. You "GRASP" the universe because you read some highschool level book. To all you members who witnessed my childish ranting a month ago..when I made claims of people having a "Christian way of thinking" it was not in the sense of Biblical terms. It was the narrow-minded, I am right, you are wrong, because my book is right, and your book is wrong kind of thinking which is really fucking us over. So many intelligent minds of the world goes used, but misplaced because of ARROGANCE and IGNORANCE.

And kirbert, you still have not explained the mathematical processes you have used to determine that zero times infinity equals every number(emprically speaking, or whatever the fuck word you used) Please, do this math, and post it, so we can check you on your work before you make rash claims based in unreality.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

A photon has zero rest mass, so the formula for increase of apparent mass vs velocity is not applicable. A photon has a precisely defined energy equal to its frequency multiplied by Planck's constant.

Its relativistic mass is related to its energy by Einstein's classic

e = mc^2, ie, m = e/c^2.

NOTE: Multiplying zero by infinty is undefined. So talking about it as if it was an actual calculation is a bit silly.

The idea of photons 'degenerating' explicitly contradicts quantum theory, which requires that a photon of a particular wavelength either exists or it doesn't.

They do steadily increase in wavelength as space expands, effectively losing energy and hence changing wavelegth toward the red end of the spectrum. Maybe this is what you meant.

The energy lost is effectively transferred to the potential energy of the gravitational field, I think, which increases as the Universe expands.

I recommend everyone to read what BobSpence writes here, and remember it. Einstein's E = mc^2 is an expression for the energy equivalence of the rest mass, and it applies to particles that have a rest mass (not photons). Relativistic mass also only applies to particles with rest mass, and its correlated energy is E = γmc^2, again, not to photons. If you want a general relationship for the energy, use E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2, where p is the momentum of the particle, m is still rest mass. I recommend avoiding the concept of relativistic mass, it's redundant, use energy instead.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote:Awesome! I

Ripple wrote:

Awesome! I guess I came up with something similar to the Brane theory a good half year ago(from what little has been said about it.) without reading any material on such. I think I watched the Elegeant Universe or something, and just thinking about the bubbles passing through each other, all I could imagine was a peice of matter(could be so small as a particle or large as a galaxy) hitting a peice of matter in another and thus, kinetic energy.

I never saw Elegant Universe, but if I remember correctly, Brian Greene had something to do with that? If so, I'd guess that he might have even been covering string theory?

I really should watch that series.

Quote:

todangest, you have any suggestions on some readings on this Brane theory?

Yes, I have something on the internet for you:

If you go here, to my page:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

You'll see a link to a page on Brane Theory.

But I list a possible caveat at the very bottom of the page, concerning whether a megaverse/multiverse itself could be infinite, in both directions, timewise.

kirbert wrote:

Absolute zero would mean that energy has ceased to exist.

Quote:

What. Absolute zero means the molecule ceases to move.Are you telling me that a molecule, which has rest mass, has no energy?

Excellent point... don't expect anything other than a personal attack in return... an attack that has nothing to do with anything you've ever said.


kirbert wrote:
No, it doesn't. Where did you get this idea?

Quote:


Well see, you notice how the universe has gradually been getting colder and colder? Yeah. That's where I got the "idea"

lol...

kirbert wrote:
The Big Bang, if it happened at all, concerns me not in the least, because it would have been an insignificant event in the universe. I want to know what happened before the Big Bang and what was going on one trillion light years to the southwest at the time.

 

Quote:


uhh, I just want to wish you good luck on this quest. Let me know ANYTHING you might learn. For FUCKS SAKE how can you even WANT TO KNOW about such a thing if you won't even attempt to read about what might be so for the KNOWN universe.

Perhaps it will all come to him in a dream...

Quote:

Me or todangest neither claim to even have a glimpse of expertise on the universe, because the simple fact is, we as HUMBLE creatures realize that we ALL may be COMPLETELY WRONG.

That's the amazing thing here. You clearly know a good deal of cosmology, you've made that obvious by what you write. There's no need for you to brag about it, or claim it, you simply demonstrate it by writing.

Yet you concede that you could be wrong, and that you're no expert. Very nice.

And same here! When it comes to cosmology, I'm an interested layman. That's it. I've read Hawkings, Guth, Linde, Ferris, a few others... I've also read a bit on quantum theory (seeing how it relates to cosmology so much now).... and I've done my best to ponder what I've read. But in the end, I remain a layman.

So if I can refute you on cosmology, then you need to hit a library.

Then again, none of this is really a surprise: I believe it was Aristotle who said "Fools are certain, the wise are hesitant". Not knowing what you are talking about frees you up to say whatever you like, because there are no facts to get in the way of your claims.


kirbert wrote:

The black holes might be involved. They collapse atoms down into a solid plasma of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Elements as we know them cease to exist. At the end of the life of a black hole (yes, there must be an end, everything is cyclical), perhaps there is some sort of explosion in which all of these protons, neutrons and electrons are reassembled into elements -- and it may be that hydrogen is the element most readily assembled under those conditions, so gobs of them are created.


Quote:

Man..this sounds like something..real..familiar. Oh yeah. It's called THE BIG BANG THEORY.

Oh man, that's funny. Nice observation!


Quote:

You realize that we all understand that the Big Bang is simply the cause of the observable universe?

I don't think he does realize that. I think you covered both the background radiation and the red shift effect, so you've already given him two pieces of observable information to support the big bang.

Quote:

So lets just assume that the Big Bang occured in this megaverse we are all assuming exists. Can you begin to explain what happened 2 feet away from that singularity? I guarantee that if you were to transport there to observe, you would not have adequete time to observe, for you will be of the singularity in matter of mere moments, if not instantly. You have not even began to ponder what the effects of such immense gravity upon space-time would implicate 2 feet outside of the pre-Big Bang existence which is our observable universe. You don't even know what happens in the center of a tiny black hole, and you probably don't even know what happens 2 feet outside of the same black hole, because you refuse to read Stephen Hawkings work, because it's "rubbish" like the Bible.

The irony is that even the bible is not complete 'rubbish' and an atheist growing up in a christian country ought to at least read it, so that he can know what he's not believing!

Calling Hawkings' work 'rubbish' goes beyond the pale, however.


todangest wrote:

matter can contract uniformly without choosing a center

 

Quote:

Help me understand this.. Do you have any models? The only way I can sort of imagine this is through some other, unseeable dimension(string theory perhaps)

I have to admit that taxes my abilities to imagine it too. But Guth himself states that it goes against intuition - When Guth was asked to explain how this works, he said that one ought to consider the analogy to uniform expansion of a universe - a universe 'expands everywhere' at once - every planet looking out at the universe sees the rest of the universe expanding away from him, no matter where they are.... some also use the concept of a point on a balloon... the balloon contracts 'everywhere' at once, so every point feels as if it were at ground zero.

I hope this helps, but realize I'm not the experienced Sherpa taking you up the himalayas, I'm struggling along with you on this!

quote=todangst]
But the expansion doesn't concern matter traveling through the universe, its an expansion of the universe itself..... so applying the speed of light limit might be a fallacy of composition.



Quote:

Aye, the megaverse is most certainly expanding at an infinite speed.

I am glad you already appreicate, and can so easily see how the C limit does not necessarily apply to the universe itself, I've had well drawn out arguments over this with people....

Quote:

However, the Big Banged universe and it's matter(maybe only it's matter) is bound by some law which seems nearly cornerstoned around this speed of light.

I think it is only its matter, and yes, it would take infinite energy, and push the matter to infinite mass, to propel something sub light to light speed.

But yes, could it be that our 'universe' if it somehow were just 'on its own' couldn't expand at a rate beyond C, unless something 'else' were at play?

Quote:

Violating such a law(speed of light) would probably be only due to an alternate dimension.

Agreed.

Quote:

Hehe, your views of my childish strawmen attempt is actually my sarcastic attempt at relaying to you my notion of God,

Smiling Ok, but if I remember correctly, I even asked if were a lark of some sort, it already seemed you were too smart for that....

Quote:

unseeable something that we can only idealize (How much serious evidence is there for the megaverse theory?

Evidence? I like what Hawkings says in regards to this (I quote this on the page I linked)

It goes something like this: some cosmological models have as much evidence going for them as astrology, but these models, unlike astrology, do not violate what we already know of the universe.

Quote:

I believe in the megaverse and multiverse theorems, but I have absolutely little if any evidence on it. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, as goes with my views of God. Doesn't mean I'm wrong to believe in such things. I guess I'm just trying to balance the views and reasoning on just why complex matters(the megaverse OR God) are so hard to comprehend and defend to another person unwilling to logically accept that anything is possible.

Well, I am so glad to see a theist with a first class mind on these boards.

I mean, kirbert might become a world-renowned particle physicist... but then again.. he might not.

Well there you go.


Quote:

Kirbert.... you CAN'T multiply zero and infinity together. Such a task is for God alone.

Do you accept that a 'being', defined as supernatural, and defined with omni traits, can do what 'we naturally limited being' call "impossible"?

Quote:

To say that zero times infinity equals every number is a great concept, one that actually might be right. But I can only attempt to "rationalize" such concepts because my idea of "rational" is that anything is possible because God can just do that.

It seems you do... I'm obviously not a theist, but I would hold that a 'being' defined as 'beyond nature' - i.e. without limits, would have ... no limits!

Quote:

YOU however, CANNOT rationalize zero times infinity, because you seem to base your rationalization in what scientists call the natural world.

Agreed.

I can't believe how much I'm agreeing with you.

Quote:

Well guess what, in the natural world, zero and infinity are NOT real numbers. They are place holders for concepts of nothing and everything. Nothing times anything is nothing. Everything times anything everything.

Okay, you understand mathematics. Then you accept that zero is not a number because it is nothing. It's a placeholder. Just as 3.14 is a place holder for a set of digits we try to equate exactly, forever, and never get there. Infinity may be treated as a number. But it is not. Infinity has no set digit, therefor it is not a number.

Trying to multiply 2 things that aren't numbers is like me trying to multiply a lion with a tiger. Guess what, you aren't not dealing with ligers and tigons, you'll be dealing with God, IMHO.

LOL. Mathematics are not my game, so I'll have to look at this, but even from what I know, I think you're on the mark here... multiplying zero and infinity seems more like a game.

And Kirbert has already expressed at least one misconceptualization of what infinity is, when he repeated Newton's mistakes about a static universe and gravity.

Oh, and one other thing, I recall from first year physics how I could get a formula for time travel, as long as I divided by zero! But I already knew that was a no-no. So these mathematical games, based on basic errors, do sorta bring you to all sort of 'crank' styled concepts...

kirbert wrote:

If you plug any amount of matter into the same equation and figure what its mass would be at the speed of light, it would be infinite -- there's a zero in the divisor.

A photon is moving at the speed of light. Fortunately, it contains no matter, which is the only reason it can. It therefore becomes a mathematical anomaly, zero matter moving at light speed, mass = zero times infinity.

Quote:

No, this HAS to stop. You are seriously, not thinking correctly.

Please, PLEASE show how you are using e=mc^2 on this. If you aren't using e=mc^2 then what equation are you using? A zero for a divisor? Where?

Interesting, he might be coming up with the same error I came up with, while playing around with E=MC2 as a freshman.... but I discarded it immediately as nonsense.

Quote:

Todangst, is there much mathematical support for alternate dimensions or realities? I haven't looked at string theory in a pretty long damn time. Meh, string theory..

I'd have to say that we appear to be equals here - so where I sent you is where you could probably send yourself. About all I can say is "yes', the math is always sound - otherwise, why publish - in fact, the only criticism about the math for any model would be, ironically, towards the great Hawkings, and his need to rely on imaginary time for his finite, but boundless model.

Quote:

I like the concept, immensely. It actually fits with my perception of God's all present connection through the universe.


Well, one of my complaints about theism is that it stymies scientific thought. You seem to have personally eradicated that problem, in that you are happy to see cosmology as 'allowing us to know the mind of god', so to speak. Good. Then, there's really no difference between us.

Carl Sagan said that science is a blend of wonder and skepticism. If you want to borrow your 'wonder' from religion, while I get it elsewhere, well then, that's cool.

Quote:

I however, don't like the vibrating strings concept. I would like to think of the universe in it's smallest and largest views as simply being folded in on itself it some weird, extra-dimensional shape at each and every point, allowing for worm holes, quantum entanglement, and other seemingly supernatural occurances.

I wouldn't call them supernatural in the theistic sense, however. Just 'beyond' our 4 dimensional space.

Quote:

You know much about Einstein-Bose condensate todangest. Man..I took a hiatus from quantum physics thinking, and I forget some of this shit. A while back ago I came up with something pretty fucking cool in my head..I seem to forget it right about now.. I'll get back to it.

Good. Nice posts, glad to have you here.

Oh, one other thing:

Quote:

St. Augustine had a more philosophical approach by saying that because the past is not real(you can not physically reach out and grab the past) and that the future is not real(as well, physically, the future is impossible to just reach out and grab) then there is only the present.

This is a buddhist approach too.....  also, oddly enough, if a photon had sentience, it would 'always be now"

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Kirber wrote: Speak for

Kirber wrote:

Speak for yourself. I have no problem with the concepts of nothing and infinity -- perhaps because I don't arbitrarily require they be defined as relevant to something else. Just because space is infinite doesn't mean every object in it is nothing; insignificant, perhaps, but not nothing.

-- Kirbert



No..no Kirbert. Maybe you have no problem with the concepts because you made yourself BELIEVE that you really do grasp such concepts. The fact is, by your fallacies of argument, you really don't grasp the concepts at all.

 

Let me just ask you to do something kirbert, because you are so mathematically minded, and you grasp this concept. This is for you, and you only, I wish noone to do this or explain, or help you with this until you have.

Draw a number line. It doesn't have to be a line, It can be a circle, hell it could be a three dimensional model if you so desire.

 


-------------------------perhaps because I don't arbitrarily require they be defined as relevant to something else. ------------------

Put Zero on that number line. You don't need reference points(you said it yourself, you don't need relevancy), like -1 and 1, for that would make your task simple. Just zero, and only zero on that number line.

As well, do that with infinity. You may use no reference point for infinity.


And then, using this SAME chart of infinity, and because we ALL need relevancy in this world to understand even the most basic, and most complex tasks in life, put 0, -1, and 1 on that number line, and once again explain where infinity lies.

Then, and ONLY THEN may you claim that you have even began to conceptualize such notions of INFINITY AND ZERO once you have came up with these charts. 

 

(Oh, and don't think you can just post a classical geometric line and dashed linegraph, with zero in the middle and negative infinity at one side, and infinity at the other, and get a slap on the back, becuase we ALL grasp that concept. Be original homie.) 

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Aye, Brian Greene. Google

Aye, Brian Greene. Google it, and it should be on pbs.com or something in quicktime format. I really recommend it. You might not learn much from it, but you will. And it is just well done.


Don't have time to read Brane theory, but once I do I'll feed some input.

I haven't gotten any personal attacks from him. In fact, I've gotten absolutely nothing from him if you look back into all my rebuttals. Kirbert, I KNOW I asked you plenty of things, and argued plenty of things. Where is the rebutall on your part? The only thing you seem to argue is about entropy(I've redirected the argument, but rightfully so because your claim of entropy was unfounded) redshift(yeah what about it?) and a conversion of energy into matter(you have no basis on what this conversion is, other then by the collection by stars and black holes, at which point, you have made no attempts to describe what happens to the stray energy that by "some unknown method" converts into "space dust" Reread my points, and explain, because you have done nothing but avoided me.

The thing is todangest, I haven't hit the library's and I do admit that I need to. I've wikipedia and encyclopedia'd my way through half the shit I know, and the rest is just pure intelectual curiosity.

The only reason I have failed to claim my status in society, is that by most standards, I have a very low intelectual standard compared to the rest, and this is by one simple matter---
I am a junior in high school. Have not even taken AP physics yet, nor have I taken chemistry. Yet my ability to contain knowledge of what really is takes me to the point that I can put much of what I read together. The fact is, I can't wait to hit the real books once I get to college, because knowing what I know now, in combination with the possibilities that higher education will bring, it is only acceptable to hold that my knowledge will only go up. This however requires precisely the quote you established by Socrates. Kirbert has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, yes because he "knows" what is really going on, it excludes his ability to hold what may be going on.

This leads to me to conclude that you really should look into quantum and particle physics, because something is happening in the field of science. What may be going on seems to be what is going on. And all fields of science, from the cosmological, astronomical, and the quanta is all seeming to come together. The key part in all of these things however, I believe, lays in the foundation of quantum physics. The extreme probabilistic nature of the very small is seeming to lead to the extreme predictibility of the very large. (butterfly effect)

We are getting closer and closer to the theory of everything, and it only seems that where this theory of everything lies, is at the cross roads of quantum physics and Newtonian physics.

I however can also imagine, that the theory of everything won't really explain much else more then the known world.

Quantum physics deals with the very small, while Newtonian physics deal with the large and very large.

But what deals with the infinitely small(singularity) and the infinitely large(the physics that regulate the movement of universi in the megaverse[can you really make the claim that at all astronomical levels of mass and energy, that newtonian physics must hold true?]

In thinking like this, it is only acceptable that we may break the "rules" which is speed of light and of the likes. Because the fact is, outside of "our universe" the rest of the multi verse may be laughing at us because this universe is the black sheep of the bunch that HAS RULES. In that regards, one must accept that outside of only what we know, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Therefor, absolutely ANYTHING(there very well may be no spoon) is theoeretically possible.

This was the problem with Einstein. "God doesn't play dice"
Yeah, well what if God plays yahtzee every time a "big bang" happens. One set of rules here, another set of rules here. If I know correctly about the parallel universe theory that is within string theory, that may be PRECISELY the case. YAHTZEE MOTHERFUCKER.

So in all actuallity, all I may claim todangest, is that no matter how intelligent we may think we are over the next guy, the simple fact is is that we arent. We are simply more open to the possibilities then the next guy. And in that, we all can't simply imply Hawking finite but boundless universe(when you say this, do you mean our known universe, or the megaverse?I have no clue about any of Hawkings works, other then a very very minor look into black holes) is true. Because the simple fact is, Hawking, no matter how intelligent or open he is, has NO CLUE what it was like 2 seconds(manmade seconds) before the big bang. So if you wish to speak of COSMOLOGICAL theories, then hell, we could go on forever(pun intended)

But if you do wish to speak of cosmological porportions, then one must be open to the concept of a God, no matter how illogical it is, because the simple fact is, by our standards, the universe, as we know it and the parts we don't know, is just as illogical.

But the only reason the unknown world is so illogical, is because the logic is not there yet. Simply stated, the logic of God isn't there, because maybe it just doesn't want it to be there. This however is another basis of topic, and I would like to keep on the topic of the universe.

That said, when it comes to matter specifically, I don't think anything can push beyond the limits of the speed of light. Because photons have no rest mass, nothing can be faster then it. The expansion of space however, has no limits, simply because, it has no limits.

As in how the universe expands faster then the speed of light.. It could be debatable. Of the known or theorized items in this universe, the only thing that could be "expanding" to make the universe "larger"(bad term I know) is by way of the properties of dark energy. The only way dark energy fills the void of space is because its pressure is negative. That does not mean however that it's energy is negative.

If it's energy was negative then it's mass would be negative. If it's mass would be negative, then there would have to be some kind of balancing mechanism in the universe so that as the universe grows infinitely large, this "mass"(dark energy?) would have to eventually equate to however much real mass there is in the universe. But, there is only so much mass in the world, and therefor, there couldn't be more negative mass then mass. And as I stated before, if there was a fixed amount, it would simply run out long before it reached the infinite "boundaries" of the megaverse.

Simply put, mass would have to be infinite, so that this dark energy(what fills the void in space) is infinite(balancing the equation). If that was so, then the massive weight of the megaverse would be Zero(negative mass plus positive mass, if both equal, would add to zero. Just like -1 plus 1 equals zero). This is controversial..but it has been something running in my head, and as well it's been something I've attempted(fairly "succesful" may I add) to mathematically equate.

In that, this "negative mass" could have the ability to exceed the speed of light, but in that, it might as well be travelling at an infinite speed.



"Ok, but if I remember correctly, I even asked if were a lark of some sort, it already seemed you were too smart for that...."

You lost me... Is it worth you explaining what you mean by this?

The Hawking quote might prove to be futile, when the fact is, tomorrow, a new force might be found that could completely disprove the cosmological models. Just as quantum physics disproved many of Einstein's notions of the world. However, it must also be admired and valued that Einstein's work attributed GREATLY to the works of quantum physicists. Just as Hawkings models, no matter how right or wrong, will most definately attribute some sort of knowledge to what might really be.

As for the Bible being "rubbish" I couldn't agree more with the just above statements. It's merely a model for what "might be" no matter how ludicrous it is. But that is not a concern for it is in all likelihood complete rubbish in its level of knowledge of the real world, but yet its stories, parables, and "spiritual truths"(I'm not speaking of the more dogmatic claims of the OT or NT) can and should provide some guidance on how to be a good person and rightful person. Might not make you a CORRECT person, but at least you have a good moral structure. Just as the models Hawkings speak of might or might not be CORRECT but they are good and rightful to at least some degree and as well provides some sort of structure. And this is absolutely your point in saying that you should at least know what you are not believing. Very well said comrade.


I'm still lost on this expansion ordeal... If I was inside the balloon 4 inches away from the center(where the big bang initially occured) and my partnetrwas 2 inches from the center, then our perspective on how far away each respective side of the balloon, HAS to be different, because relative to the center of a ballon with a diameter of 10 inches, I am 6 inches from the left, while my buddy is 8 inches from the left. Yes, we are both observing the universe contracting away, but relatively, some parts of the universe is going to be farther away from him then they are from me. Therefor, once it starts contracting in on itself, where does the center lie? Where the center originally was(where big bang occured in space) where I am at, where my buddy is at, or is simply space-time so profoundly influenced that the effect is that by the end of it all, it really did contract in on at everywhere within that universe. If it has nothing to do with the curvature of space-time, then just exactly how does in contract in on itself everywhere? This seems to be beyond logic, if throwing out the "wild" idea of the space-time thing. The only other "logic" I can come up with, is my theory that the universe folds in on itself at every infinitely small point in space and time through some other dimension.(a form of string theory)

togangest wrote:
Do you accept that a 'being', defined as supernatural, and defined with omni traits, can do what 'we naturally limited being' call "impossible"?


It seems you do... I'm obviously not a theist, but I would hold that a 'being' defined as 'beyond nature' - i.e. without limits, would have ... no limits!


And this is preciesly the God I hold to be true. This however does NOT imply that that is what is so in the "known universe"(the likes of which we are in, where our laws of nature hold true) Just because God CAN doesn't mean it DOES. Just as God CAN show us it's true nature doesn't mean it DOES, for that would break this thing we called free will. (off-topic: because for certainly if we were all to know the true nature of God, we would have no free will to choose between believing in it and not believing in it, for who would choose to not believe in something that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES)

The nature of free will is really my only arguement for why we can't explain God. Simply because it doesn't want it to be explained and avoids giving us the direct means to explain and give evidence for the purpose of maintaining free will.


Would you mind sometime underlying this forumla for time travel, as well as the processes behind it. It is, however, not a matter for discussion in this post, let alone an overt post on these boards. I am however interested in it, no matter how unlogistical the mathematic processes might be.

The thing is, I can't help but imagine that the "reality" we sense, is nothing more then GOD'S IMAGINARY. Just as we as children decide to dwell in a place where monsters live in the closet, and the bogeyman has come to get us. God's awesome power has created a place for US and ALL THINGS to dwell in, in a place where monsters living in the closet is NOT "REALITY" while making everything else we know of as "REALITY"

In a sense this makes the universe God's sandbox. It just happens to be, maybe, that this God isn't that asshole kid that stomps on sand castles and floods the whole damn thing(Jehova), but rather exquisitly set out each peice of sand PERFECTLY, and is either chilling in his own little abode, or is just obersving, or even, lets get down to possiblites, and is just managing his own sandbox, in a much bigger sandbox, ruled by an even MORE POWERFUL entity. Or even, maybe it's only ONE kid, with many sandboxes, with different structures, on an infinite plane of sand. Shit, maybe it truly is a sandbox that is ruled by Zues, Hera, and the rest of the Olympic Gods. The possibilities are endless, just as you mention with the wonder meeting skepticism. It is wonderous to think of such possibilites, but one must be skeptical to think that God is that little prick who just stomps on everyones good time. Sure, it could do it, he/she's the biggest kid on the block, but he/she might just be a gentle giant. Its skepticism at it's finess, taking ALL things into consideration, while leaving the unprobabilistic in the back of ones mind(the sky is actually green the universe is actually nothing, and atoms are really made out of plum pudding.... J.J Thomson anyone?)

Aye, they may not be supernatural at all, just as ANYTHING that we learn of this world is not supernatural. But just as well, the notion of the earth NOT being the center of the world was one of which that was extremely supernatural at one point in time. Mind this todangest, supernatural is anything that is beyond nature. However, that only means super beyond nature in the sense of what we already know about nature. If God is everything that is natural, then God in itself is not supernatural, and therefor, the near unexplainable things(quantum entanglement) might actually be COMPLETELY explainable, we just haven't reached that point in our understanding of true nature.

I meant to ask DO you know about Einstein-Bose condensate? Left out the question mark..

Aye, I am Buddhist more then anything. A deistic Buddhist, however. Christ was a Buddha if not, then a Boddhisatva(that would be more "rational"...Christ seems like the kind of guy who actually would suspend his state of Nibbana, just for the rest of humanity.) I'm pretty convinced of that. Here's a task for you atheists. Next Christian you meet, ask them what the Bible says about Christ age 14-30 or so. Hehe, I bet none of them will explain how and why he was in EAST ASIA.

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: Kirber

Ripple wrote:
Kirber wrote:

Speak for yourself. I have no problem with the concepts of nothing and infinity -- perhaps because I don't arbitrarily require they be defined as relevant to something else. Just because space is infinite doesn't mean every object in it is nothing; insignificant, perhaps, but not nothing.

-- Kirbert



No..no Kirbert. Maybe you have no problem with the concepts because you made yourself BELIEVE that you really do grasp such concepts. The fact is, by your fallacies of argument, you really don't grasp the concepts at all.

I agree. Assertions count for very little, whereas demonstrations go a long way.... 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Kirbert
Kirbert's picture
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Adios

Well, I started this discussion in hopes of finding people who could intelligently discuss alternative theories of the universe, but all I found was people who repeatedly parrot the existing theory as though I haven't heard the thing a zillion times already.  Now I find that you guys can't even handle the simple mathematical concept of infinity.

I'm outta here.  I've wasted enough time on this dead end.

--  Kirbert 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
I will look up The Elegant

I will look up The Elegant Universe tonight, maybe it's online somewhere.

Ripple wrote:


I haven't gotten any personal attacks from him. In fact, I've gotten absolutely nothing from him if you look back into all my rebuttals.

Yes.

Quote:


The thing is todangest, I haven't hit the library's and I do admit that I need to. I've wikipedia and encyclopedia'd my way through half the shit I know, and the rest is just pure intelectual curiosity.

Lol... such honesty... how rare that is that one would concede that you should be booted off the internet for that -!

Quote:

The only reason I have failed to claim my status in society, is that by most standards, I have a very low intelectual standard compared to the rest, and this is by one simple matter---
I am a junior in high school.

Yet you have spoken with the maturity of an adult here. I'm continually impressed.

Quote:

Have not even taken AP physics yet, nor have I taken chemistry. Yet my ability to contain knowledge of what really is takes me to the point that I can put much of what I read together. The fact is, I can't wait to hit the real books once I get to college, because knowing what I know now, in combination with the possibilities that higher education will bring, it is only acceptable to hold that my knowledge will only go up. This however requires precisely the quote you established by Socrates. Kirbert has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, yes because he "knows" what is really going on, it excludes his ability to hold what may be going on.

Very well said! You are good college material, that's for sure.

And there's a rather excellent point in your claim: to believe that you've already reached the heights of knowledge sorta speaks negatively of yourself! You're imagining that you can't learn more!

Quote:

This leads to me to conclude that you really should look into quantum and particle physics, because something is happening in the field of science. What may be going on seems to be what is going on. And all fields of science, from the cosmological, astronomical, and the quanta is all seeming to come together.

I am happy to hear that you have observed this as well, it is fascinating that the study of 'the biggest' and the study of 'the smallest' are converging! Who could have possibly predicted such a thing 300 years ago? Yes we all should learn more about quantum theory and cosmology.

Quote:

The key part in all of these things however, I believe, lays in the foundation of quantum physics. The extreme probabilistic nature of the very small is seeming to lead to the extreme predictibility of the very large. (butterfly effect)

Fascinating.

Quote:


We are getting closer and closer to the theory of everything, and it only seems that where this theory of everything lies, is at the cross roads of quantum physics and Newtonian physics.

I however can also imagine, that the theory of everything won't really explain much else more then the known world.

I agree. It has been said that in principle, the full knowledge of a quantum description of the universe would not only answer all the basic questions of cosmology, but all the key questions of science. But, as Murray Gell-Mann once said to Hawkings: "IF you guys know the wave function of the universe, how come you're not all rich?"

Well, Hartle and Hawkings probably are rich, but his point is spot on: knowing a simplified form of this wave function probably doesn't speak to the full richness of its true complexity, and then, of course, there's the unpredictability of the quantum world itself.

OH, and you'll probably like this: even IF we get at the underlying laws of the universe, a question remains: what determined them?

Quote:

In thinking like this, it is only acceptable that we may break the "rules" which is speed of light and of the likes. Because the fact is, outside of "our universe" the rest of the multi verse may be laughing at us because this universe is the black sheep of the bunch that HAS RULES.

I have heard some theories that hold that a 'baby universe' need not be like the parent, and others that hold that there is almost an 'evolutionary' force that leads to an increase in liklihood of certain types of universes. But already, I can see the need to point out who is saying this, and why they say it, so I'll have to locate where I took this from in order to continue.

Quote:

In that regards, one must accept that outside of only what we know, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Therefore, absolutely ANYTHING(there very well may be no spoon) is theoeretically possible.

Well, once we concede ignorance, we certainly can't go on to make statements! So yes, we basically have to say "we don't know"

Quote:

This was the problem with Einstein. "God doesn't play dice"
Yeah, well what if God plays yahtzee every time a "big bang" happens. One set of rules here, another set of rules here. If I know correctly about the parallel universe theory that is within string theory, that may be PRECISELY the case. YAHTZEE MOTHERFUCKER.

LOL. Well, we both would probably admit that a god of an infinite multiverse is a bit more grand than most theistic views of god.

Quote:


So in all actuallity, all I may claim todangest, is that no matter how intelligent we may think we are over the next guy, the simple fact is is that we arent. We are simply more open to the possibilities then the next guy. And in that, we all can't simply imply Hawking finite but boundless universe(when you say this, do you mean our known universe, or the megaverse?I have no clue about any of Hawkings works, other then a very very minor look into black holes) is true.

I believe hawking's model is just for our universe, I don't think he employs a multiverse. BUT I could easily be wrong here.

Quote:

Because the simple fact is, Hawking, no matter how intelligent or open he is, has NO CLUE what it was like 2 seconds(manmade seconds) before the big bang. So if you wish to speak of COSMOLOGICAL theories, then hell, we could go on forever(pun intended)

We probably could.

Oh, and then there's this to ponder.

Carl Sagan pointed out how much cosmological theories appear to be analogies to human birth.... the universe 'comes from something else' it starts out small, it grows, etc.

He wondered if all of our cosmological theories were hopelessly 'anthropomorhic'

I would note that those like Hawkings have math on their side, BUT, then again, there are good ex nihilo cosmological arguments too.... they both can't be right, can they?

 

Quote:


But if you do wish to speak of cosmological porportions, then one must be open to the concept of a God, no matter how illogical it is, because the simple fact is, by our standards, the universe, as we know it and the parts we don't know, is just as illogical.

If you mean open to the possiblity of a deistic sort of god, or even a pantheistic god, then OK.

But at the same time, an openness to any claim due to the need to concede ignorance cannot stand as a grounds for the claim.

So basically, in my eyes, you're asking me to simply re-affirm my stance as a weak atheist.

Of course, if you consider Hegelianism, there's the possibilty that we are both somehow both wrong and right..... try and figure that one out!

Quote:

But the only reason the unknown world is so illogical, is because the logic is not there yet. Simply stated, the logic of God isn't there, because maybe it just doesn't want it to be there. This however is another basis of topic, and I would like to keep on the topic of the universe.

Me too, but if you'd like to conjecture on this sometime, I'd join you. I'd hold that, definitionally, 'god' would need to be 'beyond logic, as logic must be contingent upon the creator... but I will stop here.

Quote:


That said, when it comes to matter specifically, I don't think anything can push beyond the limits of the speed of light. Because photons have no rest mass, nothing can be faster then it. The expansion of space however, has no limits, simply because, it has no limits.

I agree.

Quote:


As in how the universe expands faster then the speed of light.. It could be debatable. Of the known or theorized items in this universe, the only thing that could be "expanding" to make the universe "larger"(bad term I know) is by way of the properties of dark energy. The only way dark energy fills the void of space is because its pressure is negative. That does not mean however that it's energy is negative.

If it's energy was negative then it's mass would be negative. If it's mass would be negative, then there would have to be some kind of balancing mechanism in the universe so that as the universe grows infinitely large, this "mass"(dark energy?) would have to eventually equate to however much real mass there is in the universe. But, there is only so much mass in the world, and therefore, there couldn't be more negative mass then mass. And as I stated before, if there was a fixed amount, it would simply run out long before it reached the infinite "boundaries" of the megaverse.

Simply put, mass would have to be infinite, so that this dark energy(what fills the void in space) is infinite(balancing the equation). If that was so, then the massive weight of the megaverse would be Zero(negative mass plus positive mass, if both equal, would add to zero. Just like -1 plus 1 equals zero). This is controversial..but it has been something running in my head, and as well it's been something I've attempted(fairly "succesful" may I add) to mathematically equate.

Ah, dark matter. I'll have to ponder this. Reminds me of the concept of the universe itself having a net total of zero energy (gravity being negative)



todangst wrote:

"Ok, but if I remember correctly, I even asked if were a lark of some sort, it already seemed you were too smart for that...."


Quote:

You lost me... Is it worth you explaining what you mean by this?

Oh, when I took you to task about your 'god claims' in the first post I responded to, I was just saying that I recalled that I said something to the effect of "are you just kidding around?"

Quote:


The Hawking quote might prove to be futile, when the fact is, tomorrow, a new force might be found that could completely disprove the cosmological models.

True. And that would be a heck of a day. But that just goes to show that Hawking's claims are scientific in that they are falsifiable. To be scientific, a hypothesis must be capable of being right or wrong.

Quote:

Just as quantum physics disproved many of Einstein's notions of the world. However, it must also be admired and valued that Einstein's work attributed GREATLY to the works of quantum physicists.

Yes. If all Einstein did was drive people like Bohr to refute him, Einstein would have done a great service to science.

But of course, he did more than that.

Quote:

Just as Hawkings models, no matter how right or wrong, will most definately attribute some sort of knowledge to what might really be.

Again, agreed.

Quote:

As for the Bible being "rubbish" I couldn't agree more with the just above statements. It's merely a model for what "might be" no matter how ludicrous it is.

I agree to some degree, but the bible also demands that you accept it as true. That's where I have a problem with it.

Quote:

But that is not a concern for it is in all likelihood complete rubbish in its level of knowledge of the real world, but yet its stories, parables, and "spiritual truths"(I'm not speaking of the more dogmatic claims of the OT or NT) can and should provide some guidance on how to be a good person and rightful person.

I am glad that you are this open about your beliefs. If only everyone else, theist and atheist, could be this open.

Quote:

Might not make you a CORRECT person, but at least you have a good moral structure. Just as the models Hawkings speak of might or might not be CORRECT but they are good and rightful to at least some degree and as well provides some sort of structure. And this is absolutely your point in saying that you should at least know what you are not believing. Very well said comrade.

Thank you my friend.

I've often said that the most valuable thing in the world would be a book that attempts to speak about the world and gets everything completely, absolutely WRONG. Then, all we'd have to do is read it, and do the opposite, and we'd be in paradise.

So, unfortunately, no such book could exist... even books riddled with errors must get some things at least partly right.

And then there's the fact that a wrong headed writer may well have a true heart, a real desire to know. Even here, there's something to respect.

Quote:

I'm still lost on this expansion ordeal... If I was inside the balloon 4 inches away from the center(where the big bang initially occured) and my partnetrwas 2 inches from the center, then our perspective on how far away each respective side of the balloon, HAS to be different, because relative to the center of a ballon with a diameter of 10 inches, I am 6 inches from the left, while my buddy is 8 inches from the left.

Yes, we are both observing the universe contracting away, but relatively, some parts of the universe is going to be farther away from him then they are from me. Therefor, once it starts contracting in on itself, where does the center lie? Where the center originally was(where big bang occured in space) where I am at, where my buddy is at, or is simply space-time so profoundly influenced that the effect is that by the end of it all, it really did contract in on at everywhere within that universe. If it has nothing to do with the curvature of space-time, then just exactly how does in contract in on itself everywhere? This seems to be beyond logic, if throwing out the "wild" idea of the space-time thing. The only other "logic" I can come up with, is my theory that the universe folds in on itself at every infinitely small point in space and time through some other dimension.(a form of string theory)

Ah, ok, I can see how my analogy didn't help, because I left out a key element! Consider only the outside of the balloon as representing our universe - Imagine that the surface of the balloon were our 4-dimensional space (3 dimensions and time) and that he inside of the balloon represents other dimensions.

This way, every point on the surface would experience contraction the same.

todangst wrote:
Do you accept that a 'being', defined as supernatural, and defined with omni traits, can do what 'we naturally limited being' call "impossible"?


It seems you do... I'm obviously not a theist, but I would hold that a 'being' defined as 'beyond nature' - i.e. without limits, would have ... no limits!


Quote:

And this is preciesly the God I hold to be true.

I have respect for this view.

Quote:

This however does NOT imply that that is what is so in the "known universe" (the likes of which we are in, where our laws of nature hold true) Just because God CAN doesn't mean it DOES.

Ok, it's just a potential of 'god' and 'god' would have every potential.

Quote:

Just as God CAN show us it's true nature doesn't mean it DOES, for that would break this thing we called free will. (off-topic: because for certainly if we were all to know the true nature of God, we would have no free will to choose between believing in it and not believing in it, for who would choose to not believe in something that is RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES)

I agree with very end part, but have some disagreements otherwise. But hey, we have so many points in common why bother with the disagreements now?

Quote:


The nature of free will is really my only arguement for why we can't explain God. Simply because it doesn't want it to be explained and avoids giving us the direct means to explain and give evidence for the purpose of maintaining free will.


Would you mind sometime underlying this forumla for time travel, as well as the processes behind it. It is, however, not a matter for discussion in this post, let alone an overt post on these boards. I am however interested in it, no matter how unlogistical the mathematic processes might be.

OK, but it was very juvenile, so you'll be disapointed more than anything else.... I'll have to try an recall it, but basically, it relied on the sort of divide by zero error that our friend came up with.

 

Quote:

The thing is, I can't help but imagine that the "reality" we sense, is nothing more then GOD'S IMAGINARY. Just as we as children decide to dwell in a place where monsters live in the closet, and the bogeyman has come to get us. God's awesome power has created a place for US and ALL THINGS to dwell in, in a place where monsters living in the closet is NOT "REALITY" while making everything else we know of as "REALITY"

In a sense this makes the universe God's sandbox. It just happens to be, maybe, that this God isn't that asshole kid that stomps on sand castles and floods the whole damn thing(Jehova), but rather exquisitly set out each peice of sand PERFECTLY, and is either chilling in his own little abode, or is just obersving, or even, lets get down to possiblites, and is just managing his own sandbox, in a much bigger sandbox, ruled by an even MORE POWERFUL entity. Or even, maybe it's only ONE kid, with many sandboxes, with different structures, on an infinite plane of sand. Shit, maybe it truly is a sandbox that is ruled by Zues, Hera, and the rest of the Olympic Gods. The possibilities are endless, just as you mention with the wonder meeting skepticism. It is wonderous to think of such possibilites, but one must be skeptical to think that God is that little prick who just stomps on everyones good time. Sure, it could do it, he/she's the biggest kid on the block, but he/she might just be a gentle giant. Its skepticism at it's finess, taking ALL things into consideration, while leaving the unprobabilistic in the back of ones mind(the sky is actually green the universe is actually nothing, and atoms are really made out of plum pudding.... J.J Thomson anyone?)

You remind me of the worlds of the philosopher Galen Strawson. You might not like it at first, but read it through, and you'll see where you actually agree:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously.

I'd add that many theists have a 'pretension' to education too, and that they too are able to reject the Yahweh-ian concept of god. And that's really what Strawson is talking about here.

One of the reasons I am an atheist is because I have too much respect for god! I have too much respect for love and intelligence to imagine that a living embodiement of both could be so petty and small.

I think this is probably why you and I are able to agee on so much... you feel the same way, but end up making a quite different conclusion from the premise.

 

Quote:

Aye, they may not be supernatural at all, just as ANYTHING that we learn of this world is not supernatural

Agreed again. The 'supernatural' is a broken concept, in that it can't refer to anything... if we know something, then by knowing it, it must be natural!

So the 'supernatural' has to be beyond us.... This is why theologians like Luther and Kierkegaard held that one must take a leap of faith between nature and the supernatural.

But I digress...

Quote:

. But just as well, the notion of the earth NOT being the center of the world was one of which that was extremely supernatural at one point in time.

Well, I would disagree that it was supernatural, I would say that the idea just seemed crazy.

Quote:

Mind this todangst, supernatural is anything that is beyond nature.

I agree. Of course, you can't say 'any THING" as things are part of nature, but I get your point.

Quote:

However, that only means super beyond nature in the sense of what we already know about nature.

I'm really sorry, but I can't agree here. Undiscovered nature is nature.

Quote:

If God is everything that is natural, then God in itself is not supernatural, and therefor, the near unexplainable things(quantum entanglement) might actually be COMPLETELY explainable, we just haven't reached that point in our understanding of true nature.

Well, I agree with everything here except the idea of 'god' being natural... UNLESS you are a deist or pantheist. Then this makes sense, I guess.


Quote:

I meant to ask DO you know about Einstein-Bose condensate?

Left out the question mark..

Oh, sorry. Well, yes and no. I know it's a new form of matter - super cold gas. But can you tell me more?

Quote:

Aye, I am Buddhist more then anything. A deistic Buddhist,

OH, well this explains what you just said above about god and nature. OK. Cool (I comment as I read along)

Quote:

however. Christ was a Buddha if not, then a Boddhisatva

I used to have a very lazy client in a day program who told me he wanted to be a 'boddhisatva' ... I'd catch him sitting on the couch all day, so one day, I said:

Did you mean boddhisatva, or body on a sofa?

Sorry, that cracks me up.

Quote:

(that would be more "rational"...Christ seems like the kind of guy who actually would suspend his state of Nibbana, just for the rest of humanity.) I'm pretty convinced of that. Here's a task for you atheists. Next Christian you meet, ask them what the Bible says about Christ age 14-30 or so. Hehe, I bet none of them will explain how and why he was in EAST ASIA.

LOL

Very nice!

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
NO KIRBERT. You started

NO KIRBERT. You started this shit, you fucking end it. We DO grasp, EVERYTHING you say, it just happens to be that MOST of what you say is correct, only to a degree.

The thing is, Kirbert, you HAVE NOT discussed any alternate theory on the universe. I have asked you repeatedly to do just that. So go ahead, have your bitchy fit, and GIVE UP because that's all you will amount to.

---A man with a college degree who couldn't stand to the arguements(based in REALITY and based in the rational view of inifnity) of a HIGH SCHOOLER.---

You have NOT showed that even you grasp the concept of infinity. Therefor, claiming "that you guys can't even handle the simple mathematical concept of infinity." is kind of ridiculous if you yourself have not proven that your concept is even correct. The only reason it is "correct" is because noone here has been able to refute your claims on infinity, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF INFINITY IS.

Be a man. I really want to quit calling people names, especially on these boards, because I lose a lot of repsect because of it. But holy shit, if you give up NOW, then you really are a loser, in life, and in your basis(which is barely little) in arguing your claims.

You have shown NO BASIS on your claims, because you HAVE NO CLAIMS on what your idea of the universe is.

 

Dead end..the only reason it is a dead end, is because YOUR THINKING is a dead end, because you've obviously not thought about it hard enough. Shit man, you haven't even thought about YOUR THEORY on the universe hard enough. That is why you really can't be taken seriously, and that is why you are choosing to give up(I hope you don't and I hope you sit down to read all the rebuttals we have given and answer them) on such a matter. The only dead end in this topic is your inane arguments on entropy and infinity times zero.

It seems as if you are saying we don't grasp the concept of infinity because we can't seem to understand that infinity times any number will always be infinity. This is the only way I can begin to understand where you are coming from. I however, have given you an arguement that completely REBUTS yours by stating that YES, anything times infinity is infinity. But as well, anything times zero is zero. HOWEVER by saying that infinity times zero, is either any number in the world(you made this claim, if you don't remember), or zero, or infinity, in which this a claim which is RETARDED. We have PROVED this by saying you CANNOT multiply these two "numbers" together(read these arguments, over and over and over, you will find TRUTH in them). If you wish to ARGUE that point, then by all means, ATTEMPT, but don't just GIVE UP. But by NOT ARGUING and just claiming that WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND, well my friend, you are doing nothing but giving up, and making an excuse on why you are giving up by stating that we are all just stupid. I'm sorry, that is not a legitimate excuse. At the very least, you could have lied and just said you were moving to Tibet or something. At least then, you wouldn't be perceived as a quitting, half-intelligible, loser. So please, save some grace, and actually try. 

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kirbert wrote: Well, I

Kirbert wrote:

Well, I started this discussion in hopes of finding people who could intelligently discuss alternative theories of the universe, but all I found was people who repeatedly parrot the existing theory as though I haven't heard the thing a zillion times already. Now I find that you guys can't even handle the simple mathematical concept of infinity.

I'm outta here. I've wasted enough time on this dead end.

-- Kirbert

Smiling

And here's the face saving post I've been waiting for...!

The reality is that you haven't read much on cosmology at all, and this fact was exposed by the board.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Ripple wrote: NO KIRBERT.

Ripple wrote:

NO KIRBERT. You started this shit, you fucking end it. We DO grasp, EVERYTHING you say, it just happens to be that MOST of what you say is correct, only to a degree.

The thing is, Kirbert, you HAVE NOT discussed any alternate theory on the universe. I have asked you repeatedly to do just that. So go ahead, have your bitchy fit, and GIVE UP because that's all you will amount to.

---A man with a college degree who couldn't stand to the arguements(based in REALITY and based in the rational view of inifnity) of a HIGH SCHOOLER.---

True.  But never mind him, he's just trying to save face.

If he was able to be honest, he'd admit that you were pretty damn smart. But his ego is too bruised at the moment. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ripple
Theist
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I'll reply wholly later,

I'll reply wholly later, but on terms of respecting God thing...

As to the Strawson quote..the fact is I probably couldn't agree more with it.
BUT
where I differ lies in the fact that I realize my idea of God is probably very petty compared to what God really is, and that it would be a disgrace to God.
HOWEVER
My humility to the fact that God is so powerful puts me in the position of servitude to it. In those respects, his view upon me and you are completely the same. He loves you and I exactly as much in that we are both 2 people rooted in knowledge, while having a distaste for unknowledge.
I however hold a different respect from it, in that I am a warrior(in any position of life or thinking) for God.

Our athesiastic concept that we are too petty to fully understand such a thing, leads us to a better view of the world, at which point, God respects that immensly(it might not, who knows?)

But where we differ is the fact that I love God more then you, because I accept it, and as well I admit my life to such a thing. (please please get it out of your head that I would give my life to the MORTAL conceptions of any God anyone else has created, for the ONLY GOD that I serve is THE GOD(the one in which our petty souls will never understand)

In that, you may have too much respect, but I have just the right amount of respect for it. Because of that, I could care less if noone shares that same right amount of respect, for I know my relationship with God is rooted in intelligence and love, and therefor, I am in his hands. As for you being in his hands, I mean, yeah probably you are. But also, because we are all so petty, he might actually hate you for being so humble and not believing fully. But may I also claim that that is probably not so, because God loves all for God is all pervasive love. In that, your respect for God, is one founded in truth and brilliance, for you are the humble creature which we must all strive to be.

The creatures that are, "I am right, you are wrong so you go to hell" and as well the creatures that say God isn't real just because they "know" it isn't real. Well, who know what happens to those people.

I just can't help but chuckle at the fact that if hell did exist(no matter how silly the concept of hell is[I don't believe in it]God can do anything) it is only acceptable to realize that just as many "Christians" are going to hell as Atheists. I can't help but "know" that God doesn't base your fate on what you believe in, but rather by the end of all of it, he rather lets YOU look at your ENTIRE life and decide for yourself, how much you really did for the advancement and the goodness of the world in which we live on(Mother Earth, God bless you) And then, depending on how honest you are with yourself, then, God judges your actions accordingly. In that respect, no matter what you believe in, morality should be the only thing required to be taught to anyone. You better be a GOOD PERSON, for that is all that we can possibly amount to--a good person, or a bad person.

Jesus saves all people, of any religion. But I'm pretty damn sure he won't let you in his kingdom if you are immoral, no matter how many times you confess to your sins. (this is metaphorical mind you)

1 in 5 Americans believe we live in a Geocentric solar system. Who do you blame for that? God? I blame god.