Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 11:38 PM
283 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 282 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 121 of 687 (521048)
08-25-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 9:10 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

I think you are misinterpreting Alan Guth's views.

I think he was misrepresenting his beliefs.

I was just going by his final answers to the questions.

Theodoric writes:

Guth does believe that the universe came from something.

Then you have never read his paper on the zero energy inflationary universe.

Guth was answering questions concerning the standard BBT. He hedged then answered along the accepted party line.

The problem with Guth's zero energy universe beginning it needs a vacuum to begin in. So he needs prior universes or at least places where a vacuum can exist. That is why he loves string theory.

But all of this is metaphysics not 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 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 9:10 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 5:13 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 122 of 687 (521053)
08-25-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Sasuke
08-25-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Sasuke,

Sasuke writes:

you need to remember that there are a lot of scientific views out there just like there are a lot of religious views out there. The point with science is that it is built around observations that can be tested and verified not revelations that can't be verified and tested.

Yes there are a lot of scientific musings out there. They are called metaphysics.

There is one Standard Big Bang Theory.
This theory trys to explain what has happened from the time the universe began to expand.

It does not address anything about creation.

But GR that breaks down at a singularity requires that the universe have a beginning.

There are no observations available nor anything that can be tested or verified prior to
T=10-43.

Sasuke writes:

Hey icant here is a movie that sorta reflects my views in one way or another...

Neat metaphysics.

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 115 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 9:31 AM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 4:07 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 123 of 687 (521059)
08-25-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
08-25-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Well it seems you have learnt something over the past couple of years. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of "time" that is not "as we know it". Or am I reading too much into your phraseology here?

Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago?

I am still leaning to the universe having always existed in some form. If it has always existed it had to exist in an eternal now which it still does and will continue to exist in.

Straggler writes:

If for the sake of argument you want to call T=0 a "beginning" then I'll go along with that if it will make you happy

You sound like a bunch of preachers I know. Go along to get along.

But that will not get the answers to the questions.

Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?

Straggler writes:

Why exactly do you think that this precludes the universe from being "just is"? Somewhere down whatever causal chain you go there has to be something that "just is" (i.e. is uncaused). Why cannot the Universe be it?

The universe can be "just is". But that means it has to be infinite in all directions. When you date it as 13.7 billion years old it becomes finite. That requires a begining to exist.

I agree that eventually you get to an uncaused existence, that is responsible for all existence.

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 120 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 12:53 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 4:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 4:15 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 129 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 124 of 687 (521060)
08-25-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:23 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
See, what you are failing to realize is that science is oh-so close to being able to find evidence of a mulitverse. So, what you claim to be metaphysics, shall soon be considered science (it already is).

String theory? Scientists have placed Hydrogen-3 in a vacuum test tube in two different phases, one sandwiched between another (think: plasma-colder plasma-plasma) by freezing it to 150 microkelvin above absolute zero. Thus being one step closing to testing string theory. Basically, the fact that they can actually set up tests to test string theory, pretty much solidifies it as science.

I'm curious if you even know the basics of string theory.

Read more here


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 125 of 687 (521061)
08-25-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago?

Our "universe"? Yes. Well, the current data points to that timeframe.

Now, the multiverse, on the otherhand, is theoretically infinite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:17 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10205
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 126 of 687 (521062)
08-25-2009 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?

It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption?

The universe can be "just is". But that means it has to be infinite in all directions.

Why must it be "infinite" if it "just is". On what do you base this conclusion?

When you date it as 13.7 billion years old it becomes finite. That requires a begining to exist.

And if a "beginning" exists why does that preclude the Universe from being "just is"?

I agree that eventually you get to an uncaused existence, that is responsible for all existence.

Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 5:42 PM Straggler has responded

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 127 of 687 (521068)
08-25-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:23 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
ICANT,

Im glad you finally understand the BB model a little bit better. The rest of your post I don't care to comment on...

Edited by Sasuke, : ..

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2009 3:56 AM Sasuke has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 128 of 687 (521070)
08-25-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
08-25-2009 2:58 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
I think he was misrepresenting his beliefs.

I was just going by his final answers to the questions.

So you are going to claim he doesnt believe what he says he believes? WOW.

So he needs prior universes or at least places where a vacuum can exist.

Then he doesn't believe it came from nothing. You say so yourself.

Then you have never read his paper on the zero energy inflationary universe.

Have you?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 2:58 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:24 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 129 of 687 (521071)
08-25-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ICANT
08-25-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
ICANT,

anything prior to the BB is speculative. The bb model is that the universe expanded(not created, just expanded, our universe has always existed is my understanding) and is still expanding. As for when time started, I think that was about 13.7b years ago. As for what was going on prior to time, that is speculative. Is it all one big universe or is it a multiverse??? I would not bother yourself with these questions until there is more information. You need to stop trying to prove the BIBLE it will not help your understanding.. You can't prove the BIBLE anyways.. Its really a vain attempt... YOU need to realize that...

Edited by Sasuke, : I was wrong...

Edited by Sasuke, : add so the post was not wasted..


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 130 of 687 (521072)
08-25-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by hooah212002
08-25-2009 4:10 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hooah212002,

It is my understanding that 13.7b years ago is simpy when time started in our universe. Space still existed in the singularity state, no? Whether or not there is a multiverse is still hypothetical, no?

Edited by Sasuke, : I was wrong...

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : error lol.. sorry for all the dang edits..

Edited by Sasuke, : edit


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 4:10 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-25-2009 8:04 PM Sasuke has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 131 of 687 (521085)
08-25-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Sasuke
08-25-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
It is my understanding that 13.7b years ago is simpy when time started in our universe. Space still existed in the singularity state, no? Whether or not there is a multiverse is still hypothetical, no?

The singularity is not an object. It's a mathematical conundrum, a place where our current understanding of physics is incapable of making accurate predictions.

At T=0, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, reversing the observed expansion of the Universe leads us to a point where the spacial dimensions consist of a single, dimensionless point, in which all of the mass/energy of the Universe was compressed. This point is the Universe. It does not exist in space, it is space, as well as time (time is just another dimension, like length or width or height). Basically, the incredible density of the Universe at this location in time means that spacetime would have been warped to an infinite degree.

The Universe is not expanding into space - space itself is expanding. Length, width, and height are getting larger. Matter is not flying apart from a central explosion; literally the space in between any two objects is increasing without movement, something like stationary ants on an inflating balloon.

It's not "when time started." T=0 is simply the minimum value of the time dimension. Saying that "time started" is no more accurate than saying that the North Pole is where the surface of the Earth started.

The problem when discussing this topic is that the closer we approach to T=0, the less human beings are able to intuitively grasp and understand what's being talked about. We need incredibly complex math to model these concepts, and when physicists "dumb it down" to the level of the layperson, we wind up with the sorts of misconceptions that ICANT commonly clings to.

The words "beginning" and "started" stop being useful when we discuss an absolute minimum value for the time dimension. Saying time "started" requires a previous moment in time where time was "stopped," which is self-contradictory because it requires a coordinate outside of the scope of the coordinate set. What coordinate is farther North than the North Pole? The question has no meaning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:17 PM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 9:53 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Sasuke, posted 08-26-2009 12:45 AM Rahvin has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5970
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 132 of 687 (521100)
08-25-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rahvin
08-25-2009 8:04 PM


I got a really dumb question
Hi Rahvin,

I got a really dumb question.

Rahvin writes:

The singularity is not an object. It's a mathematical conundrum, a place where our current understanding of physics is incapable of making accurate predictions.

GR can't tell us nothing because the math breaks down
The Singularity is not an object just math that don't work.

What tells us the universe is there?

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 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-25-2009 8:04 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 10:14 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 133 of 687 (521103)
08-25-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
08-25-2009 9:53 PM


Bump for Icant
Are you going to reply to Message 128. I see you have been back since I posted it. I hate to think you are ignoring me.

I think he was misrepresenting his beliefs.

I was just going by his final answers to the questions.

So you are going to claim he doesnt believe what he says he believes? WOW.

So he needs prior universes or at least places where a vacuum can exist.

Then he doesn't believe it came from nothing. You say so yourself.

Then you have never read his paper on the zero energy inflationary universe.

Have you?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2009 9:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 3073 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 134 of 687 (521113)
08-26-2009 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rahvin
08-25-2009 8:04 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Rahvin,

Ok, so essentially a singularity has no dimensions but it expanded into the universe that we live in today?

I think we need to open a thread on singularities..??

Edited by Sasuke, : add question

Edited by Sasuke, : edit

Edited by Sasuke, : del

Edited by Sasuke, : clarity..


OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-25-2009 8:04 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Rahvin, posted 08-26-2009 3:04 AM Sasuke has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 135 of 687 (521116)
08-26-2009 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Sasuke
08-26-2009 12:45 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Rahvin,

Ok, so essentially a singularity has no dimensions but it expanded into the universe that we live in today?

I think we need to open a thread on singularities..??

No. A singularity is a mathematical artifact. It's a word we use to refer to "singular" phenomenon that aren't describable with current models. "The singularity" isn't a physical object, and it's not a "form" the Universe took at T=0. It's how we say "at this particular coordinate of time, we can't effectively describe the Universe with what we know right now." Black holes also have a singularity at their center, which basically means "at this location, current models cannot accurately predict what's going on."

The Universe has been expanding for the entire length of time. You could say that it's been expanding forever, even though time has a minimum value (much like the surface of a sphere has no beginning and no end, but it has a finite surface area - it's finite but unbounded). The Universe did not "expand out of a singularity." The Universe expanded (and is still expanding - it seems to be a basic property of space to expand); the word singularity only refers to that point in time where the conditions of the Universe don't allow current physics models to make accurate predictions. Does that make more sense?

We've had several threads on the subject. Take a look at cavediver's posts for some of the most informative bits. He's an actual physicist and former cosmology professor. You can also take a look at Son Goku, another resident physicist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Sasuke, posted 08-26-2009 12:45 AM Sasuke has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Sasuke, posted 08-26-2009 4:38 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018