Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:34 PM
19 online now:
DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,643 Year: 3,680/19,786 Month: 675/1,087 Week: 44/221 Day: 15/29 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Size of the universe
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2872 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 106 of 248 (604443)
02-12-2011 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Calypso
01-29-2010 10:24 PM


Calypso writes:

Someone sent me a link to this site: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/525347

Which shows in graphical form the scale of the universe from the very small (Planck length) to the very large (the size of the universe)

Now for the visible size of the universe it of course states the usual approximately 14 billion light year size we all know of, but then it goes on to the estimated size of the universe as 93 billion light years.

How do they obtain an estimate of what is outside the visible universe if it is unobservable?

There is no end to the universe because there wasn't any big bang. A big bang was needed to disprove any intelligent design but now that Stephen Hawking is suggesting that everything came from nothing, then we have to admit to a God that created all things.

God is nothing but thoughts (conscience) where he planned everything. His first creation was light energy because thoughts have no mass, time or energy and they exist everywhere. The light energy of God was used to create all things and form the atoms for all the worlds in the universe.

God's power formed the bodies of his living creation on his planet called earth according to his plans. We are living exactly the way he planned it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Calypso, posted 01-29-2010 10:24 PM Calypso has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by ProtoTypical, posted 02-12-2011 9:10 AM thewordofgod has responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1777
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 107 of 248 (604447)
02-12-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by thewordofgod
02-12-2011 6:55 AM


There is no end to the universe because there wasn't any big bang.

Well thank goodness that is finally settled.

We are living exactly the way he planned it.

What a relief. None of this is my fault.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 6:55 AM thewordofgod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 9:50 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
thewordofgod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2872 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 02-12-2011


Message 108 of 248 (604449)
02-12-2011 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ProtoTypical
02-12-2011 9:10 AM


Dogmafood writes:

There is no end to the universe because there wasn't any big bang.

Well thank goodness that is finally settled.

We are living exactly the way he planned it.

What a relief. None of this is my fault.

It was religion that made you feel it was your fault. God has always taken the blame for what he created and formed but a big part of the deception he needed came from religion. This age will end when everything on earth is destroyed as the earth changes into a level earth. The mountains, oceans and polar caps came from the flood that destroyed the original level surface of earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ProtoTypical, posted 02-12-2011 9:10 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Admin, posted 02-12-2011 10:36 AM thewordofgod has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 109 of 248 (604451)
02-12-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by thewordofgod
02-12-2011 9:50 AM


To TheWordOfGod
Hi TheWordOfGod,

There should be a big red blinking announcement at the top of the page. It's for you. Please read it and stop posting religious arguments in the science threads.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by thewordofgod, posted 02-12-2011 9:50 AM thewordofgod has not yet responded

    
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 110 of 248 (610840)
04-02-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Iblis
01-06-2011 4:09 PM


Re: Young or old universe
If all attempts to translate a piece of mathematics into English result in gobbledegook, it may be a good indication that such is the original meaning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Iblis, posted 01-06-2011 4:09 PM Iblis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-02-2011 5:08 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 112 by fearandloathing, posted 04-02-2011 5:30 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded
 Message 113 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-02-2011 8:28 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1777
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 111 of 248 (610842)
04-02-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Can you describe Mozart's violin concerto #5 in English? Communication requires a shared experience and common reference points.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-02-2011 4:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-03-2011 6:32 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 112 of 248 (610843)
04-02-2011 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Young or old universe
Alfred Maddenstein writes:

If all attempts to translate a piece of mathematics into English result in gobbledegook, it may be a good indication that such is the original meaning.

Why don't you respond to the original post, msg 1, tell us what you think. I feel that would be more relevant than choosing to respond to a post you agree with. JMO


"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-02-2011 4:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1777
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 113 of 248 (610848)
04-02-2011 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-02-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Young or old universe
I should also say that I think your post illuminates a valid issue.

How do you reconcile a logically and mathematically derived theoretical conclusion with a physical impossibility?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-02-2011 4:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 114 of 248 (610867)
04-03-2011 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ProtoTypical
04-02-2011 5:08 PM


Re: Young or old universe
I guess if I set myself the task of describing that Mozart's concerto in English, the result would be missing out on the immediate pleasure of listening to the piece, as that could not be put in words, yet I could indeed logically analyse the score, point out why this or that development or relation between sounds gives me a particular pleasure and so on and I am sure that my translation of the music into words would not be anything to strain Mozart's logic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-02-2011 5:08 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-03-2011 7:23 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1777
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 115 of 248 (610872)
04-03-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-03-2011 6:32 AM


Penguin's Milk
Sure, and I imagine that Mozart would appreciate the subtleties of your description. What would a tone deaf person think of it? Or a child who had never seen or heard a violin?

I know people who refuse to believe that we have walked on the moon. Who does the nonsense belong to?

I take it that you have a fair understanding of the actual math used to defend the Standard Model and you disagree with the conclusions. I do not understand all of the math. Can you describe for me why it is wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-03-2011 6:32 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-04-2011 8:09 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 116 of 248 (610967)
04-04-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ProtoTypical
04-03-2011 7:23 AM


Re: Penguin's Milk
If there is a hypothetical tone deaf person unless that person is totally devoid of the faculty of reason that may not still mean there is no way for me to find a good analogy to render the pleasurable effect of Mozart's piece quite comprehensible to that person albeit in an abstract fashion. If that person is visually endowed geometry could well be used to translate the sound relations in the piece into a language to make a perfect logical sense.

You are asking me what is the mathematical error in the Standard Model. Well, that is obvious to me. It's simply a fundamental flaw in the understanding of the relation of infinite and finite. The hypothesis is built on that flawed foundation and though the cathedral itself may be a pure mathematical genius since it's foundation is pure nothing, it may forever float over the la-la land of fantasy never managing to land upon any concrete physical reality.

That is simple. The infinite may exist indeed and it may exist necessarily but it may never exist as anything actual though it may exist necessarily as a pure potential anything actual is constantly coming from. Anything finite is a tendency and a striving towards infinity without any possibility of ever reaching it actually. It is even better to be said that the infinity can neither be reached nor ever be stopped from being approached. That would describe the reality of universal motion. Infinity may not have any physical reality. All physical reality is the realm of the finite and actual only.

The concept of singularity is a flawed assumption of a possibility of that infinity being actually reached and that on the universal scale which is a clear physical impossibility. Infinity is, of course, expressed with a zero and that zero may represent the universe shrunk into nothing with all the laws of necessity vanished inside the zero. It's very easy to draw a zero on a piece of paper and to declare a total physical anarchy inside of it. The next step is introducing some arbitrary positive values standing for relations of something to something and some progressive development of those relations and no end of intricate, most ingenious calculations could be engaged into by the mathemagician. The cathedrals built on the zero are all pure genius of mathematical invention even if none of it may mean anything in real terms and that is why all the attempts to translate the numbers into any meaningful language are resulting in gibberish. Language is dynamic necessarily, it's all verbs which are standing for processes and even when it's nouns, the nouns are static snapshots of the same dynamic processes. Inside nothing there is no process possible by definition thus all attempts to apply the English language to tell anything about it result in contradictions and prevarications necessitating a lot of further explaining away and the gobbledegook is the inevitable result of all that strenuous semantic effort. That is what they all are having so much fun with. They divide and multiply by that zero while ascribing to it some impossible positive attributes. They keep on trying to squeeze something tangible into the pure nothing that may physically exist as a concept and on paper only, they keep on failing in that and keep on trying to do it again and again and such fun and mathematical games could go on and on indefinitely. That's nothing very new. It had been done already and it had been going on for centuries and instead of the advanced maths, the language employed for having this kind of intellectual fun used to be Latin.

Whereas the real singularities are under everybody's nose. They are called the past and the future. Everybody in that sense lives inside a moving black hole of the present squeezed in between the two event horizons. Black holes ain't as black as they are painted after all.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Put the blank lines in between the paragraphs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-03-2011 7:23 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-04-2011 10:51 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded
 Message 118 by Son Goku, posted 04-05-2011 12:58 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1777
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 117 of 248 (611054)
04-04-2011 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-04-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Penguin's Milk
... that may not still mean there is no way for me to find a good analogy to render the pleasurable effect of Mozart's piece...

Of course you might achieve some measure of success but if you failed it wouldn’t mean that Mozart’s concerto was nonsense. My point is simply that not all ideas are easy to convey to all people. Also, I would imagine that one mathematician could describe the concerto to another mathematician using math with greater success and accuracy.

You are asking me what is the mathematical error in the Standard Model.

Thanks for the reply but I should withdraw the question as I am in no way qualified to debate it with you and your answer raises many more questions. I will leave the discussion to others more capable of examining your argument.

I will ask you why you think that all of those who are building the floating cathedrals of genius are doing so? I mean wouldn’t you rather spend your life figuring out the ‘real’ answers? Isn’t it easier to put your buildings on the ground?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-04-2011 8:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-05-2011 2:49 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(1)
Message 118 of 248 (611100)
04-05-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein
04-04-2011 8:09 AM


Re: Penguin's Milk
quote:
You are asking me what is the mathematical error in the Standard Model. Well, that is obvious to me. It's simply a fundamental flaw in the understanding of the relation of infinite and finite.

The Standard Model makes no statements on the relation of the finite and the infinite, hence it is nonsensical to point out this "flaw". If you are referring to the Standard Model of particle physics, that describes particle interactions. If you are referring to the Standard Model of cosmology, then that describes the evolution of the universe. There is no discussion of the relation between the finite and the infinite.

quote:
Infinity is, of course, expressed with a zero

This makes no sense. Infinity is not expressed with a zero.

quote:
Whereas the real singularities are under everybody's nose. They are called the past and the future. Everybody in that sense lives inside a moving black hole of the present squeezed in between the two event horizons. Black holes ain't as black as they are painted after all.

The past and the future are not singularities. The past and the future are simply two opposite directions in the temporal dimension.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-04-2011 8:09 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 04-05-2011 1:02 PM Son Goku has responded
 Message 121 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 04-05-2011 2:17 PM Son Goku has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 119 of 248 (611101)
04-05-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Son Goku
04-05-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Penguin's Milk
Son Goku writes:

The past and the future are not singularities. The past and the future are simply two opposite directions in the temporal dimension.

Or as any little child knows, they are "NOT NOW!"


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Son Goku, posted 04-05-2011 12:58 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Son Goku, posted 04-05-2011 1:07 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 44 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 120 of 248 (611102)
04-05-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
04-05-2011 1:02 PM


Re: Penguin's Milk
Exactly, those little kids know what they're talking about.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 04-05-2011 1:02 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019