Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 4:44 PM
403 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,365 Year: 16,971/21,208 Month: 2,860/3,593 Week: 327/646 Day: 90/115 Hour: 2/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 316 of 357 (641255)
11-18-2011 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 4:07 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 4:07 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:47 AM Larni has responded

    
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 317 of 357 (641256)
11-18-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Phat
11-18-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Phat, posted 11-18-2011 2:49 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 318 of 357 (641258)
11-18-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Larni
11-18-2011 8:33 AM


quote:

Well, you see, there is no evidence for an external force so no, it is not accurate to say 'must have done it'.


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:

Matter and space are not being created, space is expanding.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 8:33 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 9:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 319 of 357 (641264)
11-18-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 8:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 8:47 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:45 AM Larni has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1113 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 320 of 357 (641267)
11-18-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Larni
11-18-2011 9:31 AM


quote:

Of course there is evidence - and of the absolute kind.

Until you present this 'evidence' I can't really comment on it, can I?


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:

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.


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:

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?


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:

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?


not for me, but for any measure of science. When the cause factor is negated - science goes out the window.

quote:

You did not think that one through, did you?

You did not. I know about slight of hand casino science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 9:31 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 10:30 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 323 by Admin, posted 11-18-2011 1:01 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 321 of 357 (641270)
11-18-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 9:45 AM


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 expansion—that 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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:45 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2011 12:51 PM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 330 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-19-2011 10:06 PM Larni has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9658
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 322 of 357 (641289)
11-18-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Larni
11-18-2011 10:30 AM


Can I put this in my sig and attribute it to you?

If you don't, then I will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 10:30 AM Larni has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 323 of 357 (641295)
11-18-2011 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by IamJoseph
11-18-2011 9:45 AM


Moderator Request
Hi IamJoseph,

Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by IamJoseph, posted 11-18-2011 9:45 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(4)
Message 324 of 357 (641428)
11-19-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Phat
11-18-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Phat, posted 11-18-2011 2:49 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9435
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 325 of 357 (641473)
11-19-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Larni
11-18-2011 8:28 AM


Re: Plausible explanation
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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 8:28 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2011 6:24 PM Phat has responded
 Message 327 by Larni, posted 11-19-2011 6:35 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 326 of 357 (641497)
11-19-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Phat
11-19-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Phat, posted 11-19-2011 4:31 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Phat, posted 11-20-2011 5:40 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 327 of 357 (641500)
11-19-2011 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by Phat
11-19-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Phat, posted 11-19-2011 4:31 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2011 6:42 PM Larni has responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1088 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 328 of 357 (641503)
11-19-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by Larni
11-19-2011 6:35 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Larni, posted 11-19-2011 6:35 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Larni, posted 11-19-2011 6:55 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3942
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 329 of 357 (641504)
11-19-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by cavediver
11-19-2011 6:42 PM


Re: Plausible explanation
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by cavediver, posted 11-19-2011 6:42 PM cavediver has not yet responded

    
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 1867 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 330 of 357 (641514)
11-19-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Larni
11-18-2011 10:30 AM


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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Larni, posted 11-18-2011 10:30 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Larni, posted 11-20-2011 6:41 AM Butterflytyrant has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017