Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Big Bang and Cosmology ⇒

In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   In the begining...... nothing.... unless infinite past.
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 10 of 79 (192790)
03-20-2005 12:16 PM 		Reply to: Message 9 by Christian7
03-20-2005 8:12 AM

The following quote is just plain wrong!
Guidosoft writes:
​
If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.
​
Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.
​
You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.
If there are no laws of motion, then there is no reason for any object to move, even spontaniously, because there is no law stating it can.
​
Nothing to allow it. Take for instance a computer program.
​
You plan to write a gravitation simulator. You make the ball, and all you have so far is a ball on the screen but no code for that ball to pretend to be pulled towards the bottom of the screen. Does this mean that the ball will have spontainous movement? No. The ball simply won't move. Laws do not prevent things from happening, they cause things to happen. Friction is not a prevention of objects moving, it is a causing of energy transfer, which in term makes the object slow. So there is no physical law that actualy prevents an action or something, there is only law which makes something occur, and with out them, there is no reason for anything to occur, because in order for sparatic activity to occur, there must be law that says so.
​
This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 03-20-2005 12:16 PM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 8:12 AM Christian7 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2005 12:29 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 2:12 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 13 of 79 (192823)
03-20-2005 2:49 PM 		Reply to: Message 12 by Christian7
03-20-2005 2:12 PM

Don't get up about the word law.
If you want an example of a 'law' that prevents something then think about the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 2:12 PM Christian7 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 3:30 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 15 of 79 (192835)
03-20-2005 3:37 PM 		Reply to: Message 14 by Christian7
03-20-2005 3:30 PM

Re: Don't get up about the word law.
I said not to get hung up on the word law.
​
Look at the twisting you just did with your brother/sister analogy.
​
This is all because I think you have a misunderstanding of the use of the word law as applied in physics.
​
Please tell me what you think a law is? Because your use of preventitive seems to imply tha this is somehow on a lesser footing than what you think law is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 3:30 PM Christian7 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:20 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 17 of 79 (192845)
03-20-2005 4:26 PM 		Reply to: Message 16 by Christian7
03-20-2005 4:20 PM

You are incorrect.
A law is something defined by science that explains things that occur in nature.
​
This is not what 'law' is.
​
A 'law' is just something that encapsulates what we expect to be the result of an experiment.
​
It is not explanatory in and of itself.
​
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics arose out of observation in the experiments of people like Joule. It was not derived theoretically but empirically.
​
Your inability to explain what you mean by laws not being preventitive is not going to allow you to make a valid point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:20 PM Christian7 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:51 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 19 of 79 (192851)
03-20-2005 4:54 PM 		Reply to: Message 18 by Christian7
03-20-2005 4:51 PM

Re: You are incorrect.
So how do you argue that gravity is on any more fundamental level than the exclusion principle.
​
I think you are getting lost here.
​
How do you spot an absolute law by the way. What criteria do you apply?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 4:51 PM Christian7 has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 5:48 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 22 of 79 (192863)
03-20-2005 6:01 PM 		Reply to: Message 20 by Christian7
03-20-2005 5:48 PM

If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
Seriously, if you are having a hard time explaining your own position and the definition of terms what is the point.
​
You made some suppositions that I think are based upon misunderstanding of what a law is and know you are complaining you want to move on because your head is hurting.
​
What are we to move onto???
​
If gravity isn't an example then pray tell, as I asked above, what is the criteria for an 'absolute law' as opposed to other laws.
​
Aren't you just playing a metaphysical game here with no rules?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 5:48 PM Christian7 has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 6:46 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 24 of 79 (192869)
03-20-2005 6:51 PM 		Reply to: Message 23 by Funkaloyd
03-20-2005 6:46 PM

Re: If you want I'll close the thread for you then.
I was being facetious. But his complaint that it was hard to think about (even expressing his own position) is not a good start.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Funkaloyd, posted 03-20-2005 6:46 PM Funkaloyd has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Christian7, posted 03-20-2005 9:22 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4402 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 40 of 79 (198608)
04-12-2005 12:02 PM 		Reply to: Message 39 by Raelian1
04-12-2005 10:44 AM

LOL
the Raelians. Hee hee hee.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Raelian1, posted 04-12-2005 10:44 AM Raelian1 has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024