Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Constraints of Design
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 79 of 84 (484027)
09-25-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
quote:
What "design"? What "infinite" force?
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
How is gravity infinite?
I guess you don't undertand design? Please read... Design
Designs have a purpose....Something that appears to have a purpose would be suggestive of design....
quote:
wiki writes:
In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
I would argue that gravity is one of the fundamental foces of the Universe, and as such has no more purpose than the color cyan (color, of course, being an expression of one of the other four fundamental forces of the Universe - electromagnetism). If your definition of the word "purpose" is so inclusive as to include gravity and color, I would question what precisely you would say does not have a purpose.
quote:
What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese. The fine tuning of the universe is positive evidence for design. Now I realze that you can argue against this, but it is still positive evidence and not an argument against anything.
The Universe is not finely tuned. It simply exists. Life is finely tuned to fit the Universe. You are a puddle who is foolishly insisting that the pothole it rests in must have been designed specifically for it, because it fits so well.
quote:
Again, what design?
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?
What purpose? How did you determine that the mind and consciousness have a purpose, as opposed to simply being emergent properties of our brains?
Or are you using that same definition of purpose that applies to everything? Again, I'd question what you would not define as designed.
quote:
I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...
So far, I would say that you are making the assertions, and you aren't looking too good...
I have backed up my claims....
cavediver is a physicist. When a physicist says you don't understand physics, it might be a good time to check yourself before you are revealed to be an idiot. Just a warning.
quote:
Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it? That is what the BBT says isn't it? But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
The infinities implicated at T=0 are what we call a "singularity," and are the very reason we say that our understanding of physics breaks down at that point.
quote:
wiki writes:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. BBT
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
No. In the case of the Big Bang, it is a finite amount of mass/energy contained in an infinitely small volume. Density is mass divided by volume; if volume is equal to 0, then even a single gram of mass would have infinite density. That doesn't mean there is infinite mass.
You're speculating based on far too little understanding of physics, and the results are not tied to reality. Energy cannot be infinite because of the Laws of Thermodynamics - there is not currently an infinite amount of energy, and matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so your concept of the implications of the Big Bang violates one of the best-tested laws in all of science (as matter/energy would need to be destroyed to result in finite matter/energy from infinite matter/energy). Do you really think physicists would so obviously contradict themseves?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
Don't be silly. The density of matter does not imply an infinitely strong gravitational field. Take for example a micro-black hole created by the LHC. If it was made by the collision of two protons, what would the mass of the black hole be? The same as the starting mass - that of two protons. Its gravitational field would be the same as that generated by two protons. Its event horizon would (as I understand it) be smaller than a single Planck length. At such a scale the gravity generated by the black hole would be insufficient to overpower the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces holding together the matter around it.
Similarly, if our Sun was to collapse into a black hole tomorrow (impossible, but it still serves as a demonstration), the gravitational pull of the resulting black hole would be the same - gravity is a function of mass, and no mass has been gained. The Sun would now be much smaller and more dense, and light approaching too closely would be unable to escape, but the same stable orbits would remain for the Earth and other planets.
Black holes are not what they are shown to be on television.
quote:
wiki on singularity writes:
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite.
Because the mass density approaches the infinite. Again, this is because the original stellar mass is now compressed into a near-infinitely small volume. The total gravitational effect of a black hole is no greater than the mass of teh matter that comprises it.
BBT doesn't imply that something was created from nothing does it? No, BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
The Big Bang doesn't say anything about how the Universe was created. It's a model of teh expansion of the Unvierse with the observation that the spacial dimensions of height, width and length all approach 0 as time approaches 0. This has a number of consequences, such as increasing mass/energy density approaching T=0. It says nothing about how the Universe itself came to exist. The Big Bang model has nothing to say regarding any sort of "before" T=0 in exactly the same way a cartographer has nothing to say regarding anything farther North than the North Pole.
quote:
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc2 does not stand for matter...
No the m stands for mass, which all matter has. And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
Energy has mass as well. And "created" is a very poor choice of words. "Converted from" is a much more accurate choice. Matter and energy are equivalent. It's all the same "stuff" in different forms, much like ice and water vapor are all water in different phases.
So where may I ask is the rubbish? Please be specific this time, and try and type more that just a few comments. Arguments have premises. You haven't created any yet.
I've noted several of your misunderstandings. I'm certain cavediver will do more. Your understanding of physics is relatively weak.

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