Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,904 Year: 4,161/9,624 Month: 1,032/974 Week: 359/286 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe Race
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 76 of 410 (457182)
02-21-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by cavediver
02-21-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Pull
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
The Universe is not some object that is attracted by gravity!
I think you are talking about the universe after the Big Bang correct me if I am wrong.
I am talking about the pea sized universe Son told me existed at T=O.
That means the entire universe we see today and all the things we don't see that are yet to be discovered, was packed into something about the size of a pea.
Unless matter and energy can be created from the absence of anything, is this possible?
Our sun is a massive ball of energy.
Then when you consider the 100 billion galaxies all the stars and suns that is a lot of energy.
The core of our earth is energy.
For all the other galaxies and gravity to work in the universe there has got to be unimaginable energy at work.
Now pack all that in something the size of a pea.
What kind of force would it take to accomplish that feat.
If something was that strong how could anything escape?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 4:27 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2008 5:38 PM ICANT has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 77 of 410 (457183)
02-21-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
02-21-2008 4:47 PM


Re: Re-Planck volume
Since matter and energy can not be created, I assume you are referring to energy being converted into matter.
No. He's referring to the fact that all matter we see today is the result of stellar fusion - as in, the orginal Hydrogen and scant amounts of Helium that composed all matter in the Universe when the first stars began to form were transmuted into the heavier elements we see (and are made of) today by stellar fusion.
He's not saying anything about creation ex nihilo. That's your bag.
So you have not eliminated the necessity for everything you see and everything you don't see in the universe being present at inception.
It would just be in a different form.
It was in a different form. Before the quark/gluon plasma, it would have existed in a form so exotic we don't even know its properties. "Pure energy" doesn't work as a descriptor, becasue there's no such thing. When we say we can't decribe the conditions of the Universe in that moment of initial expansion due to the singularity reached by the current model, we mean exactly that. We currently have no way to describe the state of matter, or even the phyisical properties of the Universe we describe with the laws of physics at that point. The math just doesn't work, so we won't be able to understand it until further research is performed.
We do know with a reasonable degree of certainty the state of the universe all the way back to that barest fraction of a second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 4:47 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 78 of 410 (457188)
02-21-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
02-21-2008 5:19 PM


Re: Pull
I think you are talking about the universe after the Big Bang correct me if I am wrong.
I am talking about the pea sized universe Son told me existed at T=O.
You're talking about the same thing. The difference is that cavediver undertands the topic. You do not.
That means the entire universe we see today and all the things we don't see that are yet to be discovered, was packed into something about the size of a pea.
Yes.
Unless matter and energy can be created from the absence of anything, is this possible?
No.
Our sun is a massive ball of energy.
No, it's not. It's a massive ball of Hydrogen and other elements compacted by gravity so tightly that nuclear fusion is continuous. The sun radiates energy from those fusion reactions, as heat and light and other forms of radiation.
Then when you consider the 100 billion galaxies all the stars and suns that is a lot of energy.
I think you really mean "mass," but whatever.
The core of our earth is energy.
...it most certainly is not. It's mostly molten Iron. That's not energy, that's Iron.
For all the other galaxies and gravity to work in the universe there has got to be unimaginable energy at work.
You don't understand gravity or other forces at all if you believe this statement.
Now pack all that in something the size of a pea.
What kind of force would it take to accomplish that feat.
Irrelevant. There was no "packing." The Universe expanded - nobody is claiming it hat to be "wound up." Ecept you, but then you don't understand Big bang cosmology despite the best efforts of everyone here.
If something was that strong how could anything escape?
I'm pretty sure you're still referring to gravitational force from all of teh matter in the Universe at once. And you're still treating this like an explosion of matter. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about space itself expanding, which is quite a bit different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 5:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 6:16 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 79 of 410 (457203)
02-21-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Rahvin
02-21-2008 5:38 PM


Re: Pull
Thanks Rahvin,
ICANT writes:
Our sun is a massive ball of energy.
No, it's not. It's a massive ball of Hydrogen and other elements compacted by gravity so tightly that nuclear fusion is continuous. The sun radiates energy from those fusion reactions, as heat and light and other forms of radiation.
So where did the stuff come from that made the energy that is radiated from the sun. Remember energy can not be created. Matter can be turned into energy and energy can be turned into mass.
I propose it had to be in that pea sized something at T=O.
ICANT writes:
Then when you consider the 100 billion galaxies all the stars and suns that is a lot of energy.
I think you really mean "mass," but whatever.
Look it would be hard enough to put energy is such a small place now you want to put mass in the small pea sized something.
ICANT writes:
The core of our earth is energy.
...it most certainly is not. It's mostly molten Iron. That's not energy, that's Iron.[/QS]
Does that mean heat is not energy?
ICANT writes:
For all the other galaxies and gravity to work in the universe there has got to be unimaginable energy at work.
You don't understand gravity or other forces at all if you believe this statement.
Maybe I don't understand how gravity in the universe works and you could explain.
But I know for work to be done energy must be exerted. Then maybe I am wrong.
ICANT writes:
Now pack all that in something the size of a pea.
What kind of force would it take to accomplish that feat.
Irrelevant. There was no "packing." The Universe expanded - nobody is claiming it hat to be "wound up." Ecept you, but then you don't understand Big bang cosmology despite the best efforts of everyone here.
Creationist tactic change the subject.
If everything in the universe was in that pea sized something at T=O
it had to be packed pretty tight.
With so much force pulling it together how could expansion begin?
Call that force anything you want something had to squeeze everything in the universe that is seen and unseen into something the size of a pea.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Rahvin, posted 02-21-2008 5:38 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 6:59 PM ICANT has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 410 (457211)
02-21-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
02-21-2008 4:47 PM


Re: Re-Planck volume
Since matter and energy can not be created, I assume you are referring to energy being converted into matter.
So you have not eliminated the necessity for everything you see and everything you don't see in the universe being present at inception.
It would just be in a different form.
Im having alot of trouble understanding your questions and statements...when you say 'anything you see' are you refering to all of the physical planets, stars, asteroids etc...and that some how all these objects were being physically compressed in some manner into the size of a pea?
If this is your concept of it then you are not understanding the Big Bang, everything you see today is a result of the Big Bang, if we were to rewind the clock and start all over it would not layout in the same way, you probably wouldn't have an Earth as we know it, or people for that matter. This universe was not compressed like a snowball and then bang it all goes everywhere, thats ridiculous to think and thats a total mis-understanding of the theory. You are making it very hard to explain it to you because your concept is so way off. Physical matter as you see it today was not present at the start, it is a result of that start.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 4:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 6:54 PM onifre has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 81 of 410 (457220)
02-21-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by onifre
02-21-2008 6:36 PM


Re-Planck volume
Hi onifre,
onifre writes:
Physical matter as you see it today was not present at the start, it is a result of that start.
I have stated several times that everything you can see and everything you can not see had to be present at T=O in some form.[/b]
Unless energy and matter can be created. This can not happen, according to science.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 02-21-2008 6:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 02-21-2008 8:01 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 82 of 410 (457221)
02-21-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
02-21-2008 6:16 PM


Re: Pull
If everything in the universe was in that pea sized something at T=O
it had to be packed pretty tight.
It wasn't "packed" at all - that is just the shape the Universe takes at that end of time.
With so much force pulling it together how could expansion begin?
There is no 'force' - I have explained this - and the shape of the Universe (i.e. the expansion) is not controlled by 'forces'.
Call that force anything you want something had to squeeze everything in the universe that is seen and unseen into something the size of a pea.
No, it did not - not in the sense you are thinking of. Unfortunately, you are asking questions way beyond your knowledge level, so there is little point trying to explain further. You need to correct all of your misunderstandings of more basic cosomology first. At the moment there is an exchange of words but not of understanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 6:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 7:33 PM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 83 of 410 (457225)
02-21-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
02-21-2008 6:59 PM


Re: Pull
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
No, it did not - not in the sense you are thinking of. Unfortunately, you are asking questions way beyond your knowledge level, so there is little point trying to explain further. You need to correct all of your misunderstandings of more basic cosomology first. At the moment there is an exchange of words but not of understanding.
So humor me if you know the answers.
So now it is a stupid question because I asked it.
You attack my ability to understand how the entire universe can be in something the size of a pea. I think it has to be compact.
You gave the math showing it to be in the pea with room to spare.
Message 49
Now that math will only work if you can produce a force that is capable of squeezing the energy required to produce the universe into the space you say you can get it into.
If you can produce such a force to accomplish that.
Then for the Big Bang to happen you have to find a force strong enough to overcome the squeezing force.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 6:59 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 7:49 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 99 by CTD, posted 02-22-2008 2:48 AM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 84 of 410 (457226)
02-21-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
02-21-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Pull
Then for the Big Bang to happen you have to find a force strong enough to overcome the squeezing force.
No, you do not. Your reasoning is based upon your application of your 'common sense' understanding of the world to some of the most advanced esoteric science ever considered, and is rather unsurprisingly flawed in the extreme. Communication is pointless until you realise this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 7:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 7:59 PM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 85 of 410 (457229)
02-21-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by cavediver
02-21-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Pull
Hi cavediver,
So you don't have the answers and if you do you are not willing to share them.
cavediver I ask these questions because I have an inquiring mind.
But if you are unwilling to answer so be it.
God Bless, and good morning over there.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 7:49 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 02-21-2008 8:17 PM ICANT has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 86 of 410 (457230)
02-21-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
02-21-2008 6:54 PM


Re: Re-Planck volume
I have stated several times that everything you can see and everything you can not see had to be present at T=O in some form.
Unless energy and matter can be created. This can not happen, according to science.
I understand what you have stated, but you are not listening to what is being said. Everything you see was NOT present, i'll try to walk you backwards. This solar system and the Milky Way Galaxy came to be because of an explosion from a supernova that sent all of the elements it forged in its core(stellar-fusion)into this awaiting space, if you continue to rewind the clock in the order from new to old(galaxies), using the process I just gave you, you get all the way back to a the FIRST star converting hydrogen to helium(and all of the other elements on the periodic table up to Iron) and waiting to explode into the FIRST supernova. If you rewind some more then all you have to do is break down that Sun/Star, that can be broken down to a simple hydrogen atom. So you see all the matter that exists today was not present, only hydrogen was present, and at the initial moment after the Big Bang only hydrogen nuclei without electrons were present all bundled up into a pea size..for about a nano second.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 6:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 8:19 PM onifre has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 87 of 410 (457233)
02-21-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by ICANT
02-21-2008 7:59 PM


Re: Pull
cavediver I ask these questions because I have an inquiring mind.
ICANT, I'm not sure that you're aware, but these are not questions:
Now that math will only work if you can produce a force that is capable of squeezing the energy required to produce the universe into the space you say you can get it into.
If you can produce such a force to accomplish that.
Then for the Big Bang to happen you have to find a force strong enough to overcome the squeezing force.
This is you blathering on long after you have been told that there is no force. This is you not listening. Why should I waste my time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 7:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 9:12 PM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 88 of 410 (457234)
02-21-2008 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by onifre
02-21-2008 8:01 PM


Re-Planck volume
Hi onifre,
onifre writes:
only hydrogen was present, and at the initial moment after the Big Bang only hydrogen nuclei without electrons were present all bundled up into a pea size..for about a nano second.
OK I will play along and see where you go.
Where did the hydrogen nuclei come from?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by onifre, posted 02-21-2008 8:01 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 02-21-2008 8:24 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 02-21-2008 8:59 PM ICANT has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 89 of 410 (457235)
02-21-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
02-21-2008 8:19 PM


Re: Re-Planck volume
God said "Let there be protons!" and there was protons and there was much rejoice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2008 8:19 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 02-21-2008 8:37 PM Taz has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 13043
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 90 of 410 (457238)
02-21-2008 8:36 PM


A Couple Things
To ICANT: I'm not able to find much in your posts that suggests constructive engagement of the responses to your questions. If you find it possible, it would be greatly appreciated if you would attempt to understand what people are saying regarding one point before ping-ponging on to your next point. Understanding the point people are making doesn't mean you accept it, only that you understand it. Once you understand it you may even find that you have a valid objection, and then you won't have to seek another random question to ask.
To everyone else: If I could make a suggestion, you might want to think of ICANT's questions more as talking points around which to build explanations and not worry at all about whether ICANT actually understands them. Don't even worry about whether he's even trying to understand them. I'm sure there are many others benefiting from what's being contributed to this thread.
AbE: No responses to this message, please.
Edited by Admin, : Minor addition.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024