Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

I think what Ned is saying is that when you don't understand an answer, two things happen. First, since you don't understand it, you don't realize when there's a significant detrimental impact on your position. And second, since you think there was nothing you didn't understand in the answer, you therefore conclude it didn't affect your position.There seems nothing to be gained by repeating answers you already rejected.I think Sylas was saying he understood that he didn't convince you, but that that was okay with him. Oh, I think there's much more going on than that. Discussion is a two way street, and I think most people become frustrated with someone who rarely understands but is never wrong. We never refuted WillowTree either, according to him, and he apparently isn't even able to read a map. This is a perfect example of why discussion with you is so frustrating. We're all sorry it makes no sense to you, but infinite plus one equals infinite. But I learned my lesson a long time ago, so you won't see me spending much time trying to persuade you of this.--Percy

I've formally given up on Buz too. He's a pleasant enough chap most of the time which is why it's been ok with me to try. However, enough is enough.

Let's get specific. If the space between galaxy A and galaxy B increases, you're contending that the distance between A and B remains the same, in that neither A nor B moves, no matter how much the expansion? Or am I not understanding your usage of the word "moves," and the phrase, "same place?" See post 232 of Silas toward the end of the post.
"This is not something that is part of our normal experience, so it can be hard to accept......."I don't have specifics on physicists who may contend with this, but will see what I can find.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Even though I quit replying on this thread I have been trying to follow Percy and Sylas discussing the issue.I want to see if I have even a minute understanding of what has been said about expanding space.Start by dividing space into a grid 1 unit by 1 unit. Each item in space is at a particular point on that grid (4,5) and (4,13) respectively on my first grid below. As space expands...now the grid is 2 units by 2 units. The items remain at the same spot with respects to space as a whole but are now twice as far apart as they started.Please bear with me guys. You claim it to be a difficult concept, now imagine trying to wrap your head around it with minimal math background.
Click for larger image Fixed width of image. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 01-22-2005 09:44 AM

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

I know it is confusing and I've been tring to avoid an analogy because they can be misleading but...A and B don't move if we use the word "move" to mean move through space/time. However if there is more space in between them they are further apart.If I make a pen mark on a large elastic band then place another mark 1 inch away the marks can NOT move on the band. They are fixed in place. However, if I pull on the elastic it streaches and the marks are now further apart.You're not going to like the analogy because you see the marks "moving" relative to the table top or whatever. But in the universe there is no table top. The 'marks' (galaxies) stay on the same spot of elastic (space/time). However the elastic (space/time) between them is streached. Is is not part of what we see in the room around us is what he means. The truth of it is that our "normal" experience of the universe isn't right.The ground is not solid, time is not fixed and space can deform.ABE
Asgara has it right in her example above.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-21-2005 20:36 AM

We all have times of missunderstandings in dialog, but to imply that I don't understand a lot of what I've answered to is bogus personal stuff, used by Ned and now you, who have, so far, yourselves, failed to substantially refute my hypothesis or to show were anyone else has done so. Both you and he eventually get around to these alleged personal implications spun up out of whole cloth with your generalized allegations, rather than to be fair and stick to specifics when you critique. 1. For example?
2. When an opponent repeats their argument, or something relative to it, repetition of my position may be required. That happens with all of us quite often, does it not? If you want to cite a specific, I'd be happy to address it. That's fine. It works both ways. There were a couple of things, however which he did not answer yet and may or may not do so, which is ok, since he's given a lot of time and work to the subject already. 1. You're mean, man, mean. Firstly, I try to make sure I've got a sound argument before posting and secondly, I'm ready and willing to be taught/corrected when the teacher can substantially show error on my part. Please get specific. As they said in the Air Force, "poop or get off the pot."
2. I'm not Willowtree. Show where I've been refuted and we'll talk about it. You make these meanspirited allegations and refuse consistently to document your charges. I suppose because you own the place, you think that's your priviledge. Well, it is your priviledge as owner, but it's not right and just. I know full well that infinite plus 1 equals infinite. Where've I ever said otherwise? You missed my point, that it does nothing for his argument. It's simplistically silly to use that for his argument and it in no way refuted what I said. It seems you said something similar last time we went through this. I've learned to expect you and Ned on the scene with this personal stuff when I begin to score in fair and square debate.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

I assume your top numbers represent distance. If that's the case, as I see it, the problem with this is that you're enlarging your distance measurements. Your light years (or whatever measurement you would use) in chart two are longer light years than the light years of chart one. To be objective, you need to use the same size distance blocks in chart two as you used in chart one. Space between your Xs/galaxies expands. Length of individual light years do not. Thus, with more distance blocks in chart two, your distance between A and B has increased and for this to happen, there must needs be movement of either A, B or both. Am I making sense here?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-21-2005 22:25 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Not at all. I'm saying it's silly math and bogus for substantiation of anything. You cannot extend dimension to uncountably infinite dimension. Therefore you simply cannot add one unit of dimension to uncountably infinite dimension so as to increase uncountably infinite dimension. I'm not talking about adding didgets of measurements within dimension. I'm talking adding to it's expanse/overall length, breath or height. That's been my postion all along and to do interject your hotel thing obfuscates my position.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-21-2005 23:16 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Actually my grid didn't represent any specific distance. It was just an evenly spaced grid to divide up space. As the space got larger things appear to be moving away from any particular spot on the grid.The speed of light hasn't changed so a light year isn't any longer in grid two than it is in grid one. There are more light years between the objects but that doesn't change the spot on the grid, in reference to the whole of space, that each object is in.Someone else is going to have to see if I have this correct. I didn't post to refute anything you might have been posting buz. I just wanted to see if I understood it correctly.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

The numbers would need to represent something in your grid, and it appears to be distance. We'll see if someone can debunk that. I'm off to church tomorrow, weather permitting, so talk to you later, Lord willing. May God bless all!

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

( why don't I just drop this? sigh) Sorry Buz but I think you introduced an infinite universe didn't you? If not forgive me.If you have an infinite universe then you're stuck with the fact that you can add to it and still get the same size infinity.Almost all of your post up there I don't understand.What does this mean:? How is it different from what you are saying?What hotel? (you mean the one with an infinite number of rooms? That 's just an example of the odd behaviours you get if you introduce infinity. Do you want to remove the idea of infinity from the discussion then? I think that is what we are talking about too. Just moving it outward in all 3 dimensions at once.

Yes, Asgara, your description seems fine.Buz has given the standard objection, that you are just changing the notion of distance. There is a big problem with that solution.The basic point of expansion is that things at rest have an increasing separation distance. Let me try to justify this. I'll use a bit of fairly simply observational science.A major line of evidence for the big bang is cosmic background microwave radiation (CMBR). This comes to us from all corners of the sky, and it is an almost perfect "blackbody" spectrum, corresponding to a heat source with a supercold temperature of 2.7 degrees absolute. That is about -270 degrees celcius, or -455 degrees fahrenheit.Now if you are moving towards a source of light, then the frequency is "blue-shifted", and if you are moving away then it is "red-shifted". This means that if you move towards a blackbody radiation source it appears just a bit hotter, and if you move away it appears just a bit cooler. It turns out that the CMBR is a bit cooler in one direction, and a bit hotter in the other. The effect corresponds exactly to us moving through this radiation with a velocity of 368 km/sec.Now what this means is that the universe contains a natural absolute rest frame, defined as being at rest with respect to the CMBR filling all of space, so that it appears the same from every direction.Take two points widely separated in space. Let them be at rest with respect to the CMBR. What expansion means is that over time, the distance between these points will increase. The current expansion rate is such that objects that are one MegaParsec apart (3260000 light years) get 71 new kilometres of space between them every second.Suppose that we simply cannot accept this. We just refuse to admit that space could expand, and we insist that points at rest must remain at the same separation. This is a common reaction.OK. Let us take two objects, and somehow keep them at the same separation distance. Let us also have these points a long way apart from each other, sufficient for expansion of space (if it exists) to cause problems. I propose having two objects that are 40 billion light years apart. If space is infinite, this should be no problem.But expansion is a problem, because the current rate of expansion of the universe is 71 km/sec/MPsec. What that means is that two objects 40 billion light years apart get 871,000 kilometers of new space between them every second. And the speed of light is only 300,000 kilometers a second. Each object can only move through space at the speed of light, which means that the distance between them will continue to increase even if they are beams of light aimed directly towards each other!.Now of course, some folks may point blank refuse to accept that this is a real description of what the universe is like. After all, it is only a thought experiment; we can’t do measurements directly confirming the notion as I have described it. The point is that we can do measurements which confirm the basic models of general relativity and expansion of space, which has the above circumstance as a straightforward consequence.What you are doing with your two diagrams is basically showing an expanding space, with the lines representing points at rest in the universal background radiation frame. The distance between points at rest increases as space expands; and if they are sufficiently far apart then their separation distance will increase no matter how quickly they attempt to move towards each other.Cheers -- Sylas

Inifinity can affect the metric independent of the organization of the coordinate system or cardinality of the ordertypes along the axes. But this comment only applies to the biological form relative to the causality and so my point only applied to the individual creatures thinking or traveling through the light years represented. The physical problem, independent of this comment ON INFINITY relative to any humanly DONE distance, was raised up I believe, if I know correctly, by Poincare, and thus length no matter how measured does depend on th environment. P also deplored Cantor's infinity but despite Russell not going this far subjectively Russel still had logical difference of distance and strech. I was only approving of NOT using ANY CUTS in the most modern thought but only those that do not void or avoid biological restrictions on the form or deviation from a straight line IN THE INERTIAL SYSTEM physically existant. I CAN think this and still have infinity without contradiction and the only physical query seems on that, this basis is if Einstein might have not needed to have Quantum entanglement apply to tissue as well as any TIME poincare considered returns.Your gnip/gnop with Buzz applies in general in the cladistic literture more abstractly when it comes to determing the causal effects of barriers to dispersal under vicariance or not with computer alogorithm programs but does not have the sense of light years etc. My understanding does not apply to a scale this large except for the effect it would have on the thinker.(as an aside and off topic, just so you might have a better chance of understanding if you wish to involve this sense, in your dialog, before reading Georgi Gladyshev on the difference of atom, molecule, and supramolecule) i was under a thought that big bang expansion, entropy, and growth of organisms some how had DIFFERENT spaces unless certain ontological claims about the relation of biology andnphysics were made GIVEN that one DIDNOT question the existance of GOd. This is less broad for me today as I DO see it simply as Georgi said about how entropy was THOUGHT from BOltzman to Schordinger to Prigogine. There is a mistake in phsical application but to determine this in terms Poincare might find acceptable COULD be actually impossible.That was my guess in the physics that would take up Mach and Einstein's division of the history of physics from Newton to Maxwell/Faraday but I do admit Syals and Ned may know a bit more of the details here (there are others here who know a bite more as well.)

After I shut down last night I lay thinking about the grids and realized my mistake as to interpretation of the grids of the queen's charts. I realized after thinking about it that they reprepresented expanded grids of space, so that got me thinking about the whole shebang of space/time and the big bang and how you people think on space. The problem is that your model is creating space that doesn't exist when in fact you can't observe space perse and thus can't observe it's expansion. When things move apart in space, imo, you're missconstruing that movement as being expansion of something you can't observe. Gotta run for the day. Have a good'n.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe, time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

Actaully, the numbers look more like mere indices to me ... "this is grid square 1-2", for example. Just like on a roadmap where there's a grid and there are letters down the sides and numbers along the top and bottom ... look in the list of towns and Graderssberg is listed at D-7 and you go to row D column 7 to find Graderssberg. Nothing to do with distance.