Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 271 of 687 (522038)
08-31-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by ICANT
08-29-2009 7:32 PM


Re: Lost in Time.
Physical things have length.

That's right. Physical things have length. Why is that? Because length is a property of being physical.

Another property is time. Physical things have time (called duration). It's a property of being physical, it's part of the definition of physical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by ICANT, posted 08-29-2009 7:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 272 of 687 (522039)
08-31-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
08-31-2009 1:27 PM


Re: Information please
Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?

The Universe is finite yet unbounded. This you have been told countless times yet fail to bother to understand.

It does no good to answer your questions, ICANT, when you insist on shoving them into your framework of understanding and reading a chapter into every verse; as you did when “ the story of Genesis” and even “the creation story” becomes “Gen. 1:1; in the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth.” (Or in this case a verse into a phrase.)

You need to digest the statements made to you and put them into a framework independent of you own. Your framework does not apply to what you are being told, and only leads to your greater confusion. Well, it would if you ever crossed referenced our words with your story.

Did the universe begin to exist?

Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms “beginning” or “exist”.

Can something come from nothing?

Not in the way you interpret either a yes or no answer. You don’t have a solid grasp of the terms “something” or “nothing”.

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

You assume that something physical must be made of something as you understand every day things are made of something. The answer is “fields”. Fields are sets of numbers that can be manipulated to get answers that comply with empirical observation. This is the same way we work with gravity, and few people have a problem with it. If the fields did not represent an actuality, we’d not likely get answers that comply with empirical observation, but random nonsense like 300 cubit arks.

Actually on the authority of the Bible I declared and announced that God had cause the expansion of the universe by streaching it out. Stating that the Bible declared that over 2700 years ago.

And I predict that the New England Patriots will win Super bowls XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. And I say it with clarity: not with some nebulous words that can be fit to just about anything after the fact.

Now you may know more than they do.

It’s not a matter of us knowing more then they. It is a matter of us understanding what they say and not turning it into something the fits an erroneous framework.

Further, this is “ICANT’s position in the creation debate”. Why would you need Straggler to answer questions to explain your universe?

You will have to ask Moses that question.

These kinds of statement are only helpful in letting everyone else know that your avoiding thinking about the question.

Straggler was putting forth that I out of my ignorance was putting forth that the Cmbr was wrong.

This is a lovely example of someone saying “X” and you getting “LMNO” but not “X” out of it.

All I am pointing out is that scientist have questioned the source of the CMBR.

That’s not all you are pointing out. You are implying that the scientists have come to the wrong interpretation of their own words and work.


Hello kbertsche

It looks like you guys are getting tripped up on whether or not time and space are "physical." Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Of course they are physical. But ICANT needs them to be made of some kind of substance that we can put a name on; otherwise, he feels he has cause to treat them as one would properly treat love and beauty: products of the minds of men.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 1:27 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 5:05 PM lyx2no has responded
 Message 281 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:16 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 273 of 687 (522049)
08-31-2009 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
08-31-2009 12:07 PM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
ICANT writes:

Straggler was putting forth that I out of my ignorance was putting forth that the Cmbr was wrong.


You are apparently somehow of the opinion that because you've found a paper that apparently has a better answer for that one single fact, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.

That's pretty ignorant.

There are three theories of what produced the CMBR discussed in that paper with one being superior to the other two. The superior one was not the one based on the BBT.

(and that's where I'm basing my opinion from - rope, given enough, hanging self.)

All I am pointing out is that scientist have questioned the source of the CMBR.

Which is pretty pointless - we know. It's called "peer review".

Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 12:07 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2009 12:05 AM greyseal has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 390 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 274 of 687 (522052)
08-31-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by lyx2no
08-31-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Information please
quote:
quote:
You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

You assume that something physical must be made of something as you understand every day things are made of something. The answer is “fields”. Fields are sets of numbers that can be manipulated to get answers that comply with empirical observation. This is the same way we work with gravity, and few people have a problem with it. If the fields did not represent an actuality, we’d not likely get answers that comply with empirical observation, but random nonsense like 300 cubit arks.

Is it really standard in particle/field theory to say that space and time are made of fields? Rather than saying that they are the physical dimensions in which the fields exist? (I frequently hear the latter, but perhaps there are different perspectives on this?)

quote:
quote:
It looks like you guys are getting tripped up on whether or not time and space are "physical." Could you clarify what you mean by this?

Of course they are physical. But ICANT needs them to be made of some kind of substance that we can put a name on; otherwise, he feels he has cause to treat them as one would properly treat love and beauty: products of the minds of men.

But this still doesn't clarify what you mean that space and time are "physical." Everyone should agree that they are physical dimensions; how much more than this are you implying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by lyx2no, posted 08-31-2009 3:32 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2009 5:32 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 277 by lyx2no, posted 08-31-2009 6:41 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 275 of 687 (522055)
08-31-2009 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Information please
Is it really standard in particle/field theory to say that space and time are made of fields?

First, nothing is 'made of fields'. Fields are simply that which exists - nearly all facets of existence are the result of differing values in the fields. Then you have to qualify what you mean by space and time. The length of space and time intervals between events in space-time are defined by values in the metric field. So the fact that Andromeda is 2.2 Mlyrs away, but my front door is only 5m away is simply the difference in the respective sets of values in the metric field; much as having a hydrogen atom rather than a helium atom, or even empty space, at a point is simply the difference in values of the relevant fields.

This concept is definitely at the deep-end and is certainly not "standard" - most working in particle physics don't spend much time thinking about the metric field, and many working in relativity don't spend that much time appreciating that the metric field can be viewed in very similar ways to the quantum fields. But it does tend to dawn eventually on those working in quantum gravity. The important point is that it stresses that distance/time intervals and tangible "stuff" are as physical/un-physical as each other, which is useful when the ill-informed start trying to claim that time is just a figment of the mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 5:05 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 6:24 PM cavediver has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 276 of 687 (522056)
08-31-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by cavediver
08-31-2009 5:32 PM


Expanding Metric Field?
First, nothing is 'made of fields'. Fields are simply that which exists - nearly all facets of existence are the result of differing values in the fields. Then you have to qualify what you mean by space and time. The length of space and time intervals between events in space-time are defined by values in the metric field. So the fact that Andromeda is 2.2 Mlyrs away, but my front door is only 5m away is simply the difference in the respective sets of values in the metric field; much as having a hydrogen atom rather than a helium atom, or even empty space, at a point is simply the difference in values of the relevant fields.

How does the expansion of the universe work in terms of the fields concept?

Is there "more" of the field? Is there the same "amount" of the field just more "stretched"? Does any of this even make any sense?

My ignorance is too substantial to phrase the question properly but I guess what I am asking is how the concept of a spacetime/metric field works in conjunction with expansion? What is happening to the field as expansion occurs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2009 5:32 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by cavediver, posted 08-31-2009 7:10 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2975 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 277 of 687 (522059)
08-31-2009 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by kbertsche
08-31-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Information please
I don't really know the answers to many of your questions. I've only been looking at this for a few months. I'm only at the stage of making statements that are as nebulous as possible, hoping something approaching reality will fall within my error bars, while still not being totally crap.

I'm well aware of the fact that I don't have much of a clue, but ICANT's misconceptions are grand enough for even me to improve upon.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by kbertsche, posted 08-31-2009 5:05 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 278 of 687 (522062)
08-31-2009 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Straggler
08-31-2009 6:24 PM


Re: Expanding Metric Field?
What is happening to the field as expansion occurs?

Sort of the wrong way round: values in the metric field, those that represent distance between points in space, are getting larger as you increase T. We see this as expansion. So from our perspective, it would appear that the field must be stretching. But in reality, it is the field itself that gives us the concept of distance.

I must stress that this is damn hard to visualise. Picture a finite number of points in space as marbles in a bag. There is no concept of distance or direction between them - they are just a random collection. But then consider a matrix of numbers that specify the distance and direction between each pair of marbles. The matrix and the marbles together give an abstract space of finite size. Now increase the values in the matrix by a fixed proportion. The space has suddenly expanded. The marbles are still loose in the bag, but by just changing the numbers, we have a larger space. And now add another matrix whose values represent the number of particles at each point(marble) and we have a toy marble Universe, with a metric field and a matter field


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 6:24 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 279 of 687 (522071)
08-31-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
08-31-2009 2:37 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

What has the physicality of time got to do with "ICANT'S position in the creation debate"? We have established that in ICANT world there are two possibilities (still using your definitions and terminology).
1) Either the universe had an uncaused "beginning" from "nothing".
2) Or the universe is "infinite and eternal"

Straggler's addition of: "the universe had an uncaused "beginning" from "nothing".

Is impossible as something can not come from nothing, and is not even a consideration.

ICANT'S position is that the universe has always existed in some form.

OR

The universe began to exist and has a cause for that existence.

Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry (Message 8) I said:

ICANT writes:

So I have a universe that is infinite or a universe that began to exist.

Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 24) I said in response to your "just is":

ICANT writes:

Hi Straggler,
Here

You state:

quote:
OK. The universe quite possibly "just is".

Which would mean the universe was an uncaused existence.

Or that the universe was infinite.

But science says the universe can not be infinite and us be here.

So who is going on about an uncaused cause.

Re: Getting Older (Message 54) I said:

ICANT writes:

"It just is", makes the universe infinite. That is the Steady state theory. Hoyle and Einstein held this theory to be correct.

Because of the discovery of expansion Einstein began a search of how God created the universe.

If expansion is true the universe did not exist and began to exist.

Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 93) I asked you this question:

ICANT writes:

If the universe "just is" that means it exists and never had a begining to exist.

So my question to you has been and is, Is the universe infinite (has always existed eternally) or did it begin to exist?

Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 123) I asked you this question:

ICANT writes:

Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?

Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 165) I asked you the question:

ICANT writes:

Is the universe infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Re: Internal Logic (Message 193) I stated:

ICANT writes:

Can I believe the universe began to exist? Sure

Can I believe the universe began to exist without a cause? Nope.

Re: Internal Logic (Message 212) You got heavy on your uncaused agenda and I made this statement in response:

ICANT writes:

Hi Straggler,

Straggler writes:

Are you seriously claiming that eternal infinity is more evidenced than uncaused beginnings?

I didn't claim anything.

If I have to I will claim that faith in an eternal infinity is a lot easier that faith that 'some thing' came from 'no thing'.

Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question? (Message 258) I asked you:

ICANT writes:

Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Can something come from nothing?

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question? (Message 262) I ask you:

ICANT writes:

Is the universe eternal, infinite in all directions?
OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Can something come from nothing?

You said time was physical so, What is time made of?

So you push your uncaused "beginning" from "nothing" all you want just remember it is "YOUR" uncaused idea not mine.

Again the ICANT position is that the universe is infinite in all directions.

OR

The universe began to exist.

I will add.

The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing.

So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?

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 268 by Straggler, posted 08-31-2009 2:37 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Straggler, posted 09-01-2009 6:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 280 of 687 (522072)
08-31-2009 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Perdition
08-31-2009 3:05 PM


Re: Information please
Hi Perdition,

Perdition writes:

Are you asking about the units we have created to determine the interval of time?

I was asking what determines the duration of those units of measure.
I answered the question. It is determined by a single rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. If you disagree please state disagreement.

Perdition writes:

I'm not saying that universe can't exist without time, I'm merely saying that the universe that actually exists (or at least the one we are inhabitants of), exists with time as one of its dimensions, and since dimensions are what define a universe, the dimensions come into existence at the same time the universe does.

You say they come into existence at the same time the universe does.

Are you saying the universe begins to exist?

Perdition writes:

For example. I could build a box out of wood that is 2'x3'x4'. Now, when does the length of the box come into existence? It comes into existence at the time I actually have a box. Before that, there was no box to have a length, but as soon as it became a ox, poff, the was the length of the box in existence.

What if there was no material of any kind to build that box out of, then what?

Perdition writes:

If you have a universe like ours, it will have time by definition, for as long as it's a universe like ours.

"If you have a universe"

That brings us to the question.

Is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?

Message 270

Perdition writes:

Not necessarily. No matter how you define reason, this is not a necessity. Something can exist for no reason at all, especially if it is the first something.

If the universe was the first something it would be eternal.

But if expansion is true such a universe as that would be cold, dark and dead.

Perdition writes:

Because there is no earlier. If time is a property of the universe, then there is no "before" and there is no "earlier" because both terms are dependent on time to have any meaning.

You didn't like the question asked that way. Well how about I change it to: Why did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago.

Perdition writes:

You're saying this as if the two options are mutually exclusive. Why couldn't something that is infinite in all directions begin to exist? Why couldn't it {poof} into existence as being infinite?

Good question. But if something that did not exist began to exist then it is not infinite in all directions, only forward from the beginning to exist.

Perdition writes:

Science is positing the possibility that the universe will continue forever in some state, but that it had a starting point.

Are you saying the universe began to exist?

Message 271

Perdition writes:

That's right. Physical things have length. Why is that? Because length is a property of being physical.

I thought length, width, and height was units of measure that someone came up with so we could determine the size of physical things. Also volume so we could figure out how much a container could hold.

Perdition writes:

Another property is time. Physical things have time (called duration). It's a property of being physical, it's part of the definition of physical.

Time. The units man has decided to use to tell us the duration of a baseball game, football game, day, week, month and year.

So you are saying time and length are physical.

Are they made of particles or waves?

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 269 by Perdition, posted 08-31-2009 3:05 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Perdition, posted 09-01-2009 10:48 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 281 of 687 (522074)
08-31-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by lyx2no
08-31-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Information please
Hi lyx2no,

lyx2no writes:

The Universe is finite yet unbounded.

Is that the Standard Big Bang Theory?

lyx2no writes:

That’s not all you are pointing out. You are implying that the scientists have come to the wrong interpretation of their own words and work.

The three groups never agreed although 2 concluded the universe was not expanding.

There are still scientist today who question the CMBR.

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 272 by lyx2no, posted 08-31-2009 3:32 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 282 of 687 (522075)
09-01-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by greyseal
08-31-2009 4:38 PM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
Hi greyseal,

greyseal writes:

You are apparently somehow of the opinion that because you've found a paper that apparently has a better answer for that one single fact, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.
That's pretty ignorant.

I always thought being ignorant was accepting whatever you was told. Without making sure it was correct before you accepted it.

So no there are a lot of other reasons I choose not to accept the BBT as fact.

You can find a few of them Here Nobody will talk about them except to say they have all been solved.

With a little investigation that story line fails.

Besides the BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.

There has been a lot of time spent trying to prove how this happened. Hawking claimed to have proved that God was not necessary when the Hartly Hawking no boundary universe hypothesis was presented.

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 273 by greyseal, posted 08-31-2009 4:38 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by greyseal, posted 09-01-2009 3:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 2121 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 283 of 687 (522078)
09-01-2009 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
09-01-2009 12:05 AM


Re: The 1 sentence summary of the topic title question?
ICANT writes:

So no there are a lot of other reasons I choose not to accept the BBT as fact.

You can find a few of them Here Nobody will talk about them except to say they have all been solved.


You are apparently of the opinion that because you've found a website that points out not flaws, but observations and facts that aren't (or at least weren't) answered by the big bang theory, that it negates the whole of the big bang theory.

That's pretty ignorant.

Besides the BBT requires the universe to begin to exist.

I'm sorry, but I don't get why that's a problem, and I'm pretty certain some people who know a lot more than me have explained to you multiple times the objections you had making that statement.

Hawking claimed to have proved that God was not necessary when the Hartly Hawking no boundary universe hypothesis was presented.

I really have no idea what you're talking about here, so I'll have to go look it up.

I do know the pope sent Hawking a letter saying basically "don't try to use your math and science to peer further than the big bang, because that's god's territory".

I also know that Hawking is an atheist, but that's besides the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 09-01-2009 12:05 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 284 of 687 (522089)
09-01-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by ICANT
08-31-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Information please
Again I will stick to your definitions and terminology to expose your flawed internal logic. Your numerous misapprehensions of modern physics remain a largely unnecessary distraction.

ICANT writes:

The universe can not have an uncaused begining to exist as something can not come from nothing.

So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?

OK. And this you say you base on the observation that we have never witnessed "something from nothing".

Straggler for the sake of argument writes:

The universe can not be infinite and eternal as something can not exist without beginning to exist.

So is the universe eternal or did it begin to exist?

Now can you explain to me on what observational basis you choose one of these statements as obviously true whilst the other as obviously wrong? Do you have a vast array of examples of objects that are "eternal and infinite"? Do you have one example?

Your entire argument remains an exercise in philosophical bias and the selective application of logic. We don't even need to touch on modern physics to expose this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 10:07 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 1:23 AM Straggler has responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 285 of 687 (522128)
09-01-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by ICANT
08-31-2009 11:01 PM


Re: Information please
I answered the question. It is determined by a single rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. If you disagree please state disagreement.

That's the length of time we have decided to call a "year" but even if the earth and sun exploded in a grand fashion, time would plod on with nary a blink.

Are you saying the universe begins to exist?

Sort of, the universe has existed for all of time, re forever...but ofrever is only 13.7 billion years long so far.

What if there was no material of any kind to build that box out of, then what?

Then the question of the length of the (nonexistent) box is moot at best, nonsensical at worst.

If the universe was the first something it would be eternal.

Not necessarily. Unless you can constrain "eternal" to mean 13.7 billion years and counting. In normal usage, this is not what it means, so I guess I have to disagree with you here.

But if expansion is true such a universe as that would be cold, dark and dead.

That's the current projection for what will happen to this universe a long time in the future. We're just not to that point yet.

You didn't like the question asked that way. Well how about I change it to: Why did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago.

I don't know. And I'm comfortable with that answer. Maybe it just did without any underlying rhyme or reason. Perhaps 'brane theory is correct, maybe there was a "cause" but there is no reason to believe there has to be. Just because causality is a consequence of being "inside" our universe, we have no reason to expect it's the same if you're not "inside" our universe.

Good question. But if something that did not exist began to exist then it is not infinite in all directions, only forward from the beginning to exist.

Only if "direction" you are including time. I took it to mean you thought something that began to exist couldn't go for infinity to the left, right, up, down, forward and backward. If you include time as a direction, then yeah, I guess you're right, it would only extend so far into the past.

I thought length, width, and height was units of measure that someone came up with so we could determine the size of physical things. Also volume so we could figure out how much a container could hold.

Tehn you're wrong. The inches, meters, liters, and gallons we use are arbitrary units we have devised, and could be considered human concepts, but length, volume, et al are intrinsic properties of something being physical. Whether we exist or not, whether we decide an inch is so long, or whether decide to call a unit of length of flomar and say it is the length of 500 hairs laid side by side, length still exists.

So you are saying time and length are physical.

Are they made of particles or waves?

They are not made of particles or waves. They are properties of being physical, they are not physical themselves. Is "red" physical? No, it is a property of something that reflects light in the 625-740 nm range. The light is physical, the reflecting material is physical, but the color is a property of those physical things.

Likewise, the matter a box is made of is physical, but the length of that material is a property of the physical thing.

This is pretty basic stuff. If you're having troubles here, I'm pretty sure you're a lost cause on the whole cosmology thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 08-31-2009 11:01 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by ICANT, posted 09-02-2009 12:54 AM Perdition has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019