|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Laws of Conservation? | |||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I was being a smartypants when I used the word event You don't have to explain that to me, dude. I once thought the BB was an event. Before college I was one of those that thought the BB refered to an actual 'explosion' - a BIG BANG. Why the fuck would they name it that and totally confuse me? Why didn't they just call it Cosmological Expansion in the mainstream, I guess it's not as catchy as BIG BANG? But I learned and now have a better understanding of it. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. It serves it's purpose when approaching an answer, mainly, that it's wrong in comparison to what is right. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
No, but I see the following logical possibilities. - The universe may have begun without time, which emerged 'subsequently'.- Time may have come into existence before the big bang, in some kind of precursor to our universe. Yes, both of these are highly plausible and are contained in multiple hypotheses and higher "theories". Though you need to highly caveat your use of words such as "begun"...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Black Member (Idle past 5209 days) Posts: 77 Joined: |
cavediver,
so, are you saying that for example, the shape of a balloon or anything for that matter is just an illusion? Could a Balloon's internal division not be considered isolated since there is a division wall from it to the external space? Edited by Black, : grammitcal edit
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Why the fuck would they name it that and totally confuse me? "Big Bang" was the name Hoyle coined as a derogatory remark (he never really accepted the Big Bang theory). But, as often happens, the name was so silly that it became adopted by the theory's adherents. To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Purpledbear Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
The book is in my bedroom. So, I might misquote a little. David Mills who seems like a reasonably smart dude wrote in chapter 2 about Law of Conservation/Mass in his best selling book Atheist Universe.
David explained this law states matter can not be created or destroyed. He went on to say that matter & energy are the same. He mentioned that we are all made up of this mass/energy stuff. He mentioned none of this isolated system stuff. Although he did not put it this way: It is unreasonable to pick from hundreds of uncreated invisible creators because this one or that one suits your fancy. Not forgetting by their very supernatural nature these things(gods?) are forever unknown to the human mind. Then to have the callousness to say it is my invisible thing in another dimension not yours that created the known using magic from an unknown location ex-nihlo not yours. If you disagree I might desire to convert you and argue. IF that fails death and torture might be likely. Oh ya you might be punished if you continue to worship your thing. Now he did go on to say that because we are made of this stuff and it can not be created or destroyed and the volume of this stuff has not and can not changed based on this accepted law it is obvious that it is this stuff that has existed forever. He also pointed out until it can be demonstrated this can be proven untrue it is what it is. Therefore a god did not do it. **it is my understanding that energy of some sort is wizzing around at light speed. Some type of unknown omnipresent field that can not be turned on or off slows this energy allowing it to become mass or gain mass or some shit like that. ** This is what David said in his book. Oh ya he also said some hardcore physicists might simply say before time a beginning is not mathematically possible. Which some of you have? I think he implied this is just elitist attitude and the question is better delt with by saying, "We dunno but we lookin". PB
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
David Mills who seems like a reasonably smart dude Seems like someone who should stick to writing on subjects about which they actually know something...
matter can not be created or destroyed Of course it can, and it happens all the time. E.g., electrons and positrons (matter) annihilate to give two photons (not matter.)
He went on to say that matter & energy are the same No, they are not the same at all. Even saying that *mass* and energy are the same is too much of a stretch, unless you explicitly mention your context.
it is obvious that it is this stuff that has existed forever No, it is not obvious. Which is why we spend quite a bit of time on research, trying to find out the answer.
I think he implied this is just elitist attitude Yeah, and given his level of mis-understanding, he'd be one to know
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Purpledbear Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
quote:He did say Mass & Energy not matter. Here is his site: http://davidmills.net/Atheist-Universe-Excerpt.pdf
quote: I wonder if I just completely misunderstood what he was saying. I found his book online. Removal Notice | Scribd. I am not sure if this is legal or not. So, I would not suggest you go there. Rather consider this a historical reference. Page 71-81 are where his conversations on this topic begin. This book for quite a long time was an Amazon best seller. Still one of the top selling 4,500 books I believe. I understand the amount of copies a book sells has little to do with it's truth. I will re-read it as I fear my interpretation might be wrong. However, based on the fact it has done so well and I have found no one else suggesting it is wrong For now I will view him as the authority.
quote:I wonder if he is the idiot? Am I misunderstanding? OR you? I guess I will re-read then write him. If he is in fact wrong(doubtful it must be me). But if he is I do doubt it is intentional and he needs to fully understand why OH CRAP I AM CONFUSED - DEAR JESUS! Thanks cave!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Thanks for the link to his book. His comments about mass and energy are ok to a point, but then he decides that he is suffciently equipped to make his idiotic pronouncement than cons. of mass/energy implies that there had to a be pre-big-bang and essentially an eternetal universe. This is crap. Does he not think that we may have mentioned this in the context of big-bang comsology at some point in the last forty years if it was so obvious??? Or perhaps we missed it, and he's just managed to stumble upon it using his enormous intellect?
No, he's simply wrong... Conservation of mass/energy is a *local* conservation law, and does not necessarily apply globally. When talking about the whole Universe in the vicinity of the big bang, we are necessarily talking globally. Example: on the surface of a very large doughnut, locally, you can always shrink a circle into a point. Globally, your circle might encircle the doughnut hole, or it might encircle the dough-ring, and in neither place can your circle be shrunk to a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Purpledbear Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
I do not understand why you are saying he is wrong nor do I want to clutter a thread with my misunderstanding. At this point it is just too complicated. However, my understanding of the law discussed in this thread came from his book. I would also be willing to bet that there might be thousands like me - this is an atheist best seller. I was curious if others in this thread agree with Mr.Diver and if anything from the book adds any value to this discussion.
If it was incorrect I wonder if it is intentional deception. It disgusts me when either side prints such lies with such authority(bible cough cough). Legally I do not believe it should be allowed. Perjury is illegal! This is no court room but the seriousness of such discussions should make the offense more serious. That said I have nothing additional to add in public forum t_schwartz317@sbcglobal.net Edited by Purpledbear, : Need to switch up some of the words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
If it was incorrect I wonder if it is intentional deception. I'm certain it is not. It is just typical layman exuberance. It wouldn't matter if he were correct - an eternally existing Universe can be divinely created just as easily as a Universe with a finite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Purpledbear Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 31 Joined: |
I lied, I am back. Last time I promise. Firstly, I find it very discouraging that he is incorrect. This is because he and I are on the same side - god did not do it. Again it disgusts me when even I present false information on a forum. I do my best to double or triple my facts and I am just posting on a forum. The fact someone would write a book about it and not check the facts - all he needed to do is ask you. Add to that the fact he has probably earned thousands or tens of thousands of dollars through presenting this and other information. Anyway I apologize and understand if this post is deleted as a rant or clutter of an intelligent thread. On my journey it just seems impossible to determine who is right and who is wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024