Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design == Human Design?
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 91 of 196 (561515)
05-21-2010 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by tesla
05-21-2010 12:50 AM


Re: The Big Swoosh
empirical data suggest otherwise.
Nonsense. Look, let's imagine for the sake of conversation that there was such a singularity. An ubersuperduper-a-zillion-times-uber black hole. And let's allow that that singularity was a person, with intents and purposes. Let's even allow it to contain within itself in some sense the nature of an enormous 3-headed being who dislikes masturbation.
Fine, so there it is, with its intents and purposes, its free will and perfect wisdom. What does it do?
Answer: Nothing. Nothing comes out of a black hole.
If Kirk ever does track down the real god, instead of these cheap imitations, him and Scotty are going to stick the old fellow in a black hole. And that's where he would stay. There's your singularity, it isn't heaven. Got it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by tesla, posted 05-21-2010 12:50 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 4:55 PM Iblis has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 92 of 196 (561606)
05-21-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by tesla
05-21-2010 12:32 AM


Re: sophistry
The first half of your argument is semantics
Yes, that is the flaw I'm attempting to point out. You're applying a colloquial meaning to a technical term.
or out of context quotes.
I don't think I took anything out of context. As you supplied the context in the post I was answering, how hard would it have been for you to show the contextual error I had made. You'd be doing me a favor.
If the physicists do not know, and are honorable enough to state that they do not know, why do you insist that they are saying otherwise?
I'm saying that the physicists are being foolish for ignoring the fact that point of time exists.
Strangely enough I've been getting a different idea of what you've been saying.
I've been getting the idea you've been saying physicists conclude that T=0 is inevitable.
Are you now saying they don't conclude T=0 is inevitable, for which they are foolish.
Are we having a language problem here? I try to guess what you intend, but could easily be coloring your statements with my own biases.
Are you saying that you agree with the physicists up to the point where they cede the problem, but that you are able take the next step?
If this is the case you can skip the explanations up to T=tp (Planck time: 5.3910-44) and get right to telling me how you surmount the singularity.
You also ignore: don't the solutions to the Einstein field equations say that space must either by contracting or expanding? Although this is not proof of the big bang theory, it supports the empirical evidence that space is expanding, no?
I ignore nothing. That space isn't static is so fundamental I'd assume we were past that point in the discussion.
Measurements that the universe is expanding supports the premise that Einstein's field equations are correct in being a good description of the universe.
Einstein's field equations are a description of a premise. The premise it that space looks the same to everyone, everywhere; i.e., the speed of light is the same constant to every observer.
The math is reliable. T=0 (your welcome), IS there.
But your own sources don't agree with you. They are foolish, remember?
Edited by lyx2no, : Submitted one line too soon.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by tesla, posted 05-21-2010 12:32 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:36 AM lyx2no has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 93 of 196 (561772)
05-23-2010 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by lyx2no
05-21-2010 8:30 PM


Re: sophistry
quote:
I've been getting the idea you've been saying physicists conclude that T=0 is inevitable.
Are you now saying they don't conclude T=0 is inevitable, for which they are foolish.
They agree T=0 is inevitable. The foolish part is they ignore what it signifies. But not all. There are plenty of advocates that base God a mathematical necessity.
Many in science agree, and believe, in God.
My folly has been in arguing with the ones in science who do not. But then, If i debate the truth with those who agree...wheres the debate?
The debate i have is with the empirical data the math explains. without empirical data math is useless. The math and the empirical data match.
However, there is empirical data that i have not seen any math to explain. But I'm not educated enough to have that data anyways.
I have not told any lies. nor came here to befuddle anyone's beliefs. i came here to debate the truth, for the truth. and ill trust the data because there is no argument against it that is supported by the evidence.
What are scientists to do? Teach us all the laws of science, and its math, and then say we can trust none of it? Good luck with funding THAT scientist. We can trust the data. So why not really examine it?
What happens at this debate site matters to very few. Its when i am in college that the debates here will have been an aid.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2010 8:30 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2010 11:57 AM tesla has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 196 (561789)
05-23-2010 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by tesla
05-23-2010 8:36 AM


Reticence
They agree T=0 is inevitable.
They agree that the maths are unable to carry them beyond T=tp. You claim that you can extrapolate beyond T=tp. Are physicists unfamiliar with extrapolation, or do they fear there be dragons?
The foolish part is they ignore what it signifies.
And what does it signify? That there be dragons? You do realize that most theoretical physicists are significantly over six years old, don't you?
But not all. There are plenty of advocates that base God a mathematical necessity. Many in science agree, and believe, in God.
So why don't they solve it? Is it because they can't get funding? The Templeton foundation won't kick over a few bucks so they can by buy larger sheets of graph paper.
The greatest challenge in 21st century cosmology
My folly has been in arguing with the ones in science who do not.
Your folly has been paranoia. Every theoretical physicist in every science institute and foundation in the world want their name on that Nobel Prize. There is no incentive to "not" and every incentive to "do".
The debate i have is with the empirical data the math explains.
Shirely, you've gotten this backwards.
Hear that, cavediver and son goku? Now just keep y'ur traps shut until we've built a collider with a 13.7 billion ly radius.
Are you out of your mind, tesla? (rhetoric) Your position is based entirely upon home grown extrapolation of Hubble's expansion run backwards. How about "Without empirical data home grown extrapolation is useless."
However, there is empirical data that i have not seen any math to explain.
Care to share, Sugar Bear? Not with me, I wouldn't understand it, but with the manufacture of arm chairs. La-Z-Boy would love to see their name on a Nobel too.
Look, you're just making stuff up.
I have not told any lies. nor came here to befuddle anyone's beliefs.
There are more ways to be wrong in heaven and earth then lying, Horatio.
And you befuddle on ones beliefs. You haven't actually said anything of significants yet. Nor likely will you. In such statements as "ill trust the data ", you don't have any data. You've got "The Universe was smaller in the past; therefore, it had to be zero at some point." That does not qualify as data.
What are scientists to do?
Ignore you.
So why not really examine it?
It has been examined and found to back up to a dead end. We all want to believe that just around the bend is a magical land of milk and honey. But if the history of science tells us anything there's another bend around the bend.
Its when i am in college that the debates here will have been an aid.
Leave your arm chair at home.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:36 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 4:48 PM lyx2no has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 95 of 196 (561801)
05-23-2010 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by lyx2no
05-23-2010 11:57 AM


Re: Reticence
quote:
They agree that the maths are unable to carry them beyond T=tp. You claim that you can extrapolate beyond T=tp. Are physicists unfamiliar with extrapolation, or do they fear there be dragons?
They agree the math offers no explanation because gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point.
The math still shows T=0 an inevitable point. nice research btw. Your self educating for the argument

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2010 11:57 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2010 5:14 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 96 of 196 (561804)
05-23-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Iblis
05-21-2010 1:02 AM


Re: The Big Swoosh
quote:
Nonsense. Look, let's imagine for the sake of conversation that there was such a singularity. An ubersuperduper-a-zillion-times-uber black hole. And let's allow that that singularity was a person, with intents and purposes. Let's even allow it to contain within itself in some sense the nature of an enormous 3-headed being who dislikes masturbation.
You are confusing religion with God.
If a model was formed based on the data i am suggesting the model suggests:
1: the energy of T=0 is the foundation of all things. All that exists and has reality; exists within that energy. because if the energy was destroyed, so would all that is based on it be destroyed.
2: the said theory is backed up by the data of expansion. Because: there is no area absent of energy, the universe must be expanding within an area of energy.
3: This data is backed up by the vacuum in space. Because: no negative pressure has been found to exist without containment within boundaries.
Even if you don't get it, the scientists here don't get it, Or; No one gets it; The data supports this model. Perhaps a couple years from now ill have the tools and education necessary to further show The model.
Edited by tesla, : typo etc.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Iblis, posted 05-21-2010 1:02 AM Iblis has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 196 (561806)
05-23-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by tesla
05-23-2010 4:48 PM


Re: Reticence
They agree the math offers no explanation because gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point.
You've got that backwards. Gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point because the math fails. Not the other way round. Gravity doesn't know the math.
The math still shows T=0 an inevitable point.
That this is in direct contradiction to your first sentence indicates that you don't know that maths and only maths get us to T=tp. There is no empirical evidence that allows you to bypass the maths and trust your eyes. You have no claim to "The model has to be wrong: we can see that bumble bees fly."
nice research btw.
You spelled "nice" wrong. Should be spelled "s-l-a-m d-u-n-k".

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 4:48 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:37 PM lyx2no has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 98 of 196 (561837)
05-23-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by lyx2no
05-23-2010 5:14 PM


Re: Reticence
quote:
You've got that backwards. Gravity cannot be explained earlier than that point because the math fails. Not the other way round. Gravity doesn't know the math.
Teaching and Learning STEM
T=0 is inevitable because its the start.
another words: " Einstein’s theory of special relativity changed all that. From it we learned that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means. This truth was so apparent to Einstein that he inserted a fudge factor into his theory to force the equations to reinstate the eternal universe.
Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other. The more distant the object the faster it was moving away. This indicated the universe was expanding. It took some effort on Hubble's part but Einstein became convinced of this evidence and removed the fudge factor from his theory. The result was the sobering conclusion that moving backward in time we eventually come to a point where time equals zero. At the moment T=0, matter and energy become compressed into zero dimensional space. Don't misunderstand that to mean a tiny speck floating in empty space. In fact space itself becomes infinitely small. "
-Quote from another science dude.
Edited by tesla, : added a quote.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by lyx2no, posted 05-23-2010 5:14 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by lyx2no, posted 05-24-2010 12:28 AM tesla has replied
 Message 100 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-24-2010 12:55 AM tesla has replied
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2010 9:37 AM tesla has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 99 of 196 (561865)
05-24-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by tesla
05-23-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Reticence
T=0 is inevitable because its the start.
We want to know that but we don't.
x=xo+vot+at2: Lovely equation this. It tells me that if I have a body with an initial position x0, and that body has an initial velocity v0, and that body experiences an acceleration a, then at time t it will be at position x. Works fine and dandy at vc-1=10-7. Do you think the Universe took the space shuttle to work? yeah, I know, c10-2 is pretty darn Newtonian, but I won't have impulse drive for my shuttle until I modify the quantum coupling capacitor to eliminate the standing wave at the junction of the power transfer grid and the EPS conduit.
You are assuming, most likely unwittingly, that time and gravity continue acting as they do right down to T=0. We don't know that they do and have reason to think they don't. If gravity decoupled form the other three forces it didn't exist before then. And if prior to T=tp time becomes asymptotic then time never began. It has always existed curled up in a little, roly-poly time dimension that didn't play well with our space dimensions.
another words: " Einstein’s theory of special relativity changed all that. From it we learned that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means. This truth was so apparent to Einstein that he inserted a fudge factor into his theory to force the equations to reinstate the eternal universe.
Edwin Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other. The more distant the object the faster it was moving away. This indicated the universe was expanding. It took some effort on Hubble's part but Einstein became convinced of this evidence and removed the fudge factor from his theory. The result was the sobering conclusion that moving backward in time we eventually come to a point where time equals zero. At the moment T=0, matter and energy become compressed into zero dimensional space. Don't misunderstand that to mean a tiny speck floating in empty space. In fact space itself becomes infinitely small. "
-Quote from another science dude.
Do you really think that theoretical physicists solve the great problems of cosmology by telling each other these quaint, little stories. That write-up was for the plebes like you and me. They don't think we're idiots. They know we're idiots.
As I said earlier:
quote:
But if one wishes to argue cosmology to the depth you are pretending to argue it here it behooves one not learn their physics from the popular press.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:37 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:33 PM lyx2no has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 100 of 196 (561869)
05-24-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by tesla
05-23-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Reticence
tesla writes:
-Quote from another science dude.
tesla, it is really a very bad idea to be coy when it comes to citing sources. It just adds to the annoyance among your readers, who will tend to lose interest in your posts and dwindle away.
I'm sorry to point out that, having googled for the source of your quotes, I disagree with your description. I'm assuming that Kevin Sluder is the author of those two paragraphs you just quoted (found here: Page not found) -- unless he himself is a plagiarist (which is a possibility, since copy/paste posting is rampant among religious web sites -- especially those that try to link laws of thermodynamics with Big Bang and evolution theories; I simply stopped looking after finding Sluder's material).
In any case, Sluder is obviously not a "science dude". He is a religious apologist who begins by asserting that the truth must be based on what the Bible says, and then straddles a fence between making up imaginative interpretations of scripture and cherry picking actual evidence -- just like every other religious apologist.
If you want to be scientific, you have to be willing to do the same thing with scripture that you do with any scientific text: recognize when it's wrong, don't assert that it's factual when the bulk of evidence contradicts what it says, and adopt a better description and a better understanding when the evidence warrants dismissal of the previous description and understanding. Why should it be so difficult to do this?
Edited by Otto Tellick, : (minor syntax repair)

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:37 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2010 9:10 AM Otto Tellick has not replied
 Message 104 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:25 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 101 of 196 (561899)
05-24-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Otto Tellick
05-24-2010 12:55 AM


Re: Reticence
Gee, you think maybe that is why he never gave the source. Classic lying fundie it looks like.
It still amazes me that people like this will resort to lies and distortions in order to rationalize their irrational beliefs. This seems to be the same attitude that makes the fundie christians the people that are more likely to advocate torture and other inhuman practices.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-24-2010 12:55 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 196 (561900)
05-24-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by tesla
05-23-2010 8:37 PM


Re: Reticence
The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before at least not by natural means.
You are right to say that it would defy credulity to assume the universe just came about without causation. After all nothing known in the universe has come about without causation. There is always cause and effect. However, defaulting to God is not necessarily the de facto answer in the absence of explanation. Anything imaginable is possible without clear evidence to support it or refute it.
For instance, the beginning of this universe with all of its laws could have come about during the death of another universe, of which we don't know its laws.
If you'll note that the prefix in universe means 1 (numeric), then consider the multiverse theory (many). The point is that because we don't know exactly what happened before the singularity or Planck's Time, an infinite regression takes place because of what is not known. God, though, in the absence of evidence is NOT a de facto position. You'd still have to account for evidence does favor the existence of God.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by tesla, posted 05-23-2010 8:37 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 103 of 196 (561929)
05-24-2010 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
05-24-2010 9:37 AM


Re: Reticence
quote:
You are right to say that it would defy credulity to assume the universe just came about without causation. After all nothing known in the universe has come about without causation. There is always cause and effect. However, defaulting to God is not necessarily the de facto answer in the absence of explanation. Anything imaginable is possible without clear evidence to support it or refute it.
I love your post.
I'm not "defaulting" to God. I'm simply recognizing evolution. In an evolving state; "before that" is a relevant question until you get to the start, which must be singular.
As far as multi-verse and other issues about the death of an old universe etc. Know this: Anything can be dreamed up. But what does what we know now say?
Let me propose this model to explain what we know :
T=0 is a singularity. The energy there cannot die, although definitely was modified. Because at T=0 existence IS. Its all there is.
Inside that energy our universe came into being. For a singularity to evolve, there are no other variables available to explain an evolution accept intelligence. a self directed act.
Get a piece of paper. label it "existence". Draw a small circle on it. label it "our known universe". now..draw whatever else you want to within that area of "existence". Because the possibilities become endless. All the data we currently have only really say's : This universe is contained within it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-24-2010 9:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 104 of 196 (561930)
05-24-2010 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Otto Tellick
05-24-2010 12:55 AM


Re: Reticence
quote:
tesla, it is really a very bad idea to be coy when it comes to citing sources. It just adds to the annoyance among your readers, who will tend to lose interest in your posts and dwindle away.
My apologies, I'll make sure i leave a source on future quotes. however, the data was correct. you can search further but the point is moot.
quote:
If you want to be scientific, you have to be willing to do the same thing with scripture that you do with any scientific text:
I haven't quoted any scripture. I found an easy explanation for what i was trying to relay. Not sure if your link is the place, but the information i quoted is whats relevant, not the source. Truth is Truth.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-24-2010 12:55 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 05-24-2010 1:32 PM tesla has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 105 of 196 (561932)
05-24-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by tesla
05-24-2010 1:25 PM


Re: Truth
Truth is Truth.
quote:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
From a CalTech website.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:25 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by tesla, posted 05-24-2010 1:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024