Universe Race

If I have ignored some point of evidence that you have put forward feel free to present it again I will rectify the issue. I suppose that is reason enough for behaving like a child. Might I suggest however not behaving like a child and make the attempt to prove your view? Thank you. I have made it a goal to become a diehard skeptic of anyones claims.

Hi tesla, any luck in getting anyone to buy into your assertions? Anyone at all? Apart from your personal incredulity what reason do you have to believe the above is correct? What you are in effect saying is that your god is required to build every snow flake: the question is why do you believe this?Now I know you will reply with nothing exist outside of energy and therefor god exist and it has been shown that your logic is fault.Remember this? No, tesla. You have (again) proved that your arguement is utter bollocks.

Hi Tesla,You're again putting your fingers in gear before understanding the topic. If you continue in this vein I *will* issue you another suspension.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

well the wine was good. the posting probably wasn't lol.larni,my friend, what is being ignored is the T=0 energy.at T=0 all the energy of the universe, all the energy of anything in existence, existed in a singular timeless state.thats what is being ignored. not that the energy is there, but what can be said of an energy in that form.massive amounts of matter, each with specific behaviors, even biological matter with a consciousness, all this spawned from that energy.in a singular state, with no outside interactions; an evolution was a act of itself, to evolve itself. it would have to be intelligent.thats what you, and everyone else is ignoring.do the math, you tell me how it would be possible; with no outside interactions.zero other energies. zero environment. only an energy. and nothing but that energy. in a timeless state that always was.do you hear me now?

---

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

Then perhaps you had better explain what you mean by the term 'energy'...

finally i was hoping to see you here.energy is a generic term.light is a product of, or is, energy.matter contains a conserved energy (nuclear reactions are a break down of an atom causing a release)this means all matter is conserved energy, (still energy)radiation is energy.when water spills down a waterfall, it is a powerful force, and sometimes called "energy" of water.but energy is like electricity. a transfer of substance or power between two forces.we see the effects of energy, but we can only see the energy indirectly, or the reaction given off from the act between two forces.the T=0 energy is a substance of free energy with no two points. we cannot view it(yet), but we know it is there because all is.the universe was created from and within this body of energy. when the energy became matter in the closed body of existence, an "apparent" space was formed between matter, and the production of the spaces became a vacuum because of the closed body that surrounds it, and the force of the pure energy when it pulled itself together via the strong force.the strong force is the same energy of T=0, like all the energy of the universe is from the same energy of t=0. when matter was produced, it became a gateway for energies to travel through.ie: kinetic force, speeds through matter. with constant striking, constant kinetic energy travels outward through matter. the strong force is the force utilized from and by the t=0 energy that hold matter together. gravity is just vibration or echo of the strong force in atoms reverberating through matter like kinetic energy, but towards the T=0 energy. the T=0 energy "calls" all matter back towards itself. but things of matter cannot pass through the matter back into the main body. the matter blocks it. but when matter is disassembled, it can flow back to the main body (if the main body allows it, which cannot be said either way with our limited understanding)your not getting this tho ill bet.did you read the paper analogy? and the balloon analogy?do you understand space folding back towards the T=0 body?to answer your question as easily as i can about energy: if there is no energy to measure, there is no substance. because all is, and is of substance, then it can only come from some "substance" (not matter, but a force with no outside forces, that was able to adapt its singular force, to become other forces that work within itself in harmony)just ask the questions my friend, i dont expect you to understand all of this this way, because its hard for me to put in words yet. but keep digging. and if your good at math you'll be able to see the truth in it.

---

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

Tesla.What I suggest is that you read 'The Fabric of the Cosmos' by Brian Greene and then come back here and tell us if you still believe the bullshit you insist on carting out on every sodding post you ever write.The Fabric of the Cosmos - WikipediaSorry for the tone.

TeslaPlease, you do the math and show it to us because the results of your math are not at all transparent.I have done the math and find that between T=10E-43 and T=dt that the Universe comprised of infinitely long telephone lines packed cheek to jowl with sparrows whistling the theme to Gilligan’s Island.You do the math to see if I’m not correct.Edited by lyx2no, : GrammerEdited by lyx2no, : I'm anal.Edited by lyx2no, : Missed the - sign.

string theory.larni..lol. ok. whatever.string theory is the most abused power of science in accepting unprovable, illogical, theory, just because they cant figure it out.what I'm proposing is based on all logic of reality, what reality means, and where this reality could come from by all observation of tested proven laws of science.ie: T=0 inevitable point in existence.t=0 must be energy because all energies came form it.timeless energy means no evolution as of yet in the state it would be in when timeless, which means singular. (singularity)singularity means all laws and math of science become irrelevant.therefore: only by what is now, can we say anything about what it is, or is not.energy can be chaotic, or ordered in appearance, but to become an established natural order such as our universe, with a large variety of complexities, from biological matter, to star systems; a singular energy with nothing else to react with to become such, with no other variables but itself, means it could only have the first evolution by direction.anyone i ask, that if i took a computers base atomic makeup, and put it in a box, and waited for 3 billion years, would the computer become a workable computer with no direction has said: nope. impossible odds. gives to much power to chance.so why does anyone think that an unchanged singular pure energy with no outside interactions, could become the complexity of an entire universe with no direction?its foolish.do the math.no direction: impossible odds.direction: 100% chance.think about it larni. its your life. your choice. but i wish to discuss expansion of the universe on this thread, and until you understand t=0, there's no hope to explain the expansion. because the expansion, and the vacuum of space are fully relevant and dependant on the T=0 energy.the paper analogy i gave you shows a body that has a certain density of its makeup: existence.when it becomes matter, it condenses that energy, which leaves the apparent "space" and the space is filled with the waves and radiation and other energies that flow freely between the space in the body, but like air, it is never empty. the space production created a vacuum because of the condensing being done inside of the body. the more matter produced, the greater the distances of the "space" thats your expansion.draw the circle in the paper in the center, which is the known universe, when it was just a dot on the paper, there was less matter, but a super condensed matter that expanded. more matter was produced, and the space grew larger that was/is in our "reality".black holes, i believe are not points of matter that drew together to form the hole, i believe it is points of matter production from the main body of existence, that when at a certain time or level, will go boom, and split apart. creating new galaxies.lets look at your own body larni for an example.you have a body that requires an atmosphere to hold it together. too light of atmosphere, your body expands, your ears pop. same concept. but the atmosphere of our bodies is the atmosphere of this planet. the atmosphere of our universe is the atmosphere of the T=0 energy, which is existence. because without that, nothing would be. it has no environment, it is the first environment. nothing outside it, and always was.this is what all science points to. you can test it, you can use relativity on it. you'll find the vacuum, you'll find the black holes. you'll find expansion. and you can make a mock model of this with water and water balloons.enclose a tank. and fill some balloons with different liquids. the heavier liquids will float lower in the water, some may sink all the way to the bottom, the ones with lighter liquids will float near the top, ones with air will float to the very top. but each addition regardless, will cause the area of the tank to expand.(if you didn't overfill the enclosed tank, in which case introduction will just increase the pressureif you could make a light vacuum, and fill balloons with different gasses, and introduce the balloons without destroying the vacuum in any way, i wonder how the balloons and the vacuum would react? the only problem with that being a true test, is that each addition of matter means a slight lessening of the area around the tank which contains the vacuum, so that the vacuum would retain the same level of vacuum at each introduction, because each introduction is an equal taking of the area outside the vacuum in which the matter comes from in equal measure.i wish i could just tell you and others larni, and you accept and understand: God IS. and only WAS and IS because of faith, and therefore with no faith in him, which is the body we live it, you will be like cancer to him, and must be cut off so you dont poison the perfect body we were created in, because God is wise, and because he loves you, he gave us all medicine to eat and drink, that we might come to faith, an be forgiven of our denial of the body, and yet live, in him, even after the body has long gone. but you will not believe it. because men will not believe the truth if it is contrary to what they wish to believe in their hearts for their own selfish reasons.it saddens and scares me. because i have been shown and given things to give to you, and others here, that are beyond me to give, but have com from him because i deny my own will to serve his, but not perfectly. so i still grow and wish that all can understand, that others will turn to the Lord who IS true and real, whom all things came by, and will only continue to be by. that even greater things will he do through those whom he calls, but they will not listen.what i give you i know is true because where it has come from, but do not take my word for it, test it. find the truth. THEN you will know.Gods will be done. so be it.

---

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

welcome to the evc i have. you wont believe mine. so do yours. ill give you the variables. read what i have said. they are there.

---

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

Given my grade school understanding of the math involved in the theory I will say: based upon my lack of understanding, I agree with you per se. String theorists claim that their math shows where this reality could come from. Its not evidence, just math. (to my understanding)You have logic, its also not evidence. You conclude this based upon what you feel is a logical deduction. Its not based upon fact, had it been based upon fact you could and would give examples of your evidence. Correct. The universe however is not like a computer. There is no law in nature that would allow atoms to form a computer, there are laws however that would allow stars, galaxies, superclusers, and the universe to form. Read back in the thread. Nobody has claimed that there was no outside interaction that resulted in the Big Bang taking place. In order to "do the math" one must be in possession of all the possibilities do you agree?You are claiming that it is necessary for there to be an "outside interaction" that resulted in the Big Bang. Its a logical deduction in that all events within the universe are affected by interactions with other bodies/energies/etc. I think that is a fair conclusion.------------------------------------------------In regards to the start of Big Bang or T=0 :1 - How much power is required for the event to take place? What I mean by that is would a nudge have been sufficient or does it take an omnipotent deity to cause the instability that results in the expansion.2 - What conclusions can you make about this power? If a deity is required what abilities are inherently nessecary for such a being to be able to cause such an event. Can we deduce given the information at hand (creator of the Big Bang) that this deity is capable of more than just creating a universe.3 - If I was to admit for the purpose of this argument that a deity created the Big Bang event, how would you go about proving to me that the particular deity (God) is in fact the correct one? Given the large number of dieties worshipped within human history how are you able to isolate the diety that is the correct instigator of the universe? Is such a conclusion obvious within the framework of the T=0 scenario that you have presented or is it necessary to refer to other readings to make a conclusion.4 - If other readings are required how do you choose what readings are appropriate given the abundance of contradictory writings claiming to be the correct one? Is there a particular verse, chapter, or quote that can be considered irrefutable evidence that you have chosen the correct cause of instability within the singularity?5 - You seem concerned about the well being of people who are unable to make conclusions about a time before there was time itself. Is there a particular reason that knowledge of events taking place before the Big Bang is more important than knowledge lacking in other fields? What I mean is: why is it important for others to make the conclusion that a diety caused Big Bang, but it appears you are unconcerned if these same people are aware of quantum physics, geometry, or calculus.

Oh yea of little faith, I can believe some remarkably counterintuitive ideas given adequate evidence, but I certainly can’t believe them if I don’t get to see them. I would need more than just the variables; I would also need the equations to plug them in to. So as you’ve promised to give me the variables I’m sure you’d not want to leave me short. To show my faith in you I’m holding my breath.

---

Kindly

then you look as idiotic as these creationists. Simply admitting to a lack of understanding, before making such ridiculous and ill-informed accusations, is no defense. Perhaps what you meant to say was "based upon my lack of understanding, I'm in no position to offer a personal opinion. However, I have read that some theoretical physicists are highly skeptical of string theory, and some theoretical physicists are strongly supportive." No, it is not; it is a classic fallacy of composition. The Big bang is NOT an event within the Universe...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Given my grade school understanding, I am not suprised! Thats pretty much exactly what I was keeping hidden behind the "per se". My understanding is limited to some being skeptical and and some obviously in support (some must support it or they would not be working on it). I most often have the luxury of not taking a side in something I have virtually no knowledge about; for the purpose of responding to Tesla I figured it best to agree with him to limit the proselytising. The obvious negative effect being pointed and laughed at by someone who knows I am talking out of my arse.So far telling him he is wrong has only lead to repetition of the same comments. My hope is to show him his leap in logic to incorrect conclusions, or find that he has more up his sleeve than he appears. Again, for the purpose of trying to lead him to another fallacy in his argument I did make that blatant error. He feels that since events within the universe can only take place with what he calls an 'outside factor' I believe that accepting that such a conclusion also applies to the so called cause of Big Bang could further the discussion. I admit the error in my post and would gladly accept another way of trying to draw out how Tesla is going from A to Z in his conclusions.

The problem is, tesla, that I see no maths. All I see are words. And physics at this level is not conducted with words, just mathematics. Words are used to explain the mathematical concepts to interested laymen, but that is not where the knowledge and understanding lies. So far, all I see are jumbles of words mixed with confused concepts and reasoning. If you wish to show me, then show me the maths. Hopefully my mathemtaical skill will be up to the challenge...As an introductory example, with small explicit mathematical content, here is the latest work on the no-boundary proposal that simply states that you need no outside influence at T=0. As theoretical physics papers go, this is very sparse on the mathematics.