Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,812 Year: 3,069/9,624 Month: 914/1,588 Week: 97/223 Day: 8/17 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Constraints of Design
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 25 of 84 (482747)
09-17-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ICANT
09-17-2008 4:34 PM


Re: Higgs
In the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and two charged component fields. One of those netural fields is the Higgs boson. This particle is massive as the other three fields are massless.
Why do you spend so long quoting technical phrases...
Now if this particle was responsible for everything we see and do not see it had to be all powerful without any limits or constraints to produce what it did.
only to demonstrate that you don't understand a single word of what you have written? "all powerful"??? "without any limits or constraints!"??? What the fuck are you talking about ICANT? The Higgs field is no more responsible for "everything" than electrons, photons, quarks, glouns, etc.
Why do you insist on spouting such gibberish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2008 4:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2008 10:00 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 30 of 84 (482809)
09-18-2008 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
09-17-2008 10:00 PM


Re: Higgs
Now if my understanding is so wrong. Would you please explain so that I can understand?
Your understanding is not so wrong. You don't have any understanding to begin with. You are just trying to sound clever by quoting names, theories, ideas, and decsriptions of very advanced topics way above graduate-level physics. You follow this with complete nonsense. I can't begin to correct your understanding, because there isn't any to work with.
"I found Hawking Turok instanton was described as a scalar field like the Higgs field."
You don't have the first clue what these words even mean. Prove me wrong by explaining what instanton means - in your own words...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2008 10:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2008 2:01 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 45 of 84 (482937)
09-19-2008 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
09-18-2008 2:01 PM


Re: Higgs
Instanton = a mathematical equation developed in physics as a method of calculating Feynman's integral.
The Instanton I have been referring to is the one proposed by Hawking Turok.
Hawking Turok Instanton = a mathematical equation that is a twist in matter and spacetime which has a fleeting existence in time.
This instanton does not exist within any thing, there is no before, and there is no outside to it.
It is a sort of elementary particle that lasts for an instant.
This instanton is the spark that ignites inflation
If you have this instanton, it will instantly turn into an inflating infinite universe.
Just in case anyone was wondering, this is a pile of crap - a collection of soundbites ranging from merely dubious to utterly stupid. Yet another example of ICANT trying to give credence to his views by quoting material of which he has no understanding. Not understanding this is not the issue - it is highly advanced theoretical physics, and I woudln't expect anyone outside the field to understand it. But ICANT dishonestly wields these quotations and half-truths to give false authority to his blathering. Pathetic.
Oh, I do have to ask (even though as per Admin's request you shouldn't be posting here), but who or what is this 'Hawking Turok'? It sounds like the bastard offspring of Stephen and Neil...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2008 2:01 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 55 of 84 (483136)
09-20-2008 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by bluescat48
09-20-2008 8:38 AM


Re: What I want to know
The article is fine
Oh bluescat, you crack me up...
I'm assuming by 'fine' what you mean is 'usual crank bullshit'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 09-20-2008 8:38 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 64 of 84 (483640)
09-23-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 1:46 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Uhhhh.....natural processes cannot produce a watch.
Of course they can - how else are there watches? What is it about a watchmaker that is not natural? Does God mystically imbue him with the ability to create watches? Given a naturally operating human, watches can be created quite naturally. Is it really the watch you claim cannot be created naturally or is it the human?
By the way - can natural processes produce something as complex as a star?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 1:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:31 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 70 of 84 (483667)
09-23-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid
09-23-2008 4:31 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Do you really want to use this argument? If so, then you have just declared that there is tons of evidence for intelligent design within nature.
Do you think so? Your criteria for evidence must be extraordinarily weak.
I'll give you the opportunity to rethink your argument and retract it or I will run with it.
No thanks - you just run along with it and be happy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-23-2008 4:31 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 74 of 84 (483832)
09-24-2008 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Prediction falsified!
The "design" of the non-material infinite force in the universe called gravity.
What "design"? What "infinite" force?
The design of all the "fundamentals" which are part of the anthropic principle.
What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".
The design of the mind and consciousness.
Again, what design?
These are just a few evidences in the natural universe that lead to a suggestion of an "all knowing" and "all design knowledge" God.
I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...
Gravity, therefore is a non-material infinite power source that science recognizes must have existed at the beginning.
Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".
If science can reason a non-material infinite power source
We don't.
We know for a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable.
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc2 does not stand for matter...
Matter is finite in quantity in the unverse. Gravity is infinite.
So, again, no.
You may want to stick just to screwing up the Law of Biogenesis. It doesn't look good to be clueless in so many fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 84 (484023)
09-25-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
Gravity is not an 'infinite' force - this is a meaningless statement. Curvature (all usual measures, though interestingly not Weyl) increases without bound as one approaches T=0 in a FRW universe (Big bang cosmology)
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions. While you're at it, where would this purpose show itself in the equations of General Relativity? Where would this purpose affect the metric exactly? Could we detect this purpose by detecting abberations from GR?
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese.
Yes, and you brought up the AP which is rather odd as it speaks directly against design (other than in its stronger versions, which are assertions, and not evidence.)
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions.
I have backed up my claims....
Sorry, I must have missed them
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it?
Perhaps a claim of your layman books... we would say it is a possibility.
But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
And? That would be a result of the infinite energy density And of course this is a purely classical claim...
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
No, why would it?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
Which measure of the gravitational field? R, RR, RR, CC? And more importantly, so what? How does this imply that
Gravity, therefore is a non-material infinite power source that science recognizes must have existed at the beginning
BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
No. That's like saying the Earth was created by something cold because it is cold at the North Pole. The initial singularity is just one point in the Universe - it is not a point of "creation".
If science can reason a non-material infinite power source
I think we do.
what have YOU to do with science?
AOkid writes:
We know for a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable.
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts.
And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
Ah, so you are retracting your previous claim? Or do you really think that this substantiates it Matter is not created from energy whatever your layman guide of the day states. Time to up the quality of your reading material... perhaps a bit of study, then come back?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-29-2008 1:05 PM cavediver 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