Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 8:55 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,928 Year: 4,965/19,786 Month: 1,087/873 Week: 443/376 Day: 74/46 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 94 (14878)
08-05-2002 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
08-04-2002 1:04 PM


"are talking about the creation of space-time."
--The questions seemingly are more pertaining to the creation of matter, and energy <--> Matter transforming fluctuations rather than the creation of space-time. The latter is an interesting question indeed.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 08-04-2002 1:04 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 08-05-2002 11:35 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 94 (14881)
08-05-2002 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
08-05-2002 10:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"are talking about the creation of space-time."
--The questions seemingly are more pertaining to the creation of matter, and energy <--> Matter transforming fluctuations rather than the creation of space-time. The latter is an interesting question indeed.


There is a small portion of the discussion which concerns the expansion of space. That part has all but vanished in light of other elements of the debate. Still, I think the energy<-->matter transformations are in some way related to the creation of space-time, though I am not yet sure how so I can't really debate it.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 08-05-2002 10:23 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 08-07-2002 5:57 PM John has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 94 (14980)
08-07-2002 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
08-05-2002 11:35 PM


"There is a small portion of the discussion which concerns the expansion of space. That part has all but vanished in light of other elements of the debate. Still, I think the energy<-->matter transformations are in some way related to the creation of space-time, though I am not yet sure how so I can't really debate it."
--Not really, energy <--> matter fluctuations have little to nothing to do with the initial question for BB explanation. This conversion happens either by radiation creating particles and anti-particles or particles and anti-particles annihilating, thusly creating radiation. Of course this still begs the question of where space-time came about. It has in my experience gone unanswered without playing heavily with semantics.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 08-05-2002 11:35 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by John, posted 08-07-2002 6:15 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 94 (14982)
08-07-2002 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
08-07-2002 5:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Not really, energy <--> matter fluctuations have little to nothing to do with the initial question for BB explanation. This conversion happens either by radiation creating particles and anti-particles or particles and anti-particles annihilating, thusly creating radiation. Of course this still begs the question of where space-time came about. It has in my experience gone unanswered without playing heavily with semantics.

Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 08-07-2002 5:57 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 08-08-2002 11:47 PM John has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 94 (15056)
08-08-2002 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by John
08-07-2002 6:15 PM


"Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?"
--I just had the impression you had a very strong reason for being so anti-theistic, and what a better reason than an answer for the origin of the universe.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by John, posted 08-07-2002 6:15 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-09-2002 12:10 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 94 (15060)
08-09-2002 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
08-08-2002 11:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?"
--I just had the impression you had a very strong reason for being so anti-theistic, and what a better reason than an answer for the origin of the universe.


It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 08-08-2002 11:47 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 08-09-2002 12:28 AM John has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 94 (15061)
08-09-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John
08-09-2002 12:10 AM


"It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic."
--Then you are in a perdicament there. I will not fail to remember in the future your rationalization in # 35. You will find by it that you and the majority of the evo's on this board that there is over-criticism.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John, posted 08-09-2002 12:10 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John, posted 08-09-2002 9:14 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 94 (15085)
08-09-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by TrueCreation
08-09-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic."
--Then you are in a perdicament there. I will not fail to remember in the future your rationalization in # 35. You will find by it that you and the majority of the evo's on this board that there is over-criticism.


What?

I was speculating that the creation of space-time is somehow related to the mass/energy equivalancies and I admitted up front that I don't know how and so can't argue the point. I don't think I've based anything on this suspicion-- it was a side thought as wrote the post.

I could understand your ire if I were using this unproven idea to support another idea; but I'm not. It's just a feeling. I need to think about it awhile. Probably will throw it away or cannibalize it latter. But why post to tell me nothing but that you don't know where space-time came from but I am wrong anyway. Read your reply to me. There is a few lines of jargon and then, effectively, but I don't know either. Please, disagree with me, but give me something to bite into when you do.

Oh, and what does this have to do with theism?

And... glad you're back.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by TrueCreation, posted 08-09-2002 12:28 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 4213 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 40 of 94 (15210)
08-11-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John
08-04-2002 1:04 PM


quote:
hmmm...... I rechecked the link I provided. I see a full page of defining and more than a dozen equations.

Though many formulas were presented on the page to explain how energy relates to different concepts in physics, a definition for energy itself was not provided aside from the statement that “energy is an abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics.” Furthermore, of the formulas presented, all but two included mass within the equation. The two which did not were the formula showing energy’s relation to power (E=Pt) and the formula for measuring electrical potential energy (E=QV), but both of these still depend on the existence of material objects. This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.

quote:
Very interesting question. By Einstein's formula, no. But the formula doesn't work at sub-atomic levels. Quantum mechanics takes over. And no one has yet to reconcile the two. Quantum mechanics limit the size.

This assumption is also based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that man cannot accurately measure both the position and the movement of any quantum particle. This inability prevents us from discovering where that particle will be or even was at any point in time. If the universe existed in a quantum state, we would not be able to make any predictions as to the future of our universe because we would be unable to obtain accurate measurements on which to base those predictions. Einstein’s formula is a method by which we can make predictions regarding future measurements based on current measurements. Therefore if we are unable to obtain accurate measurements, we will be unable to apply this formula and accurately predict future measurements. However, it is not the equation that fails at sub-atomic levels; it is our measurements that fail.

quote:
Well, we can't have infinitesimal amounts. See above. But for one unit of mass you need the speed of light squared worth of energy.

What is the base unit of mass? In other words, what is the smallest amount of mass we can measure?

By the way, infinitesimal simply means immeasurably small. Thus I was referring to units of mass which exists on the smallest scale that we are capable of measuring.

quote:
Mass is a measure of matter, yes? (I'd say mass is matter but forget that for now) How can you have an increase in mass without an increase in matter?

Simply put, mass is a measurement of the amount of matter within a given volume of space. Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space. Notice, however, that I said creation of matter not increase in matter. The two statements are not the same. An increase in mass could be the result of an addition of matter to the given volume from an outside source. Thus an increase in mass does not necessitate the creation of matter.

quote:
I am not sure what questions I am supposed to address.

Please refer to post number twenty-two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John, posted 08-04-2002 1:04 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by John, posted 08-11-2002 10:09 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 94 (15236)
08-11-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by w_fortenberry
08-11-2002 3:12 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.[/b][/quote]

Good grief!!! Then explain how it is that photons are considered mass-less particles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

quote:
This assumption is also based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle.

Exactly where did I invoke the uncertainty principle? I thought I was refering to quantized energy states, and the fact that particles break at specific energies not haphazardly along the spectrum.

quote:
Einstein’s formula is a method by which we can make predictions regarding future measurements based on current measurements. Therefore if we are unable to obtain accurate measurements, we will be unable to apply this formula and accurately predict future measurements. However, it is not the equation that fails at sub-atomic levels; it is our measurements that fail.

Wrong. Einstein's formulas work on the large scale because quantum effects are not noticable at large scales. It is not about poor measurement, nor is it about the uncertainty principle. At very small scales you see the quantification of energy/matter. The models of atoms with electrons orbitting them? These are quantum models. Atoms do not crash into themselves because electrons can only jump from specific energies to other specific energies-- ie, there are no inbetweens! Quantum mechanics is jumpy, relativity is smooth-- there are inbetweens. Hence the two are not compatible.

[quote][b]Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space.[quote][b]

Yes indeed.

quote:
An increase in mass could be the result of an addition of matter to the given volume from an outside source.

Such as?

What you are missing is that that extra mass comes from ENERGY.

http://www-ed.fnal.gov/samplers/hsphys/activities/graphics/collisions_emc2.gif

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by w_fortenberry, posted 08-11-2002 3:12 PM w_fortenberry has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 94 (15536)
08-16-2002 1:45 PM


TrueCreation said:

quote:
I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.

I wasn't aware that quantum fluctuations obeyed any rules of causality.

They are a perfect example of an "uncaused cause", and would make a very nice first cause if there was any evidence indicating such was the case.


  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 94 (23779)
11-22-2002 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mark24
01-31-2002 9:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:

Regarding the lack of singularity problem. "Universes can literally spring into existence as a quantum fluctuation of Nothing. This is because the positive energy found in matter is balanced against the negative energy of gravity, so the total energy of a bubble is zero. Thus, it takes no net energy to create a new universe."

< !--UB http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm -->http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm< !--UE-->

So, in summary, universe begats universe. Vacuum fluctuation react with scalar fields which may/may not lead to inflation. The mass & energy of a universe being born of a quantum bubble, with a net energy of zero.

This also postulates a timeless universe.

Mark


this is interesting, i have to read more about it... but tell me, how does it jive with the 'actual infinite vs. potential infinite' problem? iow, without using magical numbers how is it we find ourselves here and now if an infinite sequence of past events can be traversed?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mark24, posted 01-31-2002 9:09 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 6:44 AM forgiven has responded

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 94 (24011)
11-24-2002 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by forgiven
11-22-2002 5:30 PM


quote:
iow, without using magical numbers how is it we find ourselves here and now if an infinite sequence of past events can be traversed?

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question (what do you mean by magical nimbers?) - but I'm pretty sure that no-one's talking about traversing an infinite sequence of past events. After all, time (more correctly spacetime) began at the Big Bang. This isn't a boundary you can traverse.

PE

------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 5:30 PM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 10:09 AM Primordial Egg has responded

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 94 (24018)
11-24-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Primordial Egg
11-24-2002 6:44 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
quote:
iow, without using magical numbers how is it we find ourselves here and now if an infinite sequence of past events can be traversed?

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question (what do you mean by magical nimbers?) - but I'm pretty sure that no-one's talking about traversing an infinite sequence of past events. After all, time (more correctly spacetime) began at the Big Bang. This isn't a boundary you can traverse.

PE


ok, let's assume time began (as you say above) with bb... from that very moment, time began... each subsequent moment resulted in an event... using just our history, for example, we know the gettysburg address was written in a certain time, magna carta an earlier time, etc, etc

now we can see a sequence of past events, correct? and theoretically, given your statement that time 'began to exist', we should be able to traverse these past events (after all, if you can cross them coming forward you can do the same going backwards)

*but*.. if the universe (which includes this very time of which we speak) is infinite, it's impossible to traverse the series of past events unless we use make believe numbers... and if we can't traverse a series of events going backwards, they can't be traversed coming forward... that means we'd never have reached this present event, the one we're obviously at

so my comment was meant to show that an infinite universe can't exist (without those imaginary numbers)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 6:44 AM Primordial Egg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by John, posted 11-24-2002 10:48 AM forgiven has responded
 Message 49 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-24-2002 12:08 PM forgiven has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 94 (24027)
11-24-2002 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by forgiven
11-24-2002 10:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
unless we use make believe numbers...

Make-believe numbers? You mean imaginary numbers. It is a valid number system, not a child's game of pretend.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 10:09 AM forgiven has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 11:42 AM John has responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019