Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 5:58 AM
200 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
62NextFF
Author Topic:   Creation
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 661 of 919 (831872)
04-25-2018 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 660 by ICANT
04-25-2018 3:55 PM


Re: Bible
Physics is a study of matter and energy.

The Bible is a study of matter and energy.

A) A better summary would be that the Bible is the story of the relationship between God and Man.

B) The Bible doesn't predict the paths of planets and light etc etc.

No Scientist or science book tells us how the universe began to exist nor how life began to exist.

The Bible tells us how the universe began to exist and how life began to exist.

The Bible doesn't tell us how, it just tells us that God was responsible.

Physics does not predict anything. It only tells us what has happened, and the course of things because of what has happened in the past.

Telling us the course of things is the long way of saying 'predicting'.

What if those assumptions are not true?

Then they are false. That's how science works. You make assumptions and then compare the consequences of those assumptions to what we see. There are assumptions made in building the computer you wrote this on, in building the cars we use to travel, the watches we tell the time by, in fact behind all technology.


What you believe is based on assumptions but you do not want me to believe in the facts delivered to Moses during his 80 day visit with God that he was told to write in a book.

Assuming that Moses was given information by God, and assuming those facts are true and assuming those facts were recorded in a book and assuming those facts were never altered through the transmission of that book - either is not reflected by observations - or assert things which cannot be observed.

Time does not measure the distance between two events.

Yes, it does.

Distance is the length of space between two points.

Duration is the length of time between two points.

Time is made up of days, hours, minutes, and seconds are used to measure the duration between events that exist in eternity.
The measurement of days, hours, minutes, and seconds is relative. As they are determined by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.

Time has different units of measurement than space but that does not mean it is not a dimension.

The measurement of length is relative too.

The only kind of time we know of is that which is used to measure duration between events in eternity.

Length measures the distance in space.
Duration measures the distance in time.

A clock does not measure time.

Yes, it does. Just as a tape measure measures distance.

A clock is a mechanical device whether it has springs or uses the pulses of atoms to measure the duration between events in eternity.

A tape measure is a mechanical device to measure the distance between points in space.

Therefore time is a concept of man that he has invented to measure the distance (duration) between events.

Hours are a concept of man. Just as metres are.

Space and time are not concepts. They exist regardless of man's existence.

What kind of a statement is "Time is time"? What does that mean?

What kind of statement is 'time is imaginary time'? What does that mean?

Neither is imaginary something real..

Replace 'imaginary' with 'complex'. We use complex numbers in many things - from building aeroplanes to computers and more.

Yes Hawking had a notion with which he created imaginary time which runs vertical This imaginary time had to exist in which the pin point sized universe existed to make it possible for the BBT to work.

Hawking didn't create imaginary time. He had the notion that there is a thing called imaginary time which is where the dimension of time is spacelike.

Otherwise the universe had to begin to exist out of non-existence. So he was trying to do away with the need of a first cause.

Hawking could have been wrong AND the universe does not have to begin out of non-existence. Hawking's idea just presents a way to resolve the existence of a singularity in the equations.

Hawking had this to say about the beginning of the universe.

Yes, I'm not disputing it. As he says:

quote:
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.
...
The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge.

That is what I mean when I said "makes the idea of a beginning to exist more incoherent." Just because one can say the universe had a beginning - it doesn't mean there was a time when the universe didn't exist and a period where it was 'beginning to exist'. It exists through all time, its just that time is finite in at least one direction...as Hawking puts it - there may be no boundary condition - no beginning to exist. A beginning but not a beginning to exist.

But the universe does not expand in a horizontal direction from a single point.

Correct. It's a diagram. Imagine you were going walk from the north pole to the equator. And you were going to graph the length of a line of longitude (ie., east-west). At the north pole, there is no East and West. So you start with a point - a zero value. As you travel south, your measurements of the length of longitude increases. The longitude lines are the circumference of a circle cross-section. For whatever reason, you decide to record the diameter of that circle rather than circumference.

You represent on your graph two points - the distance between them is the diameter at that given point on your journey south. Every 70 miles you take a measurement and you record them in your graph, with each 70 miles on the y axis and the up-down (x-axis) having the two points representing the diameter. As you approach the equator the diameter of your circle increases. Your graph looks like this:

Draw a line between the points. You get a trianglular shape. The earth is not a triangle, but we all know that. It's still a reasonable diagram for how the earth is a sphere - 'bulging' out - becoming 'thicker' as you travel south.

That's a reasonable analogy to the diagram you are complaining about.

Expansion requires that space between quarks that existed in the pin point sized universe expand. That would make the pin point spread in all directions which would best be represented as a sphere.

The problem comes when you need to represent time. Like the triangular earth diagram above you can't just draw a circle and say that represents longitude, because it changes depending on your latitude. To represent that change through latitude you draw a triangle where the points diverge.

Drawing a sphere that gets smaller through time (ie., a 4D cone) is complex and doesn't serve as an educational tool explaining how things change over time by simplifying the 3d space as a 2d circle (or sometimes a 1d line) so as to make the fourth dimension clearer.

See how difficult it is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ia/File:Spherical_cone_lines.png

That is hardly illuminating to a layman.

By projecting the 4d object into a 2d one may lose precision, much like projecting the 3d globe onto a 2d map...it's a useful method for many purposes.

Why would that be hard to understand?

You seem to be having difficulty. Here is one of the diagrams you are having difficulty with:

Here is a projection of a hypercube:

Now as you can see they are different shapes since the universes expansion was significant earlier but the point being that they do represent things as a spherical hypercone of sorts and you are still having trouble with it.

Using a more precise representation rather than a simple projection would end up like this:

Which seems more difficult to understand to me.

I have been told in the past that the universe is like a balloon with dots on it or a cake with raisins in it and the space grows between the raisins as the cake rises and as the balloon as it is filled with air.

So draw me a single picture of a balloon inflating that simultaneously represents its initial condition and smoothly represent every state it takes between that and being fully inflated.

And that's easier than doing the same for a baking cake. So show me how easy it is to draw as a single static image.

But the universe does have a center which everything in the universe is moving away from as that is the point expansion began, according to the BBT.

Actually no. There is no centre. Every point in space sees everything expanding away from that point 'as if' it were the centre.

Then what existed at T=0?

All the energy that exists in the universe.

General relativity breaks down and the math can not give any data of what existed at T=0.

It makes no sense to describe the state of that energy. How can describe the distance between two quanta of energy when there is no distance? That's the nature of the problem.

Therefore there is no data at or past T=0. That means no know facts. Without facts all you have is a notion or belief.

That makes my belief just as factual as your belief.

But I don't have a belief about the state of the universe at T=0.

Actually I have a book that tells me how the things at T=0 began to exist. That same book makes thousands of predictions that have been proven by scientific methods over the past 200 years.

If so it has also made thousands of predictions that have been proven false and can only be thought of as being proven true by altering the interpretation of the book.

But what is the scientific explanation of how the oil got to be 5 miles deep in the earth, where it is under 22,000 psi.

Sediments - where other areas of land where eroded, were washed or blown over the dead things. Lava flowed over those. More sediment was deposited on the lava flows, etc etc etc - Geological rock formation occurred basically.

There are those who wrote in the hundred years BC and many years following the birth of Christ that there had been many worlds that had been destroyed. Where did they get those ideas from?

Imagination.

I believe that the earth was smaller in the past and was covered with vegetation and animals that was covered with overburden material in which there was more vegetation and animals who lived and died and was also covered with overburden. This process continued until the original matter that produced our oil was covered with 5 miles of overburden. This would have taken an enormous amount of duration.

Your beliefs don't produce results. If we assume geological facts, this explains why oil is not uniformly distributed under the earth and we can use it to predict where we might find more oil. There are people paid a lot of money to do this - because it works and makes people even more money.

Nobody makes money by finding oil assuming the earth is growing as you describe. Because it doesn't work. Likely because it isn't true.

The only facts you have concerning the early conditions are:
There was a period of extreme light evidenced by the CMBR.

Do you have anything to add?

Yes - relativity helps us go beyond that. And it has been proven time and again to be an accurate way to describe the universe.

But that does away with the BBT, which requires that the universe have a beginning to exist.

No it doesn't do away with BBT. It incorporates the big bang theory by positing the universe that began to exist at the big bang is embedded in a larger entity sometimes called 'braneworld'.

Which would require the universe to be eternal, which would mean that notion would be in deep trouble.

Nope. It wouldn't. Time can be finite in this model.

Nothing is traveling through space as space is what is expanding.

It is unlikely the quarks are not moving through space. But if we want to imagine such a scenario fair enough. It makes no difference to what I was saying.

You are confusing time with duration.

No. Time is a dimension. Duration is its measure.
Length is a dimension. Distance is its measure.

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Which is that mankind invented a way to measure duration between events in existence (rather than using eternity).

Good. Time is as manmade as space. Eternity is clearly not a measurement so that part is nonsensical.

Again you are confusing duration with time which is a way of measuring duration.

No you are. Duration is a measurement of time. It measures how much time there is between two events.

"How long will this take?"
"An hour"

An hour is a period of duration. It describe how much time passes between the start and end of some specified period.

"How long is this piece of string?"
"1 metre"

His alternative was just a notion he had that could have been used to do away with the universe having a beginning to exist. The problem with that notion is that you would still run into the problem created by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which would be Thermal Equilibrium.

His notion is that the Big Bang was not the beginning -not that there was none.

But thermodynamics takes place in duration which is measured by mans invention called time.

Thermodynamics does indeed take place in time, which is measured by mans invention called seconds / hours.

But it is directional. That's the starting point as to why an arrow of directionality seems to exist in time

Are you telling me that duration can not be measured as time can only go in one direction? That sounds silly.

No, I'm telling you that explanations of the arrow of time are typically related to the directionality of thermodynamics (in short, that entropy increases).

Are you saying then that since the universe is not expanding into empty space that the universe is not expanding.

No. I'm saying it is expanding, but not into empty space.

If the universe don't have something to expand into, then it is not expanding.

That is not necessarily true.

He may be anonymous to you but he is not anonymous to me. Jesus tells me Moses wrote the Torah.

That some guy says some other guy wrote something doesn't make it not anonymous. It is an attribution by a third party. Believe what you like.

I have just as much evidence for my belief as you have for yours.

No. You have a book. I have experimental results.

I have Biblical evidence for a light period in the universe of undetermined duration which is equal to the CMBR.

Show me the calculation, derived from that Bible, that gives a value for the temperature of the CMBR and that this matches observation...then we'd have something to discuss.

You are always talking about theories making predictions being evidence for your scientific views.

The same would hold true for the predictions of the Bible that has been proven to be fact by science.

The predictions in the Bible are not reliable - and indeed they don't predict how colliding particles will behave and at the same time, how the planet mercury behaves, and how light behaves, and how gravity behaves and....

So they aren't comparable in the way you are trying to present.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 660 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2018 3:55 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 662 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2018 2:17 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 670 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2018 7:09 PM Modulous has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 662 of 919 (831929)
04-27-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Modulous
04-25-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Bible
Modulous writes:


The predictions in the Bible are not reliable - and indeed they don't predict how colliding particles will behave and at the same time, how the planet mercury behaves, and how light behaves, and how gravity behaves and....

So they aren't comparable in the way you are trying to present.

Wow. So much written to explain what ought to be obvious. Perhaps this exchange, lifted from an old physics thread, will illustrate the difficulty you are facing:

Rahvin writes:

Your math is based on Newtonian mechanics.

ICANT writes:

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication.

Perhaps a little empathy is in order?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 5:37 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 663 by ringo, posted 04-28-2018 12:01 PM NoNukes has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 663 of 919 (831989)
04-28-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 662 by NoNukes
04-27-2018 2:17 PM


Re: Bible
NoNukes writes:

Perhaps a little empathy is in order?


We should all remember how dopey we were in sixth grade?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 662 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2018 2:17 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 667 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2018 7:37 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1690
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 664 of 919 (831993)
04-28-2018 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 656 by ICANT
04-25-2018 2:33 AM


Re: Bible
ICANT writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Can you give an example of time being rewound?

The Twin Paradox rewinds it for one twin. Because it is said the closer you get to the speed of light the slower times goes and when you go faster than the speed of light you will go back in time.

But then I may be misunderstanding those statements that have been made on this site.

You have a strange definition of "rewind." You seem to think that going slower and going in reverse are the same thing.

Who says "when you go faster than the speed of light you will go back in time?"

ICANT writes:

But then I may be misunderstanding those statements that have been made on this site.

True.

ICANT writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

Time is a feature of the Universe "discovered by humans." We ""invented" a way to measure the duration between events. I have no idea why you added "in eternity."

If time is a feature of the universe explain exactly what it is.

I can't explain "exactly" what it is, but I think there are physicists who can. It's likely I would not understand their explanation, but I am convinced that the term "spacetime" is an accurate description of a feature of our Universe.

ICANT writes:

How do you measure duration between events? A stop watch, clocks of different kinds. Those clocks, however they are tuned are based upon the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.

I have no idea what this has to do with whether time is a feature of the Universe or not.

ICANT writes:

Existence has to be eternal as existence could not have a beginning to exist from non-existence. Existence has duration between events continually.

So, you continue to throw in stuff that is meaningless gibberish for some reason that I cannot fathom. The random spot in space cannot be seen from the far side of Saturn because it was red yesterday.

ICANT writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

We measure all 4 of these things with artificial scales that we invented, i.e. millimeters, meters, kilometers, days, hours, minutes, seconds.

Why did you add days, hours, minutes, and seconds in that sentence?

For the same reason I added millimeters, meters, kilometers, as examples of some of the measurement scales we have invented. We could just as easily use scales with higher frequency and that do not show signs of changing rates.

ICANT writes:

A period of light is called a day.
A period of light and a period of darkness is called a day.
The light, and dark periods are controlled by the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun.
Mankind divided that light period and dark period into 24 hours, of 60 minutes each, with 60 seconds each.

Really?

ICANT writes:

So my question is what exactly is the dimension you call time?

So my question is what exactly is the dimension you call space?

ICANT writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

So, are length, height, and width always the same directions or does it depend on their orientation relative to the observer?

If you take a 2 x 4 that is 96" long the 96" measurement will always be the same as will the 2" and 4" measurements.

You can change the orientation relative to yourself but the measurements will not change. But if you put the board in a wall the height is 96".lengths is 2" and width is 4".

If you put it down for a plate it will be 2" in height, 4" in width, and 96" in length.

So, are you saying the exact definition of the dimensions of space are measurements of height, width, and length?

ICANT writes:

But if time is a dimension you or at least someone should be able to tell me exactly what that dimension is.

No one has a problem with explaining what length, height, and width are as a dimension.

Ok, explain exactly what length is as a dimension in space and how can you be sure it is not width or height?

Have you ever heard of the "fabric of space?" Do you know what it is?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 656 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2018 2:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 665 of 919 (832088)
04-29-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Modulous
04-25-2018 2:59 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod

Mod writes:

It depicts the diameter of the sphere and how it changes over time.

The picture in question don't look like any sphere I have ever seen.

Mod writes:

To locate something in the universe you need 4 dimensions. For instance my wallet is 1 metre north of my cat. It is 2 metres east of my cat. It is 1 metre up from my cat. But that isn't sufficient because tomorrow my wallet and the cat have moved. So I also need to use a fourth dimension - time

If it is where you say it is I don't need to have time to tell me where it is. I only need the information of its present location.

Mod writes:

If you apply this idea to the mathematics of physics, you describe a reality that matches our own. If you don't - your model of reality is wrong.

By itself, time has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

We do not measure time. We do measure an object's frequency, speed, duration, etc. We compare motion to the tick of a clock. Some say that the universe is "timeless".

Mod writes:

'Eternal' and 'beginning to exist from non-existence' are not the only possibilities.

You changed my words.

I said existence has to either be eternal which means it has no beginning or ending.

Or existence had to have a beginning to exist.

I think you would agree that there is existence today.

If existence is not eternal, how did it begin to exist, if there was non-existence?

Mod writes:

What exactly is the dimension you call 'length'?

You ask a question and did not answer my question.

Never the less I will answer your question but I expect you to reply to my question.

The distance from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head is the length of your body in the prone position. It is measured with inches and feet.

Mod writes:

Unless the relative speed between you and the 2x4 varies significantly.

How do you propose to propel the 2 x 4 at a speed it would contract?

Mod writes:

Oh that's easy. The dimension that time is is time.

So how do you measure time?

Mod writes:

Go for it. Show me.

I have a cube that is 12 inches high, 12" wide, and 12" in length.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 658 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 2:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Phat, posted 04-29-2018 4:38 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 668 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2018 7:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10975
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 666 of 919 (832092)
04-29-2018 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 665 by ICANT
04-29-2018 4:23 PM


Time as an effective dimension
Mod writes:

To locate something in the universe you need 4 dimensions. For instance my wallet is 1 metre north of my cat. It is 2 metres east of my cat. It is 1 metre up from my cat. But that isn't sufficient because tomorrow my wallet and the cat have moved. So I also need to use a fourth dimension - time

At the time of the singularity, the wallet, cat, and cube were all very very close to one another. Thus, in the sense of expansion, time allows distance to form between objects. Right? (It also allows objects to have height, width, and depth)

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2018 4:23 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 669 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2018 11:55 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 667 of 919 (832098)
04-29-2018 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 663 by ringo
04-28-2018 12:01 PM


Re: Bible
We should all remember how dopey we were in sixth grade?

I suppose that's one lesson. I suspect that most of us also:

1. Had those particular math secrets (addition/subtraction/multiplication) down well before sixth grade.
2. Learned some more math beyond that level.

Maybe that would help us to be more understanding when reading the ridiculous stuff ICANT writes. He does not know any better.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 663 by ringo, posted 04-28-2018 12:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 668 of 919 (832099)
04-29-2018 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 665 by ICANT
04-29-2018 4:23 PM


Re: Bible
It depicts the diameter of the sphere and how it changes over time.

The picture in question don't look like any sphere I have ever seen.

It represents the diameter of the sphere, and how it changes over time.

If it is where you say it is I don't need to have time to tell me where it is. I only need the information of its present location.

Sure, if you want to know where it is at this present moment in time. Ie., 0 seconds away. But if you wanted to know where it was yesterday, 24 hours away - you'd have to specify that dimension.

'Eternal' and 'beginning to exist from non-existence' are not the only possibilities.
You changed my words.

I said existence has to either be eternal which means it has no beginning or ending.

Or existence had to have a beginning to exist.

I think you would agree that there is existence today.

If existence is not eternal, how did it begin to exist, if there was non-existence?

Not sure how I changed your words. I after said 'Eternal' as one possibility, you said 'eternal', you said 'how did it begin to exist, if there was non-existence' and I said 'beginning to exist from non-existence' So I guess I'll just repeat myself.

It might be the case that the universe is neither eternal nor had a beginning to exist from non-existence.

What exactly is the dimension you call 'length'?

The distance from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head is the length of your body in the prone position. It is measured with inches and feet.

And the distance from your birth to your death is the length of your life. It's measured in years and months.

So how do you measure time?

With a clock. I already answered this. You complained that the measurement device was mechanical, and I pointed out that measuring distances involves mechanical devices too. You aren't supposed to go back to the beginning - you are supposed to take into account what I've said and proceed from there. Otherwise...who am I kidding, you've not moved your argument 1 single inch over the last decade Message 152

quote:

The first is the idea of something appearing from nothing and the second is for that something to expand into 'the universe'. The latter is probably sloppy wording since obviously the universe cannot expand into the universe.
Think the universe is a four dimensional entity. We can refer to any part of the universe by giving a spatial and time dimension.
quote:
But now we are at the point there was something before the big bang.
Now we need to know where that something came from.


The Big Bang does not propose something coming from nothing.


I drew this diagram:

quote:


time space
0 .
...
.....
.......
.........
...........
.............
...............
now .................


And said

quote:
Imagine the universe as a collective whole, the past, the present and the future all in one four dimensional bundle of space time. Relativity gives us the tools to begin to describe this four dimensional universe. The first being that as you move in the positive direction of time, space itself expands (not simply the distance between distant things, but space ITSELF).

It's a wonderment you are still saying the same things, the same way - with little to no advancement whatsoever.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2018 4:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 669 of 919 (832480)
05-04-2018 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Phat
04-29-2018 4:38 PM


Re: Time as an effective dimension
Hi Phat

Phat writes:

At the time of the singularity, the wallet, cat, and cube were all very very close to one another. Thus, in the sense of expansion, time allows distance to form between objects. Right? (It also allows objects to have height, width, and depth)

Everything I can gather about the early universe is that at some point in the past the universe was all collected in an infinite energy mass with everything in the universe packed into the size of a pin point or pea.

Expansion of distance between each unit, that made up this entity began to take place. This expansion was faster than the speed of light.

There is a picture of the raisin bread expansion Here

If expansion took place as stated the universe is expanding in every direction at the same time.

That would mean that from the place of the pin point the universe would be expanding at the speed of light in one direction and the universe would be expanding in the opposite direction (180) at the speed of light. That would mean the universe is expanding at twice the speed of light

Since every galaxy in the universe should be moving away from us at 2 times the speed of light, expansion is a fantasy as Penrose says due to the fact we are on a collision course with andromeda.

The picture we are discussing shows the BB at the left end of a tubular object that gets larger the further it is away from the left end. That tubular object does not look like a sphere to me.

Mod insists that it shows the universe expanding in the form of a sphere.

The raisin cake expanding that I referenced above shows expansion as it is required for space to be expanding between objects in the early universe.

The word space is a misnomer as there is no such thing as space. There is no place in the universe that something does not exist.

Definition of space=1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied. Here

There is no place in the universe that is not occupied with energy, matter, dark matter, or dark energy.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by Phat, posted 04-29-2018 4:38 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Stile, posted 05-09-2018 1:12 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 670 of 919 (832508)
05-04-2018 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Modulous
04-25-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

B) The Bible doesn't predict the paths of planets and light etc etc.

But it does record the objects in the heavens move about in the universe, as it calls them wandering stars. It recorded this a long time before mankind observed that they did move around.

Science does not predict the paths of the planets. It does observe that they do move around which certifies that the Bible prediction is true.

Mod writes:

The Bible doesn't tell us how, it just tells us that God was responsible.

It does give a lot of the how. You just never looked for it, or accepted it.

Mod writes:

Telling us the course of things is the long way of saying 'predicting'.

Observations are not predicting.

Predicting is telling something is going to happen before there is knowledge of such an event.

Mod writes:

Time does not measure the distance between two events.

Yes, it does.

There is no distance between events unless you are talking about an event taking place in New York and Los Angeles.

If you are talking about the distance in the 100 yard dash from the start line to the finish line it is measured in yards. But if you want to measure the duration that lapses between the runner leaving the start line and crossing the finish line you measure that duration by a stop watch. Which uses minutes, seconds and hundredth's of a second.

Mod writes:

Distance is the length of space between two points.

Duration is the length of time between two points.

No mod you do not measure time with duration. Time as we know it is measured with what we call clocks.

Clocks can be used to measure the duration between events.
Duration=the lapsed duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". equals 1 second.

Mod writes:

Length measures the distance in space.
Duration measures the distance in time.

What numbers or scale is used to express duration?

Space does not exist.
Length measures the distance between objects in the universe.
Time measures duration between events.

Mod writes:

A clock is a mechanical device whether it has springs or uses the pulses of atoms to measure the duration between events in eternity.

A tape measure is a mechanical device to measure the distance between points in space.

Mod writes:

Space and time are not concepts. They exist regardless of man's existence.

Space does not exist as a concept or a reality.
Time only exists as a concept invented by mankind to measure duration.

The universe does exist whether man does or not.
Since there are events that take place in the universe and they do not all happen at once there is duration exists between those events whether man does or not.

Mod writes:

What kind of statement is 'time is imaginary time'? What does that mean?

Why should I answer your question when you did not answer my question?

Nevertheless, imaginary time is an invention of Hawking to have a place his instanton could exist.

Mod writes:

Replace 'imaginary' with 'complex'. We use complex numbers in many things - from building aeroplanes to computers and more.

Numbers are just that, numbers. Which are an invention of mankind.

Mod writes:

Hawking didn't create imaginary time. He had the notion that there is a thing called imaginary time which is where the dimension of time is spacelike.

Where did he get the notion if not his imagination?

Mod writes:

It exists through all time,

Since time as we know it has only existed a little over 6,000 years when God defined time in Genesis 1:5 the universe would be very young .

But the universe is not young it is very, very old. Much older than you even think.

Duration had no beginning to exist and does not cease to exist, duration is eternal. There are events in duration that we measure with instruments that we have decided determines the length of duration between these events in existence.

Mod writes:

That's a reasonable analogy to the diagram you are complaining about.

I am simply saying the tubular picture that gets bigger as we look from the left which represents the start to the right. Does not represent a sphere.

A sphere would be a circle in 2d.

Now in your example of a walk I could only see so far from my position on earth and I would only be able to draw a picture that would be a rectangle so wide and so long. There I would conclude the earth was flat, and rectangular shaped.

I don't have any difficulty with that picture.
It has a very bright point at which things begins to exist.
Then everything expands to the right in a tubular configuration.

That does not depict the universe expanding in every direction from a center point.

Mod writes:

Here is a projection of a hypercube:

The hypercube is worse yet.

Mod writes:

Which seems more difficult to understand to me.

Looks like a page where a 3 year old has been coloring.

Mod writes:

And that's easier than doing the same for a baking cake. So show me how easy it is to draw as a single static image.

Here is the cake.

Mod writes:

Actually no. There is no centre. Every point in space sees everything expanding away from that point 'as if' it were the centre.

The universe has a center.

Yes, makes no difference where you are in the universe everything is moving away from you. That is because what we call space is expanding between every object in the universe.

But this is only true if the BBT is true.

Mod writes:

All the energy that exists in the universe.

What data is that assertion based upon?

Mod writes:

It makes no sense to describe the state of that energy. How can describe the distance between two quanta of energy when there is no distance? That's the nature of the problem.

But General Relativity breaks down and the math does not work so it does not even determine that there is existence at T=0.

Mod writes:

If so it has also made thousands of predictions that have been proven false and can only be thought of as being proven true by altering the interpretation of the book.

Start a thread in which we can discuss all those predictions that are proven wrong.

Mod writes:

Sediments - where other areas of land where eroded, were washed or blown over the dead things. Lava flowed over those. More sediment was deposited on the lava flows, etc etc etc - Geological rock formation occurred basically.

Yes sediments produced the oil we have. But your description would cover surface oil and coal.

But I was asking what produced the oil that is found 5 miles deep in the earth. How did it get there?

Mod writes:

Imagination.

You credit those people with the ability to produce those thoughts with the primitive education and knowledge they had. I would say that they read where somebody had expressed those ideas by writing them down.

Mod writes:

Because it doesn't work

Was the earth created by accretion?
Definition of accretion. Here

If it was not created by accretion, then how was it created?

Mod writes:

Yes - relativity helps us go beyond that. And it has been proven time and again to be an accurate way to describe the universe.

Assertions is not evidence. Produce the evidence.

Mod writes:

No it doesn't do away with BBT. It incorporates the big bang theory by positing the universe that began to exist at the big bang is embedded in a larger entity sometimes called 'braneworld'.

Where can I find that definition of the BBT?

Mod writes:

Nope. It wouldn't. Time can be finite in this model.

Time is finite as it is a concept invented by mankind less than 6k years ago.

Duration is not finite because it is existence.

Mod writes:

It is unlikely the quarks are not moving through space. But if we want to imagine such a scenario fair enough. It makes no difference to what I was saying.

They would be moving in space but not through space.

Our sun is moving on its journey around the Milky Way at 45,000 miles per hr.

Our earth is rotating at 1,000 mph at the equator. It is also moving at 67,000 mph on its journey around the sun.

That would mean the earth is moving at 112,000 mph on its journey around the Milky Way.

But they never exit the Milky Way and head off into some other galaxy. They travel in space but not through space.

Mod writes:

No. Time is a dimension. Duration is its measure.
Length is a dimension. Distance is its measure.

What scale or numbers are used to represent duration to measure with?

What scale or numbers are used measure time with? Where did those numbers come from?

Mod writes:

Good. Time is as manmade as space. Eternity is clearly not a measurement so that part is nonsensical.

Definition of time.

quote:
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity
Here

Time is what is measured by a clock.

Definition of Eternity .

quote:
Eternity in common parlance is an infinitely long period of time. In classical philosophy, however, eternity is defined as what exists outside time while sempiternity is the concept that corresponds to the colloquial definition of eternity.

Eternity is an important concept in many religions, where the god or gods are said to endure eternally. Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic forms, immutability was considered essential.


Here

Literally duration is what takes place in eternity in which events take place.

Definition of duration. The time during which something exists or lasts. Here

So duration is the existence of something that we can measure with a clock, which we call time.

Mod writes:

No you are. Duration is a measurement of time. It measures how much time there is between two events.


Duration in the existence between events and what is measured by a clock which keeps time.

Mod writes:

"How long will this take?"
"An hour"


What is the this you are talking about? Apparently it is an event that takes place in duration and you are stating the length of the duration from the beginning of the event to end of the event.

An hour is a period of duration. It describe how much time passes between the start and end of some specified period of duration.

Mod writes:

"How long is this piece of string?" "1 metre"

Yes a piece of string would be measured in inches, feet, and yards. But that does not make time a dimension.

Mod writes:

His notion is that the Big Bang was not the beginning -not that there was none.

Are you saying that the second law of thermodynamics would be dissipated if there was a universe that existed that collapsed and then our universe came from that universe?

If so how far would the regression have to go before thermal equilibrium would have already been reached?

That is the problem with his notion.

Mod writes:

Thermodynamics does indeed take place in time, which is measured by mans invention called seconds / hours.

But it is directional. That's the starting point as to why an arrow of directionality seems to exist in time

It don't go north, south, east, west, or anywhere in between. It does advance in duration.

Mod writes:

That some guy says some other guy wrote something doesn't make it not anonymous. It is an attribution by a third party. Believe what you like.

Jesus was not just some guy, He was God in the flesh. He was there when Moses was listening to what He said to write in a book.

mod writes:

No. You have a book. I have experimental results.

And just what kind of information do you have concerning the beginning to exist of the universe or life?

You don't have any information must less experimental evidence.

Lets see, I would need to know length of the duration the universe was bathed in light without any darkness then how long darkness had been around and the rate of cooling before I could begin to put numbers together. And if I knew what the present observed temperature is I could put the numbers together to say what I wanted them to say. Shucks I could do that anyway. Numbers can be made to say anything you want them to say. Einstein proved that.

Mod writes:

The predictions in the Bible are not reliable - and indeed they don't predict how colliding particles will behave and at the same time, how the planet mercury behaves, and how light behaves, and how gravity behaves and....

All those things have been observed not predicted by anything.

But the Bible does tell why they behave as they do. They were ordered to do so from the beginning and continue to obey those orders today.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 5:37 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2018 9:02 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 672 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:05 PM ICANT has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 671 of 919 (832515)
05-04-2018 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by ICANT
05-04-2018 7:09 PM


Re: Bible
But it does record the objects in the heavens move about in the universe, as it calls them wandering stars. It recorded this a long time before mankind observed that they did move around.

So you are admitting to the lack of detail about the motion in the Bible. I simply don't understand your response to the points that have been raised. It is clear that you are satisfied with what is a huge lack of detail. Is there anything in the Bible that would even suggest the existence of galaxies other than our own? Why then pretend that the Bible is a science text unless you are talking about a scope that would not satisfy even a high school science student?

If I were to assume that your arguments were in good faith, I would be utterly baffled by what your point is.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2018 7:09 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 672 of 919 (832671)
05-07-2018 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 670 by ICANT
05-04-2018 7:09 PM


Re: Bible
But it does record the objects in the heavens move about in the universe, as it calls them wandering stars.

It mentions a few planets in an oblique fashion and observing things is kind of standard. Plenty of people have observed the planets. It doesn't call them wandering stars until the New Testament as far as I'm aware - and this is well after the Greeks gave them the name 'πλανήτης' - planetes.

Does it even tell us the morning star and the evening star are the same planet?

Science does not predict the paths of the planets.

It certainly does. That's how we send probes to them - by knowing where they'll be by the time our craft gets there.

It does observe that they do move around which certifies that the Bible prediction is true.

Saying 'the planets move around' is not a prediction. What we don't see in the Bible is any mention of any planet that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Nor does it provide us with any information as to why the perihelion of Mercury precesses the way it does. Given God had some influence in its creation, you'd think Neptune and Mercury would be discussed - that they are world's of rock and or gas, roughly equal in size to our own planet or even bigger. That the earth is essentially the same kind of thing as those planets or that the stars are the same kind of thing as the sun. But nope, no mention of this. It'd be an awesome thing to have put in there too.

Relativity gives us the answer to the Mercury problem.

It does give a lot of the how. You just never looked for it, or accepted it.

I only see the assertion that God did it and it involved him speaking.

I am simply saying the tubular picture that gets bigger as we look from the left which represents the start to the right. Does not represent a sphere.

And I'm agreeing and telling you it represents the changing diameter of a sphere. Since all the information you need to know about a sphere is its radius - it suffices perfectly well to only represent the diameter.

A sphere would be a circle in 2d.

3D.

If the sphere increases in size through time - then it would be a sort of hypercone in 4D.

{the hypercone} Looks like a page where a 3 year old has been coloring.

Yeah - so hardly informative to non mathematicians - and far from 'easy' as you claimed.

And that's easier than doing the same for a baking cake. So show me how easy it is to draw as a single static image.

Here is the cake.

That's not a static image.

The universe has a center.

Yes, makes no difference where you are in the universe everything is moving away from you. That is because what we call space is expanding between every object in the universe.

But this is only true if the BBT is true.

Nope, if the BBT is true then the universe does not have a centre. The big bang happened everywhere - not an explosion from some central point.

What data is that assertion based upon?

It is based upon the understanding that energy is neither created nor destroyed. All the energy in the universe has existed throughout the entire existence of the universe. There is nothing that would give rise to the energy not existing at some point, nor is there any indication that energy would suddenly appear. In the big bang theory - all the energy exists at T=0. The singularity problem is that there is also zero space in which to contain all this energy. The resolution seems to be the rejection of the existence of points in reality. That is, the universe never was at zero size - that points of zero dimensions can exist is a mathematical artefact rather than a physical reality. Thus the universe had some size, within which all the energy that exists in it today exists then.

Think of it like the difference between a cone as a mathematical/geometric shape, which narrows down to a single point. And a physical cone that has a sort 'rounding' off at the end. The mathematics of General Relativity describe the universe mathematically - and this results in a single point at T=0 like with a cone, or a triangle. But its likely that 'something else' is going on (and we know there is something else going on, quantum physics) and that this something else removes the singularity from the equations. At this point, it is not established how to do this - though there are theories being explored as we speak.

But General Relativity breaks down and the math does not work so it does not even determine that there is existence at T=0.

Sure, but General Relativity aint the only player. It gives us most of the picture, but not all of it. You cannot use General Relativity to say what the state of the energy at T=0 was.

Yes sediments produced the oil we have. But your description would cover surface oil and coal.

Of course, but you asked about the buried oil, not the surface stuff. The surface stuff is at the surface due to either erosion or geological uplift (such as mountains). I notice your theory about the earth getting bigger also does not explain surface oil or coal.

But I was asking what produced the oil that is found 5 miles deep in the earth. How did it get there?

As I said, it was buried - through volcanic lava flows or sedimentary deposits etc.

You credit those people with the ability to produce those thoughts with the primitive education and knowledge they had. I would say that they read where somebody had expressed those ideas by writing them down.

I was talking about the people that wrote them down, not the people that read what was written. Those people certainly did have the ability to produce those thoughts with the knowledge they had. They were as creative and intelligent as we are today.

Was the earth created by accretion?

Yes, a process that is basically not happening now. There is some material coming from space, but it is minimal compared with when the earth was being formed. And your theory still doesn't predict where oil will be found - whereas my theory does.

Assertions is not evidence. Produce the evidence.

I'm not going to give you all of cosmology and astrophysics here. It's too broad. Sorry.

Where can I find that definition of the BBT?

Did you try Google?
Well here is a paper on the subject

quote:
the collision of a brane universe and a vacuum bubble coming from the extra-dimension is utilized as a trigger of brane big-bang.

Or more accessible:

That is the problem with his notion.

Well you brought it up. We both agree it has problems.

Jesus was not just some guy, He was God in the flesh. He was there when Moses was listening to what He said to write in a book.

Yeah, but that's just what some guys said.

And just what kind of information do you have concerning the beginning to exist of the universe or life?

You don't have any information must less experimental evidence.

Well I don't assert there was such a thing as a 'beginning to exist' so I don't need to provide information on that.

Life is another topic entirely so let's not get into that here, but we have lots of information and experimental results on that.

Our experimental results to verify General Relativity to a sufficient degree for us to conclude the universe was once denser and that time is a dimension.

All those things have been observed not predicted by anything.

They were predicted, and then observed. In some cases the predictions were made decades before the equipment used to observe them was even designed...indeed the Large Hadron collider was built to test some of those predictions - notably the Higgs Boson, which was predicted to exist back in the 60s.

Which gives us confidence in the theories used to make the predictions

But the Bible does tell why they behave as they do. They were ordered to do so from the beginning and continue to obey those orders today.

Which is far too shallow. It does not tell us why they were ordered to do things in the specific way they were or how that happened - it just asserts it, in fact it barely even does that. It's nothing compared with what physics is digging at.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by ICANT, posted 05-04-2018 7:09 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2018 3:51 AM Modulous has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5878
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 673 of 919 (832686)
05-08-2018 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Modulous
05-07-2018 8:05 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod

Mod writes:

Saying 'the planets move around' is not a prediction

If someone says a specific thing happens before it is discovered wouldn't that be predicting?

Mod writes:

Relativity gives us the answer to the Mercury problem.

If you watched the video you posted you would have heard Sean say Relativity is wrong.

Mod writes:

I only see the assertion that God did it and it involved him speaking.

Have you ever read the first 4 chapters of Genesis?

Mod writes:

That's not a static image.

It is when it is not expanding.

Did you notice how the raisins moved apart as the cake expanded?
The cake expands in every direction.

That is what is said about the single point called the singularity is supposed to have done. But if expansion had occurred as presented there would be nothing in the universe but a bunch of quarks that would have been separated like the raisins in the cake.

Mod writes:

Sure, but General Relativity aint the only player. It gives us most of the picture, but not all of it. You cannot use General Relativity to say what the state of the energy at T=0 was.

But there is nothing that tells you T=0 existed. Unless you got some data I don't know anything about.

Mod writes:

Nope, if the BBT is true then the universe does not have a centre. The big bang happened everywhere - not an explosion from some central point.

Well I tried to talk about the point of the beginning of the universe to be 500 light years in diameter and cavediver assured me it was no larger that a pin point. Son Goku said a pea.

Now if that pea sized universe expanded like the cake with the raisins wherever that pea or point was would be the center of the universe with everything expanding in every direction from that point. That would mean that if you drew a straight line intersecting that point whatever was at the two ends of that line would be expanding from that point at the speed of light. As each would be expanding at the speed of light. That means that the 2 points at the ends of the line would be separating at twice the speed of light.

Mod writes:

It is based upon the understanding that energy is neither created nor destroyed. All the energy in the universe has existed throughout the entire existence of the universe. There is nothing that would give rise to the energy not existing at some point, nor is there any indication that energy would suddenly appear. In the big bang theory - all the energy exists at T=0. The singularity problem is that there is also zero space in which to contain all this energy. The resolution seems to be the rejection of the existence of points in reality. That is, the universe never was at zero size - that points of zero dimensions can exist is a mathematical artefact rather than a physical reality. Thus the universe had some size, within which all the energy that exists in it today exists then.

But all the energy and mass was contained in something the size of a pin point.

And yes energy cannot be created or destroyed. But there is a lot of matter in the universe. That matter had to be formed from the energy. They are interchangeable. But every time they are changed either way a certain amount of energy becomes unusable and will eventually reach thermal equilibrium.

If the universe was eternal in the past through one universe collapsing and then starting a new universe there would be nothing but a dead universe as it would have reached thermal equilibrium a long time ago.

That is the reason that the universe had to have a beginning to exist as it still exists today.

There is one other option but you will not like it.

There could be a source of pure energy that could infuse energy as needed into the universe. But that source would be God.

Mod writes:

Of course, but you asked about the buried oil, not the surface stuff. The surface stuff is at the surface due to either erosion or geological uplift (such as mountains). I notice your theory about the earth getting bigger also does not explain surface oil or coal.

Why would there not be oil at all kinds of levels in a earth that grew 10 miles in diameter. Actually it had to start as a speck, just one atom.

Mod writes:

As I said, it was buried - through volcanic lava flows or sedimentary deposits etc.

It would take some really high mountains to produce enough sedimentary deposits to bury matter up to 5+ miles deep in the earth.

The Deepwater Horizon is 35,055 feet deep 6.6 miles from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. It is under 30,923 feet, 5.85 miles of earth. And not quite a mile of water at 4,132 feet of water. The oil at the bottom of the well is under 30,000 to 40,000 psi.

Now you want me to believe that matter that produced the oil in that well got to the place it is at by being covered with 5+ miles of dirt and then another 4,132 feet of water.

That hole would have to have been almost as deep as the Mariana trench, 35,756 feet.

Mod writes:

I was talking about the people that wrote them down, not the people that read what was written. Those people certainly did have the ability to produce those thoughts with the knowledge they had. They were as creative and intelligent as we are today.

That being the case why didn't they have airplanes, rocket ships, atom bombs, cars, skyscrapers, TV, radio, telephone, computers, etc.

I really don't think they were as creative as we are today.

Mod writes:

whereas my theory does.

Explain it then.

If I remember my talks with a fellow named Morton that found oil for one of the big oil companies. They have equipment that the sound the earth with and when they get certain results back they can predict where in the area they have covered will produce oil. An underground sea of water has been found under china.

Mod writes:

quote:
the collision of a brane universe and a vacuum bubble coming from the extra-dimension is utilized as a trigger of brane big-bang.

But where did the extra-dimension come from or the vacuum bubble?

This has no more traction than Hawking's instanton. Which required a vacuum also.

Penrose says string theory where the branes come from is a fashion.

Mod writes:

Our experimental results to verify General Relativity to a sufficient degree for us to conclude the universe was once denser and that time is a dimension.

Sean Carroll said in the video GR was wrong. So why did you put him up to evidence for General Relativity?

Mod writes:

It does not tell us why they were ordered to do things in the specific way they were or how that happened

But it does tell us why they are ordered to do things.

First it was so ordered for the glory of God. So you could examine them and see His handy work and be amazed and have a puzzle to try and figure out. If He had given all the details a lot of people would be out of work today as they are trying to figure out why and how God created the universe as we see it today.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 672 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:05 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2018 9:52 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 674 of 919 (832703)
05-08-2018 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 673 by ICANT
05-08-2018 3:51 AM


Re: Bible
If someone says a specific thing happens before it is discovered wouldn't that be predicting?

Yes. But the Bible doesn't do that. The discovery that some stars are wanderers was made before the Biblical authors wrote it down. Even if you want to credit them with the observation - they discovered it, not predicted it.

They did not claim them as world's that orbited the sun just as earth is. That would have had a better claim to being a prediction.

If you watched the video you posted you would have heard Sean say Relativity is wrong.

He said nothing I and others haven't said before to you. But nevertheless Relativity does explain the precision of the perihelion of Mercury with remarkable accuracy.

Have you ever read the first 4 chapters of Genesis?

I've read the whole book. That's why I know it doesn't say how God did it.

It is {a static image} when it is not expanding.

Under which conditions it does not show the expansion.

That is what is said about the single point called the singularity is supposed to have done. But if expansion had occurred as presented there would be nothing in the universe but a bunch of quarks that would have been separated like the raisins in the cake.

There is a force in the universe that is not modelled in the cake - gravity. If the distribution is 'lumpy' then its possible that some of the material attracts one another in such a way to overcome the expansion.

Well I tried to talk about the point of the beginning of the universe to be 500 light years in diameter and cavediver assured me it was no larger that a pin point. Son Goku said a pea.

It's size changed quite rapidly. The difference in time between it being a pin point and it being pea sized is negligible for most purposes.

Now if that pea sized universe expanded like the cake with the raisins wherever that pea or point was would be the center of the universe with everything expanding in every direction from that point.

Nope. Everything expanded, there is no centre.

quote:
Today astronomers believe that there is no centre to the cosmos. You might think that there must be a central point after all, the Big Bang must have started somewhere? While great explosions of say, a bomb, do start from one point, the Big Bang that is believed to have created our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago was a different matter entirely and appeared to happen everywhere all at once time and space did not exist before the Big Bang and so there was no point from where it could have erupted from.

This does not mean that, if we were to see to the very edges of the Universe, that there would be more of it on one side of the Earth in comparison to the other. Imagine if you were small enough to stand on a balloon small enough to see in a straight line across the balloons surface. Youre not able to see into or out of the balloon and, no matter which direction you look, the end of the balloon seems to be at roughly the same distance from you. If you start moving across the balloons surface, it would appear that you were at the centre of it. The reality of the matter is, however, that your two-dimensional balloon does not have a centre.

Now, suppose your balloon is being inflated with air and covered with pen marks around you. As the balloon gets bigger and bigger, these pen marks get further and further away from you and each other no matter where you are it appears to you that you are at the centre of the expansion. Since space is curved, it is somewhat like the two-dimensional space on a balloon and just like there is no centre to its expansion there is no centre to the expansion of the Universe.


source

quote:
First, it's important to know that the big bang wasn't an explosion of matter into empty spaceit was the rapid expansion of space itself. This means that every single point in the universe appears to be at the center...In the beginning, the universe was a single point. Where was that? It was, and still is, everywhere.

source

quote:
The Big Bang happened everywhere at once. It's an expansion of space itself, not the expansion of things in space...We're right here, and we know where "here" is relative to other objects in the universe! But here is not special, like a center would be, and, for that matter, nowhere is special. That is like askingif we had a powerful telescope that could see all the way to the end of the universe, would we find more of the universe on one side of Earth than on the other? No. We would find that it looks the same in all directions...Like the surface of the balloon, there is no center in the universe.

soure

You can see some excellent diagrams here which explain it further.

There could be a source of pure energy that could infuse energy as needed into the universe. But that source would be God.

Or something else. It could be for example, a braneworld. You don't get to assert God is the only possible answer, sorry.

Why would there not be oil at all kinds of levels in a earth that grew 10 miles in diameter. Actually it had to start as a speck, just one atom.

Oil and coal needs pressure to form. Pressures that don't exist on the surface.

It would take some really high mountains to produce enough sedimentary deposits to bury matter up to 5+ miles deep in the earth.

All the land on the planet is open to being eroded and turned into sediment, not just mountains. Go visit some sand dunes during high winds to see it for yourself.

That hole would have to have been almost as deep as the Mariana trench, 35,756 feet.

You can read about the geology of the tiber oil field at your own leisure. Here is a paper that discusses it in some depth

quote:
The intercalated sand and mud deposits of units c and d are tentatively correlated with Late Pleistocene deposition derived from the western shelf-edge delta/depocenter of the Mississippi River, which was probably most active from 320 ka to 70 ka

The 'hole' also known as the Gulf of Mexico basin - formed due to continental forces.

quote:
Geologists and other Earth scientists agree in general that the present Gulf of Mexico basin originated in Late Triassic time as the result of rifting within Pangea.[11] The rifting was associated with zones of weakness within Pangea, including sutures where the Laurentia, South American, and African plates collided to create it. First, there was a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic phase of rifting during which rift valleys formed and filled with continental red beds. Second, as rifting progressed through Early and Middle Jurassic time, continental crust was stretched and thinned. This thinning created a broad zone of transitional crust, which displays modest and uneven thinning with block faulting, and a broad zone of uniformly thinned transitional crust, which is half the typical 40 kilometer thickness of normal continental crust. It was at this time that rifting first created a connection to the Pacific Ocean across central Mexico and later eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. This flooded the opening basin to create the Gulf of Mexico as an enclosed marginal sea. While the Gulf of Mexico was a restricted basin, the subsiding transitional crust was blanketed by the widespread deposition of Louann Salt and associated anhydrite evaporites. During the Late Jurassic, continued rifting widened the Gulf of Mexico and progressed to the point that sea-floor spreading and formation of oceanic crust occurred. At this point, sufficient circulation with the Atlantic Ocean was established that the deposition of Louann Salt ceased.[7][8][12][13]. Seafloor spreading stopped at the end of Jurassic time, about 145-150 million ears ago.

During the Late Jurassic through Early Cretaceous, the basin occupied by the Gulf of Mexico experienced a period of cooling and subsidence of the crust underlying it. The subsidence was the result of a combination of crustal stretching, cooling, and loading. Initially, the combination of crustal stretching and cooling caused about 57 km of tectonic subsidence of the central thin transitional and oceanic crust. Because subsidence occurred faster than sediment could fill it, the Gulf of Mexico expanded and deepened.[7][13][14]

Later, loading of the crust within the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent coastal plain by the accumulation of kilometers of sediments during the rest of the Mesozoic and all of the Cenozoic further depressed the underlying crust to its current position about 1020 km below sea level. Particularly during the Cenozoic, thick clastic wedges built out the continental shelf along the northwestern and northern margins of the Gulf of Mexico.[7][13][14]

To the east, the stable Florida platform was not covered by the sea until the latest Jurassic or the beginning of Cretaceous time. The Yucatn platform was emergent until the mid-Cretaceous. After both platforms were submerged, the formation of carbonates and evaporites has characterized the geologic history of these two stable areas. Most of the basin was rimmed during the Early Cretaceous by carbonate platforms, and its western flank was involved during the latest Cretaceous and early Paleogene periods in a compressive deformation episode, the Laramide Orogeny, which created the Sierra Madre Oriental of eastern Mexico.[15]


That being the case why didn't they have airplanes, rocket ships, atom bombs, cars, skyscrapers, TV, radio, telephone, computers, etc.

I really don't think they were as creative as we are today.

Good point! Clearly you are smarter and more creative than Isaac Newton who had none of those things!

But where did the extra-dimension come from or the vacuum bubble?

The extra dimension is eternal.

Penrose says string theory where the branes come from is a fashion.

Yes he does. So?

Sean Carroll said in the video GR was wrong. So why did you put him up to evidence for General Relativity?

I didn't. I put it forwards as evidence that cosmologists don't assert on the whole that the universe has a beginning to exist as you keep claiming. That there are many respectable ideas that involve an eternal universe. You unfortunately have problems with the more simple General Relativity - if you can't grasp that, going further is probably not going to work.

But it does tell us why they are ordered to do things.

First it was so ordered for the glory of God. So you could examine them and see His handy work and be amazed and have a puzzle to try and figure out.

But there's nothing in there to suggest why it is this way rather than some other amazing way that would also glorify God.

If He had given all the details a lot of people would be out of work today as they are trying to figure out why and how God created the universe as we see it today.

Hrm, clearly God is short sighted since the more we learn about his work the more we, on the whole, are persuaded he wasn't involved in it. So much for the glorification of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2018 3:51 AM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2018 2:26 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 675 of 919 (832721)
05-09-2018 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Modulous
05-08-2018 9:52 AM


Re: Bible
Yes. But the Bible doesn't do that. The discovery that some stars are wanderers was made before the Biblical authors wrote it down. Even if you want to credit them with the observation - they discovered it, not predicted it.

I am going to accuse you of politely holding back on stating the exact level of ridicule we should have for this idea ICANT espouses. While the nature of the planets and their orbits may not have been known exactly, the details available in the Bible are easily visible using a naked eye viewing of the sky over a period of no longer than a week or so. The claim that the description in the Bible is a prediction predating earthly knowledge is beyond silly. Almost certainly, human beings noticed the fact that a few of those lights, namely, the planets, moved across the background of the larger set of stars tens of thousands of years ago if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We might just as well say that the idea that water is wet is a Biblical prediction.

So, as you say, not a prediction, but an observation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2018 9:52 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
4344
45
4647
...
62NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018