|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did the matter and energy come from? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The answer is quite simple. An external force which is not limited to the universe must have done-it. We have no scientific or logical alternatives here. Matter and space is being newly created everywhere and at all times: the universe is expanding. Well, you see, there is no evidence for an external force so no, it is not accurate to say 'must have done it'. Matter and space are not being created, space is expanding. Hope that helps.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Why would you link to a ministry webpage? You're a long way from home, Phat: this is the science side.....
it is basically illogical to assume that it would change without prompting. Got any evidence for that assertion? I'm not going to take anything as scientific when the thumbnail says "portrait of god" and the description says "Unlike creation, God is self-existent, uncaused, and independent."."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Of course there is evidence - and of the absolute kind. The science of cause and effect leaves no question of it; the absence of any other possibility - incumbent here, makes the premise of an external, precedent force one with no alternatives applying. Thus far, the only response has been it is not possible to prove a negative. This is jargon. The premise of a causefor a manifest effect [a universe] is hardly a negative - it is scientifically incumbent to prove an alternative; the cause factor remains with no alternatives.
quote: Here we go again - jargon. Please explain how something can expand, with a compounding acceleration, hormoniously in all directions, where there was no space and matter before?The universe is enlarging. IMHO, one possibility is that the matter possesses traits and attributes which are able to react to a command or directive; because it does not expand normally - like here on earth. Its like a war ship approaching the shores and laying paths for tanks to roll on; those paths are not self generating but subsequent to an external command. Science is antithetical to random.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Of course there is evidence - and of the absolute kind. Until you present this 'evidence' I can't really comment on it, can I?
Thus far, the only response has been it is not possible to prove a negative. This is jargon. If this is the case it will be easy for you to prove we have not been visited by aliens.
Please explain how something can expand, with a compounding acceleration, hormoniously in all directions, where there was no space and matter before? Imagine a ruler made of rubber. Stretch it lengthwise. Observe the inches notation. The more it is stretched, the bigger the spaces are between to increments. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
IMHO, one possibility is that the matter possesses traits and attributes which are able to react to a command or directive; So for you ideas to work we need a magician (your god) and a universe with properties that allow it to be affected by the magician's thoughts and desires? You did not think that one through, did you?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is evidence. The notion of a car appearing on Mars does not mean there is no car maker. Unless we also find some intelligent non-human car makers, the car and car maker stands. That's where its at. Its not aligned with proving a negative; instead its aligned with no disproof of a legitimate positive.
quote: There is no reason to believe in aliens - there is no such evidence for 15 Billion years in the known universe. Nor does this align with negating a causative factor for a manifest universe. A complexity cannot be the result of a random - and still remain as science.
quote: A definitive use-by date applies in your example; not to mention the rubber is clearly becoming rarer in density - iow, a transfer of matter is occuring, as opposed to new matter emerging.
quote: not for me, but for any measure of science. When the cause factor is negated - science goes out the window.
quote: You did not. I know about slight of hand casino science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
There is evidence. Then please present it. Thought experiments and cod philiosophy don not count.
There is no reason to believe in aliens - there is no such evidence for 15 Billion years in the known universe. Please prove this. You said not being able to prove a negative is jargon. Show me I'm wrong.
Nor does this align with negating a causative factor for a manifest universe. A complexity cannot be the result of a random - and still remain as science. Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you?
A definitive use-by date applies in your example; not to mention the rubber is clearly becoming rarer in density - iow, a transfer of matter is occuring, as opposed to new matter emerging. I'll try to explain this as it is an important point point: I was using an analogy. Space time is not really made of rubber. It is not really shaped like a ruler. Please read the following:
wiki writes: The metric expansion of space is the increase of distance between distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansionthat is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. In other words, the universe is not expanding "into" anything outside of itself, although a frequently used analogy is the expansion of the surface of an expanding rubber balloon. If this analogy is used, this surface should be seen as an intrinsic manifold. Now, follow this link and read it: Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia If there is a specific point you disagree with we can discuss it (and hope Cavediver or Son Guko happens by).
not for me, but for any measure of science. When the cause factor is negated - science goes out the window. I don't believe that this is tha case: please show me where and how science goes out out the window.
I know about slight of hand casino science. You suggest I'm trying to trick you? Sir, you wound me. I demand an apology, or satisfaction.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you? If you don't, then I will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi IamJoseph,
Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
If at one time, something was highly compressed and static, it is basically illogical to assume that it would change without prompting. It's difficult to know where to start with a statement like this because the number of misconceptions it holds is almost greater than the number of words making up the statement! This conjures up the image of a primeval egg, sat in in the middle of a great (infinite) arena of nothingness, waiting long aeons for the right moment to explode, filling the surrounding empty space with light and matter. There was no egg, there was no arena, there were no long aeons, there was no right moment and there was no explosion. In terms of understanding existence, physics has left pure ontology so far behind, that listening to talks such as this one is like listening to kids' playground chatter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
all I am basically asking is how nothing, by definition, can ever become something. I am aware that in the case of the universe, there has always been something. Even before time started, there had to be something to "work with"....right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
all I am basically asking is how nothing, by definition, can ever become something. It can't. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "nothing".
I am aware that in the case of the universe, there has always been something. Yep
Even before time started See what you did there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
As far as I'm aware ther cannot be (by definition) 'before' time started.
And perhaps 'nothing' is an impossible condition is this our universe. But I suppose Cavediver is correct. Unless one has firm grounding in the maths of this field (excuse the pun) we are like kids discussing sex in the playground. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
But I suppose Cavediver is correct. Unless one has firm grounding in the maths of this field (excuse the pun) we are like kids discussing sex in the playground. Just to be clear, I was refering to Phat's video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
But still, I was quite pleased with my analogy.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4451 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
You suggest I'm trying to trick you? Sir, you wound me. I demand an apology, or satisfaction. if you need a second I can make myself available...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024