ICANT'S position in the creation debate

That's right. Physical things have length. Why is that? Because length is a property of being physical.Another property is time. Physical things have time (called duration). It's a property of being physical, it's part of the definition of physical.

The Universe is finite yet unbounded. This you have been told countless times yet fail to bother to understand.It does no good to answer your questions, ICANT, when you insist on shoving them into your framework of understanding and reading a chapter into every verse; as you did when the story of Genesis and even the creation story becomes Gen. 1:1; in the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth. (Or in this case a verse into a phrase.)You need to digest the statements made to you and put them into a framework independent of you own. Your framework does not apply to what you are being told, and only leads to your greater confusion. Well, it would if you ever crossed referenced our words with your story. Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms beginning or exist. Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms something or nothing. You assume that something physical must be made of something as you understand every day things are made of something. The answer is fields. Fields are sets of numbers that can be manipulated to get answers that comply with empirical observation. This is the same way we work with gravity, and few people have a problem with it. If the fields did not represent an actuality, we’d not likely get answers that comply with empirical observation, but random nonsense like 300 cubit arks. And I predict that the New England Patriots will win Super bowls XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. And I say it with clarity: not with some nebulous words that can be fit to just about anything after the fact. It’s not a matter of us knowing more then they. It is a matter of us understanding what they say and not turning it into something the fits an erroneous framework.Further, this is ICANT’s position in the creation debate. Why would you need Straggler to answer questions to explain your universe? These kinds of statement are only helpful in letting everyone else know that your avoiding thinking about the question. This is a lovely example of someone saying X and you getting LMNO but not X out of it. That’s not all you are pointing out. You are implying that the scientists have come to the wrong interpretation of their own words and work.

---

Hello kbertsche Of course they are physical. But ICANT needs them to be made of some kind of substance that we can put a name on; otherwise, he feels he has cause to treat them as one would properly treat love and beauty: products of the minds of men.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

You are apparently somehow of the opinion that because you've found a paper that apparently has a better answer for that one single fact, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.That's pretty ignorant. (and that's where I'm basing my opinion from - rope, given enough, hanging self.) Which is pretty pointless - we know. It's called "peer review".Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

---

You assume that something physical must be made of something as you understand every day things are made of something. The answer is fields. Fields are sets of numbers that can be manipulated to get answers that comply with empirical observation. This is the same way we work with gravity, and few people have a problem with it. If the fields did not represent an actuality, we’d not likely get answers that comply with empirical observation, but random nonsense like 300 cubit arks.

---

Is it really standard in particle/field theory to say that space and time are made of fields? Rather than saying that they are the physical dimensions in which the fields exist? (I frequently hear the latter, but perhaps there are different perspectives on this?)

quote:

---

quote:

---

It looks like you guys are getting tripped up on whether or not time and space are "physical." Could you clarify what you mean by this?

---

Of course they are physical. But ICANT needs them to be made of some kind of substance that we can put a name on; otherwise, he feels he has cause to treat them as one would properly treat love and beauty: products of the minds of men.

---

But this still doesn't clarify what you mean that space and time are "physical." Everyone should agree that they are physical dimensions; how much more than this are you implying?

First, nothing is 'made of fields'. Fields are simply that which exists - nearly all facets of existence are the result of differing values in the fields. Then you have to qualify what you mean by space and time. The length of space and time intervals between events in space-time are defined by values in the metric field. So the fact that Andromeda is 2.2 Mlyrs away, but my front door is only 5m away is simply the difference in the respective sets of values in the metric field; much as having a hydrogen atom rather than a helium atom, or even empty space, at a point is simply the difference in values of the relevant fields.This concept is definitely at the deep-end and is certainly not "standard" - most working in particle physics don't spend much time thinking about the metric field, and many working in relativity don't spend that much time appreciating that the metric field can be viewed in very similar ways to the quantum fields. But it does tend to dawn eventually on those working in quantum gravity. The important point is that it stresses that distance/time intervals and tangible "stuff" are as physical/un-physical as each other, which is useful when the ill-informed start trying to claim that time is just a figment of the mind.

How does the expansion of the universe work in terms of the fields concept?Is there "more" of the field? Is there the same "amount" of the field just more "stretched"? Does any of this even make any sense?My ignorance is too substantial to phrase the question properly but I guess what I am asking is how the concept of a spacetime/metric field works in conjunction with expansion? What is happening to the field as expansion occurs?

I don't really know the answers to many of your questions. I've only been looking at this for a few months. I'm only at the stage of making statements that are as nebulous as possible, hoping something approaching reality will fall within my error bars, while still not being totally crap.I'm well aware of the fact that I don't have much of a clue, but ICANT's misconceptions are grand enough for even me to improve upon.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

Sort of the wrong way round: values in the metric field, those that represent distance between points in space, are getting larger as you increase T. We see this as expansion. So from our perspective, it would appear that the field must be stretching. But in reality, it is the field itself that gives us the concept of distance.I must stress that this is damn hard to visualise. Picture a finite number of points in space as marbles in a bag. There is no concept of distance or direction between them - they are just a random collection. But then consider a matrix of numbers that specify the distance and direction between each pair of marbles. The matrix and the marbles together give an abstract space of finite size. Now increase the values in the matrix by a fixed proportion. The space has suddenly expanded. The marbles are still loose in the bag, but by just changing the numbers, we have a larger space. And now add another matrix whose values represent the number of particles at each point(marble) and we have a toy marble Universe, with a metric field and a matter field

Hi Straggler, Straggler's addition of: "the universe had an uncaused "beginning" from "nothing".Is impossible as something can not come from nothing, and is not even a consideration.ICANT'S position is that the universe has always existed in some form.ORThe universe began to exist and has a cause for that existence. Message 8 I said: Message 24 I said in response to your "just is": Message 54 I said: Message 93 I asked you this question: Message 123 I asked you this question: Message 165 I asked you the question: Message 193 I stated: Message 212 You got heavy on your uncaused agenda and I made this statement in response: Message 258 I asked you: Message 262 I ask you: So you push your uncaused "beginning" from "nothing" all you want just remember it is "YOUR" uncaused idea not mine.Again the ICANT position is that the universe is infinite in all directions.ORThe universe began to exist.I will add.The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing.So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?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."

Hi Perdition, I was asking what determines the duration of those units of measure.
I answered the question. It is determined by a single rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. If you disagree please state disagreement. You say they come into existence at the same time the universe does.Are you saying the universe begins to exist? What if there was no material of any kind to build that box out of, then what? "If you have a universe"That brings us to the question.Is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?Message 270 If the universe was the first something it would be eternal.But if expansion is true such a universe as that would be cold, dark and dead. You didn't like the question asked that way. Well how about I change it to: Why did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Good question. But if something that did not exist began to exist then it is not infinite in all directions, only forward from the beginning to exist. Are you saying the universe began to exist?Message 271 I thought length, width, and height was units of measure that someone came up with so we could determine the size of physical things. Also volume so we could figure out how much a container could hold. Time. The units man has decided to use to tell us the duration of a baseball game, football game, day, week, month and year.So you are saying time and length are physical.Are they made of particles or waves?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."

Hi lyx2no, Is that the Standard Big Bang Theory? The three groups never agreed although 2 concluded the universe was not expanding.There are still scientist today who question the CMBR.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."

Hi greyseal, I always thought being ignorant was accepting whatever you was told. Without making sure it was correct before you accepted it.So no there are a lot of other reasons I choose not to accept the BBT as fact.You can find a few of them Here Nobody will talk about them except to say they have all been solved.With a little investigation that story line fails.Besides the BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.There has been a lot of time spent trying to prove how this happened. Hawking claimed to have proved that God was not necessary when the Hartly Hawking no boundary universe hypothesis was presented.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."

You are apparently of the opinion that because you've found a website that points out not flaws, but observations and facts that aren't (or at least weren't) answered by the big bang theory, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.That's pretty ignorant. I'm sorry, but I don't get why that's a problem, and I'm pretty certain some people who know a lot more than me have explained to you multiple times the objections you had making that statement. I really have no idea what you're talking about here, so I'll have to go look it up.I do know the pope sent Hawking a letter saying basically "don't try to use your math and science to peer further than the big bang, because that's god's territory".I also know that Hawking is an atheist, but that's besides the point.

Again I will stick to your definitions and terminology to expose your flawed internal logic. Your numerous misapprehensions of modern physics remain a largely unnecessary distraction. OK. And this you say you base on the observation that we have never witnessed "something from nothing". Now can you explain to me on what observational basis you choose one of these statements as obviously true whilst the other as obviously wrong? Do you have a vast array of examples of objects that are "eternal and infinite"? Do you have one example?Your entire argument remains an exercise in philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. We don't even need to touch on modern physics to expose this.

That's the length of time we have decided to call a "year" but even if the earth and sun exploded in a grand fashion, time would plod on with nary a blink. Sort of, the universe has existed for all of time, re forever...but ofrever is only 13.7 billion years long so far. Then the question of the length of the (nonexistent) box is moot at best, nonsensical at worst. Not necessarily. Unless you can constrain "eternal" to mean 13.7 billion years and counting. In normal usage, this is not what it means, so I guess I have to disagree with you here. That's the current projection for what will happen to this universe a long time in the future. We're just not to that point yet. I don't know. And I'm comfortable with that answer. Maybe it just did without any underlying rhyme or reason. Perhaps 'brane theory is correct, maybe there was a "cause" but there is no reason to believe there has to be. Just because causality is a consequence of being "inside" our universe, we have no reason to expect it's the same if you're not "inside" our universe. Only if "direction" you are including time. I took it to mean you thought something that began to exist couldn't go for infinity to the left, right, up, down, forward and backward. If you include time as a direction, then yeah, I guess you're right, it would only extend so far into the past. Tehn you're wrong. The inches, meters, liters, and gallons we use are arbitrary units we have devised, and could be considered human concepts, but length, volume, et al are intrinsic properties of something being physical. Whether we exist or not, whether we decide an inch is so long, or whether decide to call a unit of length of flomar and say it is the length of 500 hairs laid side by side, length still exists. They are not made of particles or waves. They are properties of being physical, they are not physical themselves. Is "red" physical? No, it is a property of something that reflects light in the 625-740 nm range. The light is physical, the reflecting material is physical, but the color is a property of those physical things.Likewise, the matter a box is made of is physical, but the length of that material is a property of the physical thing.This is pretty basic stuff. If you're having troubles here, I'm pretty sure you're a lost cause on the whole cosmology thing.