Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 4:32 AM
420 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 419 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,997 Year: 6,603/21,208 Month: 2,364/2,634 Week: 27/525 Day: 2/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 226 of 305 (666347)
06-26-2012 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by zaius137
06-25-2012 2:01 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
My friend, Carmeli cosmology may be slightly more reasonable than the orthodox big bunk one but unfortunately it seems to incorporate the same fallacies.
Space may be an abstraction, a relation of things, a concept, a system of coordinates and so on. It is not a relative body in motion. It cannot have a velocity, accelerate, expand, contract and so on. Only objects can do all that. Neither the Universe can. The Universe is an idea signifying all that exists. It's not a pair of washed knickers. It cannot possibly expand, have an age, size, shape and so on. Ascribing such attributes to abstract notions is committing a grave fallacy of reification.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by zaius137, posted 06-25-2012 2:01 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 06-26-2012 11:53 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1064 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 227 of 305 (666354)
06-26-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 9:58 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

The Universe is an idea signifying all that exists.


If the universe only exists in my mind (i.e. it is just an idea) then why the fuck would I put a babbling idiot like you in it?

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:58 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 12:36 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 241 by AdminModulous, posted 06-26-2012 2:12 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 228 of 305 (666355)
06-26-2012 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Panda
06-26-2012 11:53 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
The Universe is an ultimate, all-inclusive, collective idea of all objects that possibly exist, has existed and will have existed. It's an ultimate list of all lists used for reference. Objects that are on that list can have various attributes the list itself cannot exhibit being not an object.

If you pretend that shopping list is the shopping, fine, eat the words on list, babbling moron.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 06-26-2012 11:53 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11176
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 229 of 305 (666356)
06-26-2012 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 12:36 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Objects that are on that list can have various attributes the list itself cannot exhibit being not an object.

Who says the Universe ain't an object? Why can't it be the object that is all objects?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 12:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 230 of 305 (666358)
06-26-2012 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 8:18 AM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
To admin. There is no duplicate post. The text in the other is removed
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 8:18 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by fearandloathing, posted 06-26-2012 12:57 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 231 of 305 (666359)
06-26-2012 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 12:48 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics...
I sent admin a pm letting him know about a half hour ago. You both were editing about the same time, anyone who wants to see the msg for now can just hit peek.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 12:48 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 981 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 232 of 305 (666362)
06-26-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2012 12:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
So things that aren't objects are not part of the universe? Are your thoughts part of this universe? How about numbers, are they part of this universe?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:22 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 1:25 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 233 of 305 (666366)
06-26-2012 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2012 12:41 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Because an object may have another object or process acting causally upon it. The Universe may possibly not. To be such it may need to have shape and surface. To be finite, bounded and relative in other words. At a stretch you may call the Universe a process or rather the process of all processes yet still no causal action upon it is possible for it to qualify as an object. Even in this case such attributes as expansion, acceleration, contraction, end, size, age, origin and so on could be used in a strictly metaphorical sense only. Not to imply anything measurable and concrete like it is done in the creationist big bunk cosmogony based on the fallacy of reification.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 12:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 785
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 234 of 305 (666367)
06-26-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:08 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
To be such it may need to have shape and surface.

Shape, perhaps in a sense, but why surface ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:35 PM vimesey has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11176
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 235 of 305 (666368)
06-26-2012 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:08 PM


Abstraction only furthers the objectification.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 236 of 305 (666369)
06-26-2012 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
06-26-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Ideas are part of the Universe as attributes of objects and processes. They are what the objects or processes do, though process is also an idea of many objects interacting.
They cannot physically accelerate or expand. Lovers can accelerate into each other's arms and you can measure the velocity and the rest of physical parameters. Love like the universe is an idea so it can expand only in poetical speech, not physics. Not to increase its physical volume, etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 2:40 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11176
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 237 of 305 (666370)
06-26-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Bolder-dash
06-26-2012 1:01 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
So things that aren't objects are not part of the universe?

Nope. Doesn't follow.

ABE: I mean, your conclusion doesn't follow. Non-objects are a part of the universe too, even tho the universe contains all objects.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : reduced ambiguity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-26-2012 1:01 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 10188
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 305 (666372)
06-26-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 9:25 AM


Relativity Doesn't Violate Relativity (that would be silly)
AM writes:

Can you read?

I can. Can you grasp unintuitive physics concepts that seem at odds with common experience?

AM writes:

If there is no absolute time in big bunk cosmology what then the figure 13.7 billion years of the universal age means?

When we talk about "age" we are talking about the proper time along an object's world line. Please note this is not in any sense a form of absolute time. It is the coordinate time in the objects rest frame. Similarly, in the case of the universe as a whole, the "rest frame" would be any point at rest with respect to the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker metric coordinates. An observer moving relative to those coordinates since the beginning of the universe would have aged less than the universe.

In essence this is no different to the twins paradox except we are trying to treat the universe as an object in a way that defies common sense even more than most relativity "paradoxes".

AM writes:

So the big bunk cosmology has got nothing to do with relativity.

Except that it can be directly derived as a logical consequence of general relativity and then corresponding observations made to verify the theory as in accordance with reality. Which is of course how we test a theories accuracy as a descriptions of reality when applying the scientific method.......

Verifiable predictions. The measure of a theory to which no creationist ever has any answer.

AM writes:

It is a pre-copernican geocentric type of cosmogony in pseudo-modern disguise.

Tell us what your alternative hypothesis is and what verifiable predictions you are able to make using your hypothesis.

Tell us what exactly you mean by "universal time" in terms of different frames of reference and the FLRW metric.

Let's see what you have here......?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 9:25 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:06 PM Straggler has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1318 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 239 of 305 (666373)
06-26-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by vimesey
06-26-2012 1:21 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface. Without it no causal action is possible. You can't perform a causal action on a concept. Try to damage justice or love in a literal sense. You can only damage a lover or unjust to the accused.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:21 PM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by vimesey, posted 06-26-2012 1:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 785
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 240 of 305 (666377)
06-26-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein
06-26-2012 1:35 PM


Re: Big Bang violates physics
Physical objects are strictly 3D. Those have surface.

So, drilling down a little, we know from some very superficial physics that physical objects are made up of molecules, which are in turn made up of atoms. Looking at one of the most basic molecules, oxygen, there are countless numbers of pairs of oxygen atoms floating around us at the moment. Do those atoms have a surface ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 1:35 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 06-26-2012 3:41 PM vimesey has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017