Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
47 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,560 Year: 13,308/23,288 Month: 238/795 Week: 34/33 Day: 6/10 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery Comments on Great Debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 121 of 163 (877773)
06-21-2020 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Phat
06-21-2020 9:39 AM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi Phat,

Phat writes:

Must everything be supported by scieence?

But a static universe was the scientific answer until Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding.

When science discovers the source of the energy that caused the temperature that existed at T=10up>-44. The theory will have to change again.

The Problem is no one is looking for that source. All they do is make an assumption of it being there.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.


"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 116 by Phat, posted 06-21-2020 9:39 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 122 of 163 (877774)
06-21-2020 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by AZPaul3
06-20-2020 12:50 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi AZ,

AZ writes:

Correction ... according to their observations.

Please present any information you can find of observations that occurred between T=-44> and T=300,000 thousand years after T=-44>.

I can find none. Where there are no observations there can only be assumptions.

AZ writes:

Hypothesis: There are 12 eggs in the basket.

What idiot would form such a Hypothesis if he put four eggs in the basket to begin with.

AZ writes:

No one knows what happened or what systems operated prior to the planck time (10-44)

How could the laws of physics control the creation of the universe if they were inside the universe?

AZ writes:

What "facts" would those be?

The fact energy can not be created. As it would have been outside of the universe or the universe could not have been formed from the energy.

AZ writes:

Energy can not be created or destroyed in our universe. All bets are off when speaking otherwise.

But if the universe is the only thing that exists, there is nothing outside of the universe.

So what was the universe formed from?

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 108 by AZPaul3, posted 06-20-2020 12:50 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7945
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 123 of 163 (877775)
06-21-2020 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ICANT
06-21-2020 3:21 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
ICANT writes:

Everyone has an opinion, even you.

I see you're even quote mining me now. Old habit I suppose. What I actually said was

Tangle writes:

And yet you think you can have an opinion on something that very few people in the world are capable of understanding?

How can you - or I - possibly have an opinion about this stuff? Neither of us have any foundation in the subject let alone the ability to think like that. You have no education beyond school in any of this, your opinion is utterly worthless. As is mine.

My book will present the only logical solution to all the problems of the beginning to exist of the universe.

The sin of pride ... If you even get to produce this book, it will be vanity published won't it? Why don't you send a draft to an actual physicist, it will save you making a fool of yourself.

You have an opinion and I believe you are wrong, just as you believe I am wrong.

I do not have an opinion about cosmological physics - for a rational person with no education or practice in the subject, that would be impossible. But not for an irrational fundamental christian. My opinion is confined to observing that you are not qualified to have an opinion.

Satan's curses.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 06-21-2020 3:21 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 124 of 163 (877779)
06-21-2020 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
06-21-2020 3:06 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
ringo writes:
It was a "belief" to Einstein, as you say yourself. It was not supported by science.

But prior to Hubble discovering that the universe was expanding Einstein's belief was the scientific view.

I take exception to ringo on this one.

At the time, the only evidence available, all the scientific evidence, led to the conclusion that our universe was static, eternal and was the size of what we would later call our galaxy.

Einstein's blunder was not in adding a cosmological constant to GR but was in ignoring what his equations were telling him. The universe was not static and eternal but was dynamic and bounded. He gave in to his bias for a static universe instead of following what the new science was telling him.

Now if you know of any evidence I could examine that supports a better solution to the problem of where all that energy came from I would like to read about it.

There isn't any. There never was. The only thing we have are speculations.

As you keep pointing out thermodynamics requires entropy to be very low and energy to be exceptionally high at the beginning in order for this universe to operate as we see it today.

How that was achieved has not been, and may never be, adequately explained.

Your contention that *our* physics extends back before 10-44 and precludes such high energy at the beginning is obviously false since the big bang inflationary state stems from precisely this condition.

Where there are no observations there can only be assumptions.

Are you saying extensions of physical timelines and conditions based on our demonstrably reliable equations and simulations are assumptions and not observations?

I'm sure your religious sensibilities believe that, like assumptions of dinosaurs and a young Earth, anything we didn't see didn't happen, but the rest of society, especially the scientific community, strenuously rejects such an absurd contention.

What idiot would form such a Hypothesis if he put four eggs in the basket to begin with.

You're the one who put the eggs in the basket. I'm the scientist trying to figure out the reality.

The point remains that the science limits the math we can use. You are not allowed to just pull equations from your ass.

Which would mean that the energy used to create the universe had to be created. Which the laws of Physics says can not happen.

Your misunderstanding of Dr. Hawking's lecture seems intractable. So be it.

Your contention that he claims our physics transcends the point where they cease to function is ludicrous.

There had to be existence and in that existence there had to be enough energy to create the universe we have today, according to the laws of Physics. "Energy can not be created or destroyed."

This has become another doctrine of your personal religious catechism, hasn't it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 06-21-2020 3:06 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 3:05 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 125 of 163 (877789)
06-21-2020 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
06-21-2020 3:06 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
ICANT writes:

But prior to Hubble discovering that the universe was expanding Einstein's belief was the scientific view.


And when that belief was proven wrong, it ceased to be the scientific view. Science is self-correcting.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 06-21-2020 3:06 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 12:57 PM ringo has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 126 of 163 (877838)
06-22-2020 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
06-21-2020 9:26 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

And when that belief was proven wrong, it ceased to be the scientific view. Science is self-correcting.

If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view.

quote:
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. For example, turning on a light would seem to produce energy; however, it is electrical energy that is converted.
The Laws of Thermodynamics | Boundless Chemistry

That is considered a law of Physics.

According to that law it is impossible for energy to be created.

That requires the universe to be eternal in existence as it could not have a beginning to exist which is the reason for hundreds of years the scientific view was 'the universe was eternal in existence and static'.

But the second law of thermodynamics says the universe can not be eternal in existence as the useable energy would have been used up and the universe would have reached a point there would be no useable energy and it would be a frozen universe.

Hubble discovered the universe was expanding thus it could not be eternal in existence.

For our universe to exist today which it does, would require and eternal unlimited source of energy to maintain the universe and hold it together.

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 125 by ringo, posted 06-21-2020 9:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2020 2:40 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 130 by ringo, posted 06-22-2020 3:32 PM ICANT has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 127 of 163 (877843)
06-22-2020 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
06-22-2020 12:57 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
For our universe to exist today which it does, would require and eternal unlimited source of energy to maintain the universe and hold it together.

Or it would require a physics beyond and (maybe) prior to our experience in this universe.

Or it would require the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster touching our brane-world with his noodley appendage.

Or it would require a cyclic universe effect which would become clear to us when we solve quantum gravity.

Or ...

Or ...

Or ...


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 3:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 128 of 163 (877844)
06-22-2020 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by AZPaul3
06-21-2020 6:39 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi AZ,

AZ writes:

Einstein's blunder was not in adding a cosmological constant to GR but was in ignoring what his equations were telling him.

I don't know what Einstein was thinking.

But he did know and believe the first law of thermodynamics that energy could not be created. That gave him a problem as it does me. I can only come up with two possibilities for the energy to exist. It was either eternal in existence or it had to be created. But it can't be created according to the laws of Physics. That means I have to accept God provided the energy. Einstein could not believe that so he adjusted his equations to show the universe was eternal and static.

So when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding in every direction from us the second law of thermodynamics comes into effect requiring the universe to have a beginning to exist.

So the move to the beginning to exist theory came about but a lot of things had to be ignored. Like where did the energy come from that produced the universe.

Assumption made that the universe was a self contained universe with nothing outside. Assumption made that this universe existed at T=10-44 . Nobody has an answer as to how it got there, it just is.

AZ writes:

There isn't any. There never was. The only thing we have are speculations.

That sounds to me like I hope that is the way it is. But that is not the thoughts that are presented.

It has been assumed the energy was there and where or how it got there is of no consequence.

That sounds like accepting something by faith. Although I have been told there is not accepted in science by faith.

AZ writes:

As you keep pointing out thermodynamics requires entropy to be very low and energy to be exceptionally high at the beginning in order for this universe to operate as we see it today.

Actually I am trying to point out that if the universe had a beginning to exist in the BB a source of energy would be required to produce the universe in which we live as the energy could not be created.

That is the reason Guth proposed a zero energy universe that was never accepted.

I am also trying to point out that if the universe is eternal in existence it has to have an eternal unlimited source of power to exist as we see it today.

I know this flies in the face of everything you have been taught.

I am just trying to look at the statements of the laws of physics and determine if what I have read and studied concerning the beginning to exist of the universe.

Let me state what I believe and see if I can clear up some misconceptions.

I believe the universe is eternal in existence but not necessarily in the form we see it today.

I believe that an entity that has been called God is the creator of the universe and has a unlimited supply of energy. This entity also supplies everything that is required to hold the universe together.

I believe the universe as we know it was created in one light period sometime in eternity past. Genesis 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and earth. Genesis 2:4 tells us that was accomplished in one light period. The history of that day is recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
There was no darkness on earth until we find it at Genesis 1:2 which ended day one when the second light period ended that darkness.
If you ask me how old the heavens and the earth are. I will say I don't know. You might say are you comfortable with 13.8 billion years old. I would say it is probably a lot older than that.

I think you can get from that I am not a YEC.

AZ writes:

Your contention that *our* physics extends back before 10-44 and precludes such high energy at the beginning is obviously false since the big bang inflationary state stems from precisely this condition.

Did I miss something somewhere. When did the inflation hypothesis reach consensus?

AZ writes:

Are you saying extensions of physical timelines and conditions based on our demonstrably reliable equations and simulations are assumptions and not observations?

What timelines are you talking about.

I am saying that until 300,000 years after T=0 you can't observe anything. Anything you believe took place or existed before that 300,000 is nothing but a guess. And anything you build a theory or hypothesis on is an assumption. You have to assume that what you believe is true.

AZ writes:

The point remains that the science limits the math we can use.

I thought reality is what did the limiting. We don't live in a fantasy world.

AZ writes:

Your misunderstanding of Dr. Hawking's lecture seems intractable

There is nothing hard to understand what he said.

He said the laws of Physics would determine how the universe would begin.

The first law of thermodynamics affirms energy can not be created.
The beginning of the universe to exist would require lots of energy be created.

If energy can't be created it has to be eternal in existence.

AZ writes:

Your contention that he claims our physics transcends the point where they cease to function is ludicrous.

He is the one (not me) that said the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist. That requires the laws to be outside of the universe.

AZ writes:

This has become another doctrine of your personal religious catechism, hasn't it.

I don't have a religious catechism.

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 124 by AZPaul3, posted 06-21-2020 6:39 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 129 of 163 (877846)
06-22-2020 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by AZPaul3
06-22-2020 2:40 PM


Re: AZ
Hi AZ,

Where would you purpose the energy could come from in your rant?

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 127 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2020 2:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2020 5:33 PM ICANT has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 130 of 163 (877849)
06-22-2020 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
06-22-2020 12:57 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
ICANT writes:

If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view.


Sure, it could be wrong. Sure, it might change some day. What makes you think it would change BACK to a view that has already been proven wrong?

ICANT writes:

That requires the universe to be eternal in existence as it could not have a beginning to exist....


It has already been pointed out to you that our laws of physics only date back to the Big Bang.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 4:11 PM ringo has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 131 of 163 (877851)
06-22-2020 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by ringo
06-22-2020 3:32 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi ringo,

ringo writes:

Sure, it could be wrong. Sure, it might change some day. What makes you think it would change BACK to a view that has already been proven wrong?

What view are you referring too?

ringo writes:

It has already been pointed out to you that our laws of physics only date back to the Big Bang.

Didn't Hawking say the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began 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 130 by ringo, posted 06-22-2020 3:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ringo, posted 06-22-2020 4:23 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 134 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2020 5:36 PM ICANT has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18793
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 132 of 163 (877852)
06-22-2020 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
06-22-2020 4:11 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
ICANT writes:

What view are you referring too?


The one we're talking about. Don't you read your own posts?

quote:
If the scientific view that the universe was eternal and static was proven to be wrong by Hubble's discovery, what makes you think the current view is the correct view. Message 126

ICANT writes:

Didn't Hawking say the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist?


What has that got to do with it? The laws of physics go back to the Big Bang.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 4:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2020 2:44 PM ringo has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 133 of 163 (877866)
06-22-2020 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by ICANT
06-22-2020 3:10 PM


Re: AZ
Where would you purpose the energy could come from in your rant?

As I said in Message 124 there is no evidence of any kind for the beginning, how t=0 came about. All there are, all there may ever be, are speculations. Our physics is not sufficient enough to even hypothesize if there was anything prior to t=0 or what physics may have operated then.

What I do know is that ancient peoples all over the world sought to explain the world in the face of their ignorance and invented deities and creation stories based on nothing but the visions and insistences of what we today would call religious zealots. I also know that what we see in the operations of this universe does not require any deities thus continuing to invoke a deity because of ancient stories or to cover our continued ignorance is intellectually repugnant.

But since you asked …

Yes, we know a lot, very accurately, about how this universe operates. We know how the forces and the quarks condensed out of the intense energies that existed after the inflationary epoch. We know how matter and stars and planets and people came to be. There are still holes in our knowledge but for the most part the history and operations of this universe are very well understood.

But, I know our present physics is woefully inadequate to understand the origins and full operations of this universe.

My hope, my speculation, is that as human intellect and technology progress we will uncover the physics that answers the origins questions. And when we find those answers I believe they will be totally surprising, totally unforeseen and will lead to even bigger greater questions we didn’t even know to ask.

Unfortunately, I won’t be around to see this play out and I have grave concerns whether humanity will survive long enough to do this.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 3:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2020 1:19 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2020 2:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5365
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 134 of 163 (877867)
06-22-2020 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
06-22-2020 4:11 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Didn't Hawking say the laws of Physics would determine how the universe began to exist?

Dr. Hawking also said the universe would reverse back to a big crunch.

That view has been rejected.

Dr. Hawking is not always right.


Factio Republicana delenda est.
I am antifa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 4:11 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 06-22-2020 9:32 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6384
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 135 of 163 (877884)
06-22-2020 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by AZPaul3
06-22-2020 5:36 PM


Re: Tangles Comment
Hi AZ,

AZ writes:

Dr. Hawking also said the universe would reverse back to a big crunch.

I thought he said: "if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition."
it would end in a big crunch.

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 134 by AZPaul3, posted 06-22-2020 5:36 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020