|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I would like to read your thoughts on those things if you ever decide to come out of the closet. (closet pre-Big Bang believer) You haven't a 1% grasp on what we're talking about, and yet you have the gall to claim to know what I believe! When I don't even know myself! In the same post you accuse me of believing both the no-boundary proposal AND a pre-Big Bang What sort of fool are you? You do not change - you continue to wield terms and concepts with the confidence of an expert and the knowledge and ability of a 2yr old. And what sort of divine inspiration is required to come up with "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?? It's the most sodding obvious thing that any half-brained monotheistic priest could jot down. And you think this is some incredible revelation that is born out by science. FFS, this is pathetic. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Yes, if expansion is correct, for a universe to be infinite, it must be eternal. Nope, there's a good chance the Universe is infinite, and is still only 13.7 billion years old
There is, perhaps, the possibility of a universe existing which is infinite in size and finite in time, it's just not, apparantly, the universe we live in. Actually, there's a fair bit of evidence that points to precisely this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Since the edge of our Universe appears to be expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't that make our universe for all practical purposes infinite? Yes it does, whether the Universe is finite or infinite. Even in the classic closed Univere (before we knew of the accelerating expansion) which collapses into the Big Crunch, you do not have time circumnavigate the Universe before the Big Crunch occurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Really? This is not something I have heard. As far as I've ever heard, the current thinking is that the universe is finite but unbounded. The jury is still very much out. The classic Big Bang model has three scenarios: closed, flat, and open. The latter two are both infinite and were long seen as the strongest contenders, despite all popular depictions of the Big Bang portraying the closed scenario, mainly because it is much simpler to present. So when we talk about the singularity being this infinitely small point, we're lying It is quite possibly infinite in extent (strictly, this doesn't make sense as you cannot define a length measure at the singularity, but at any infinitessimal moment after T=0, the Universe is infinite in extent, so it is sort of sensible to describe the singularity as also being infinite. Because the Universe is so close to flat, the matter density is very close to critical, which means that as our estimates vary, our view on whether the Universe is finite or infinite tends to swing back and forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
So since the atomic clock has to have specific atoms that have been alter in their energy state to be accurate, what does your assertion have to do with anything? The fact that you have to ask shows just how stupidly out of your depth you remain. You have the gall to demand evidence when the guys here have all suggested GPS. Just because YOU have no clue as to what this has to do with space-time, does not mean that it has nothing to do with space-time. Perhaps you think that when you close your eyes, we all disappear Go look up GPS and relativity on Wikipedia, and when you come back, perhaps you won't look quite so stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
There is metaphysics that proposes that there is a time dimension but metaphysics is not science. And the idiocy continues
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Wiki writes: To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy. So you are saying this is wrong, and SR and GR have no part to play in GPS?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Maybe being 70 is a handicap in his case though... Possibly, though it's still hard to see why. He's now trawling through the web and dredging up random unpublished crap in the hope to show that relativity, that which 99.9% of physicists accepts, is somehow wrong. Why? God only knows. It's possible that ICANT hates the fact that many here (including at least one teenager) have a far greater understanding of cosmology and fundemental physics than he ever will, despite all his reading, and his only comfort comes from hoping that everyone else is wrong. However, I have a feeling that ICANT is just desperate to prove that his pathetic "idea" of how the Universe works is the correct view, and the entire world community of scientists is wrong. Pride is a powerful force in the mind of the weak...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
How can all the clocks be synchronous in the different orbit's if relativity is correct? Outstanding, ICANT, you've done it! With this simple observation, you have proven the past 100 years' physics completely wrong: Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory - fuck the fact that these theories have consistently proven themselves with the most accurate predictions ever made in human history - you, with your persistency and internet bullshit have proven wrong not only me, but Hawking, Einstein, Feynman, Dirac, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, and every physics department in the world... oh, wait, I've just spotted the fundemental flaw in your argument: you're a twat. Damn, and you were so close.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Explain how something can be accelerating and continuint to circle the earth in just under 12 hrs. If it is continually accelerating that means it is getting faster and faster doesn't it? Oh, god, I wish I were still lecturing, just so I could pass this one around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This has consequences, because acceleration means that work is being done, and so entropy must increase. Careful. Work done = F.d In a circular orbit, acceleration, and hence force, is perpendicular to the direction of travel, so the dot product is zero. Thus an orbit is conservative: no work is done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
It is unfortunate that it is also being paired with a lack of humility. There is no crime in ignorance, but the level of arrogance portrayed in simply astounding. Each time ICANT comes back, I fall for his ploy that he is actually interested in learning. And each time, I end up feeling betrayed, used, and abused
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
One can see that the function is very high. If you compare a human design, concerning flight, you will get something very inefficient. The power to weight ratio for example, will not be as good. Now, you get a radio control helicopter with full 3D flight, but at best the energy per-flight ratio is astoundingly poor compared to a hoverfly. Even after many years of designing, it seems the ratios in construction are exceedingly poor. We also have the facts of information being seperate to matter, ecc.. Oh, Mike, why do we bother when you do all the work for us. You have just perfectly well demonstrated that nature cannot possibly use design as it is far too inefficient. We agree completely. How could one possibly mistake nature for design, when design is, as you say, so poor? What's that you say? God's design is much much better than our design? Is it? Do you have an example of this divine design, as the only examples of design I know are all examples of human design.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024