PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Big Bang - another test coming

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know that Big Bang doesn't have anything to do with biological evolution here on earth, but the topic comes up routinely as part of the debate on naturalistic origins versus origins of divine nature.

Super sensitive microwave sensors built by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) may answer a question about what happened in the first tiniest fraction of a second during the Big Bang.  In an experiment scheduled to be conducted a year from now.

The new experiment will begin approximately a year from now on the Chilean desert and will consist of placing a large array of powerful NIST sensors on a telescope mounted in a converted shipping container.

The detectors will look for subtle fingerprints in the CMB from primordial gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of space-time from the violent birth of the universe more than 13 billion years ago. Such waves are believed to have left a faint but unique imprint on the direction of the CMB's electric field, called the "B-mode polarization." These waves—never before confirmed through measurements—are potentially detectable today, if sensitive enough equipment is used.

If found, these waves would be the clearest evidence yet in support of the "inflation theory," which suggests that all of the currently observable universe expanded rapidly from a subatomic volume, leaving in its wake the telltale cosmic background of gravitational waves.


This is a nice illustration of how theory leads to predictions, then to experiments to test the theory.  

So it will be interesting to see what results this experiment returns.  

Super-sensors To Discover What Happened In First Trillionth Of A Second After Big Bang
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:16 PM on May 4, 2009 | IP
Erica15

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here is my personal view on the big bang

think about this

If you ask an evolutionist what was before the big bang, they would reply that there was nothing. The big bang *created* our world. So basically what they are saying, logically is that thjere was a bunch of nothing. And then a bunch of nothing combined. Then nothing exploded, and the world was formed.
How is this possible? the laws of matter say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, so how does nothing explode,and then create matter?
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:27 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Haha! Orion, you fuel them! xD

Hello, Erica, and welcome.

If you ask an evolutionist what was before the big bang, they would reply that there was nothing. The big bang *created* our world.
Not every evolutionist will say that.

Some will say that we live inside a computer simulation. It simulated Evolution, but did not simulate the Big Bang.

Pay attention: SOME WILL SAY THAT GOD DID IT!

The Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution. Really.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:38 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Erica15 at 6:27 PM on May 12, 2009 :
here is my personal view on the big bang

think about this

If you ask an evolutionist what was before the big bang, they would reply that there was nothing.


No they wouldn't, who told you this????



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:07 PM on May 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before the Big Bang there was nothing?  

I don't think I would say that, because I don't think no one really knows.  What caused the Big Bang?  I don't think anyone knows that either.

I reason I pointed out the article was because I thought it was interesting, and because it illustrated a critical quality of a good scientific theory - that it can make predictions and be testable.  In this case:

The detectors will look for subtle fingerprints in the CMB from primordial gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of space-time from the violent birth of the universe more than 13 billion years ago. Such waves are believed to have left a faint but unique imprint on the direction of the CMB's electric field, called the "B-mode polarization." These waves—never before confirmed through measurements—are potentially detectable today, if sensitive enough equipment is used.

So the Big Bang makes a prediction of what we should find in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).  An experiment with supposedly sensitive enough detectors is being set up to test the theory.

Evolutionary theory has worked in much the same fashion.  For the past 150 years since Darwin proposed Natural Selection and Common Descent, gathered facts, experiments, and discoveries in a wide range of scientific fields have done nothing but strengthened Evolution - both as a fact and in theory.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:00 PM on May 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before the Big Bang there was nothing?  

I don't think I would say that, because I don't think no one really knows.
I really really really do not think anyone should say "before the Big Bang".

I think it's an expression we're used to in our normal experience and language, but doesn't apply to the Big Bang.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:44 AM on May 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


I just thought it was funny. Kind of.


(Edited by wisp 5/14/2009 at 08:21 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:20 AM on May 14, 2009 | IP
Galileo

|     |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It made me laugh!

Success Wisp!


-------
Hallowed are the Invisible Pink Unicorns
 


Posts: 160 | Posted: 3:50 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 07:44 AM on May 14, 2009 :

I really really really do not think anyone should say "before the Big Bang".

I think it's an expression we're used to in our normal experience and language, but doesn't apply to the Big Bang.



Why not? Not trying to be confrontational or anything. The big bang was a finite event, why couldn't there be a before?



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:25 AM on May 22, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

What we 'know' about the 'Big Bang' is based on mathematical models that reduce down to a mathematical 'singularity' which we call the beginning of our universe. Time, being a property of our universe, begins at the singularity as well. The model does not allow us to project the properties of this universe back through the singularity.

Wisp is correct. "before the big bang" is an antilogy.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 01:46 AM on May 22, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 01:46 AM on May 22, 2009 :
Fencer

What we 'know' about the 'Big Bang' is based on mathematical models that reduce down to a mathematical 'singularity' which we call the beginning of our universe. Time, being a property of our universe, begins at the singularity as well. The model does not allow us to project the properties of this universe back through the singularity.

Wisp is correct. "before the big bang" is an antilogy.



You're very close, but thats not exactly right, the point that we call the "singularity" isn't the point at which the big bang started, it actually started shortly before that.. It's just the point where the math breaks down.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:26 AM on May 22, 2009 | IP
bobby4

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:





(Edited by bobby4 5/22/2009 at 10:36 PM).
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 10:34 PM on May 22, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 01:46 AM on May 22, 2009 :
Fencer

What we 'know' about the 'Big Bang' is based on mathematical models that reduce down to a mathematical 'singularity' which we call the beginning of our universe. Time, being a property of our universe, begins at the singularity as well. The model does not allow us to project the properties of this universe back through the singularity.

Wisp is correct. "before the big bang" is an antilogy.



Not saying that there was anything before or not, only that we cannot go to the big bang (something like 10^-43 seconds before the big bang) because our physics breaks down. But that doesn't mean that there was nothing before, only that we cannot know with our current models.

It could be that our universe is embedded between two or more membranes from other universes that when collided, caused the big bang, making it that there are multiple universes that existed before ours did. Or the big bang could be the result of a virtual particle that had a lot of energy which made it expand, as far as I know no one knows. Either case there was a before, even if nothing was there. All it requires is that there be something outside of our universe, which at the moment, there is no valid test for. That is how I see it.  



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:09 AM on May 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, imagine Time as a succession of instants (never mind right now if they're infinite or not, or if instants don't exist according to Special Relativity).

What makes you think that they are "really" ordered?

What (or who) gives it the order?

Well, the natural physic principles do.

Entropy goes that way. There. That's your arrow of Time.

When the natural laws break down, there's absolutely no reason to take any instant and put it behind the Big Bang.

You can choose to say that two universes collided. And perhaps you could even use that model (and use some other if it explains other things) but there's no reason to say that THAT's what "really" happened.

There's no "really".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:06 PM on May 23, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:06 PM on May 23, 2009 :


When the natural laws break down, there's absolutely no reason to take any instant and put it behind the Big Bang.


For this universe yes, but if something existed outside of this universe then there could be a before this universe.

You can choose to say that two universes collided. And perhaps you could even use that model (and use some other if it explains other things) but there's no reason to say that THAT's what "really" happened.

There's no "really".



Well, we really don't know what started the big bang, and we don't know if anything is outside of our universe, which opens up the possibility that there was a 'before' the big bang. Not so much for our own universe, but for anything outside of our universe.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:54 AM on May 26, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

Try looking at it this way. Asking a physicist 'What came before the Big Bang?' is a bit like asking a Christian 'Who made God?'

Just as the meaning of the word God precludes the notion of a 'maker of God' so the meaning of "Big Bang" precludes the idea of a 'time before it'.

Essentially, insisting that the Big Bang has a 'before' is a denial of the Big Bang itself. That is why it is an antilogy to talk about a time 'before the Big Bang'.


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 08:18 AM on May 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For this universe yes, but if something existed outside of this universe then there could be a before this universe.
That would be lazy thinking.

"To exist" can only mean "to manifest itself in this universe".

Of course, you can give it other meanings. But they will be useless. Pointless.

Well, we really don't know what started the big bang,
It's not about knowledge. It's about models that can explain things.

The more you meditate on this the more you realize that it applies to every aspect of "reality". There's no "really". Only models that explain things, and make predictions. That's all we have.

and we don't know if anything is outside of our universe,
Lazy thinking again.

Don't get me wrong. I do think in terms of "things outside our universe"...
which opens up the possibility
...but i don't consider that a "possibility" for one instant.
that there was a 'before' the big bang.
That would make no sense.

Seriously. That's less than "impossible". You're actually saying nothing. That would be another glitch in the brain. Like the supernatural. Like traveling back in time. Like moving faster than light.
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Not even wishful thinking. Just nothing.

I would LOVE to be wrong about these things though.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:21 PM on May 26, 2009 | IP
Mariel60

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the difference between "The Big Bang" and "Let there be Light"?  
Not all scientists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.
The whole creationist debate is ridiculous anyway, because Genesis actually parallels what science is demonstrating.  There's really no conflict.
You should check out www.songofgenesis.org
to see how science and religion really can work together, if people aren't too narrow minded (literal).


-------
Mariel
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:33 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What's the difference between "The Big Bang" and "Let there be Light"?
That the latter implies an author.

Not all scientists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.
Certainly.

But you seem to be a creationist.

Not a YEC, but a creationist nevertheless.

The whole creationist debate is ridiculous anyway, because Genesis actually parallels what science is demonstrating.
The Earth being created before the stars?

I beg to differ.

There's really no conflict.
When it says that the Moon is a lesser light, i see a conflict. That's no light.

You should check out www.songofgenesis.org
to see how science and religion really can work together, if people aren't too narrow minded (literal).
Science doesn't seem to need anything from the christian religion.

Eastern religions have helped some concepts of quantum physics.

Niels Bohr was aware of some parallels between modern physics and eastern religions.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:55 AM on May 27, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mariel

The Genesis creation story is religious literature containing mythical elements. It is simply a mistake to accept it uncritically as an 'historical' narrative.
There are SOME parallels between the Genesis stories and the scientific account of the origins of universe and life. It IS possible to make too much of these parallels and there are enough problems with the Genesis account to justify rejecting its 'historicity'.
Read some good commentaries on Genesis by the likes of Walter Brueggeman and Gerhad von Rad. You will find that Genesis makes much more sense as theology in the form of imaginative narrative than as history.

In the end it works perfectly well to accept the Bible as literature and read it as such. It is far more satisfying than trying to force it to be something that it is not (ie it is not a scientific explanation of anything and it is not historical in the modern sense of being an accurate account of actual events).

Being literature does not undermine its authority. On the contrary, it has a power and authority as literature that no scientific theory could ever have.

(Edited by waterboy 5/30/2009 at 12:36 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:28 AM on May 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Perhaps you got her wrong.

She doesn't believe the Genesis to be a historical account, but poetry, or a song that symbolizes what really happened.

But she does find some parallels and she clings to those by making too much of them,that's true.

I don't know if she believes that the authors knew exactly how it all happened but decided to write in symbols (including a symbolic order of events), or that Yahweh dictated the symbols directly, or what.

-The Bible says that the Moon is a lesser light. That's a mistake.
-That's not literal. It's lesser because it reflects the light from the Sun.
-Ok, but the Bible says that it was made to reign upon the night. And you see the moon during the day pretty often.
-Yeah, but the Moon is not reigning then.
-Ok, but the Moon is absent from the night just as often.
-Well, even queens need to go to the bathroom, don't they?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:36 AM on May 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:21 PM on May 26, 2009 :

Seriously. That's less than "impossible". You're actually saying nothing. That would be another glitch in the brain. Like the supernatural. Like traveling back in time. Like moving faster than light.
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Not even wishful thinking. Just nothing.

I would LOVE to be wrong about these things though.



String theory. If string theory is correct, then it is possible for other universes to exist outside of our own, or so I've been told by an astronomy professor. There is no test for it, and string theory hasn't been confirmed and may never be, so I'm not saying that things do exist outside, only that they could given our current understanding and knowledge.

P.S.
Theoretically you can travel back in time, although I doubt it will ever happen, even with an infinitely scientifically advanced civilization. The energy required is just too much.




-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:47 AM on June 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 08:18 AM on May 26, 2009 :

Essentially, insisting that the Big Bang has a 'before' is a denial of the Big Bang itself. That is why it is an antilogy to talk about a time 'before the Big Bang'.


Waterboy,
Not that our universe existed before the big bang, but something else could. The big bang is an event in our universes' history that started everything, including time for this universe. But if something precludes this universe, like another universe, then there could be a before, not for this universe, but for something larger, like a multi-universe.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:57 AM on June 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mariel60 at 10:33 AM on May 27, 2009 :
What's the difference between "The Big Bang" and "Let there be Light"?  
Not all scientists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.
The whole creationist debate is ridiculous anyway, because Genesis actually parallels what science is demonstrating.  There's really no conflict.
You should check out www.songofgenesis.org
to see how science and religion really can work together, if people aren't too narrow minded (literal).



I would agree that genesis is not in conflict with science when taken mythological as it was supposed to be, but I fail to see how it parallels science in any way.

I have seen a few creationists say that the bible says X and it really means Y and science confirmed Y, but because of the language X could also mean R, T and Z, and if read in context it makes no sense to use the passage as any knowledge about the natural world, and the verses around that verse contradict what we already know.

I know you're not a creationist, and if you're suggesting a more general approach then specific passages, then I would have to say that every religion has its mythology that is just as scientifically accurate.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:13 AM on June 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

The phrase "before the Big Bang" implies that time has meaning outside our universe. What I am saying is that time is a property of our universe and cannot be applied with any real meaning other than within the internal context or our universe.

Extrapolating time time back through the Big Bang is something like allowing Division by Zero in mathematics. Have you ever seen the proof that 1 = 2?

Just as division by zero produces nonsense in mathematics, talking about time outside our universe produces nonsense (or fantasy).





-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 03:43 AM on June 6, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 03:43 AM on June 6, 2009 :
The phrase "before the Big Bang" implies that time has meaning outside our universe. What I am saying is that time is a property of our universe and cannot be applied with any real meaning other than within the internal context or our universe.


If our universe is an oscillating universe, and it  oscillated at least once before we got here than there was a before the big bang with in our own universe, or at least with the same energy used to create this one.

If our universe is just one out of many, than is it not conceivable that there could have been a before our universe? Such as before our universe there were two universes where their membranes collided which caused a ton of energy to form into a singularity creating us.

Extrapolating time time back through the Big Bang is something like allowing Division by Zero in mathematics. Have you ever seen the proof that 1 = 2?


For our personal universe yes, assuming we're not oscillating, but if our universe is part of something larger than it is possible.

Just as division by zero produces nonsense in mathematics, talking about time outside our universe produces nonsense (or fantasy).


Division by zero does not produce nonsense, it produces an undefined, and unknown. Much the same way we don't know what created the big bang, or if there is anything outside of our universe, which means that there could be a before our universe. Like there was a before you, although you can't go backwards in time before you were born, your surroundings and the objects around you could.





-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:04 AM on June 6, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry. I had not seen this.
Fencer
Seriously. That's less than "impossible". You're actually saying nothing. That would be another glitch in the brain. Like the supernatural. Like traveling back in time. Like moving faster than light.
Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Not even wishful thinking. Just nothing.

I would LOVE to be wrong about these things though.
String theory. If string theory is correct, then it is possible for other universes to exist outside of our own, or so I've been told by an astronomy professor.
Then the concept of "existence" needs a serious update.

If there are some other dimensions (or whatever you want to call them) and we have access to them (or they have access to our universe) then they ARE a part of this universe.

There is no test for it,
Because "it" doesn't belong to the factual world (A.K.A. "reality")
and string theory hasn't been confirmed and may never be, so I'm not saying that things do exist outside, only that they could given our current understanding and knowledge.
If two things can interact, they are a part of the same universe.

You're just attacking possible facts with mere concepts. Just like creationists do when they speak of "information", or "intent", or stuff like that.
P.S.
Theoretically you can travel back in time,
No. Not even in theory. And i can demonstrate it easily.

Suppose you "travel back in time" to your childhood, and tell yourself to register famous internet domains.

Nevermind if your time-tangential alter-ego is successful or not. That is NOT your past. You've just traveled to a tangential system which resembles your past.
although I doubt it will ever happen, even with an infinitely scientifically advanced civilization. The energy required is just too much.
Opposing "too much" to "infinitely" sounds specious, but it does seem like you would need to create an entire universe which resembled your past, but adding your adult self into it.

Never_mind_that. It would NOT be your past.

If our universe is an oscillating universe,
There's no "if".
and it  oscillated at least once before we got here
Such an event would imply the collapse of every law we make use of in order to know anything. So it shouldn't even be called an "event".
than
"Then" (which means "in that case" or "at that time").
"Than" is for comparisons. Like "larger than", "prettier than", etc.
there was a before the big bang with in our own universe, or at least with the same energy used to create this one.
Look, it could be an interesting model, and it might even work sometimes (the Matrix hypothesis can work too). But to believe that it would be a "possibility" is just plain wrong. There's no "perhaps".
If it helps you understand something, use it. When it's not useful for that, discard it. That's all there is to it, really. Like conceiving light as a wave, or a particle.

If our universe is just one out of many,
Then we would need to update the concept of "universe" to include those, but only if there's interaction. If there's not, then mentioning them is lazy thinking. Occam would be rolling in his grave.
than
*Then.
is it not conceivable that there could have been a before our universe?
No. It is not conceivable, unless the laws of the universe were maintained at all times before, during and after the "creation" of this universe (so, even then, saying "before" our universe means nothing, for our universe existed before our universe even if in a different state).

"Before our universe" could never mean anything real.

Penrose (a smart guy) has nevertheless come up with a new model of Big Bang (and before the Big Bang).
But i believe that he's just playing. His idea is very interesting, but nobody should ever confuse it with a "possibility", in my opinion.
Such as before our universe there were two universes where their membranes collided which caused a ton of energy to form into a singularity creating us.
If it helps you to understand or predict a little something, use it. But if the Big Bang means even an instant of rupture of the laws of the universe, then there are no reasons to consider any "previous" event as a "previous event".

The only reason to put events in the same temporal line is that they are joined by an uninterrupted chain of events according to the laws of physics.

Otherwise we could say that Tolkien described events that occurred before the Big Bang.

Division by zero does not produce nonsense, it produces an undefined, and unknown.
Sounds pretty much like nonsense.

Much the same way we don't know what created the big bang,
I see an assumption there. One that doesn't even make sense.
or if there is anything outside of our universe,
If we can interact with it, it's not outside our universe. If we can't, it's not "anything".
which means
That you're wrong.
that there could be a before our universe.
You're trying to demonstrate that possibility just by defining concepts through lazy thinking.
Like there was a before you,
No. There's evidence that a series of events connected my past to my present.
although you can't go backwards in time before you were born, your surroundings and the objects around you could.
Huh? They go back in time?

Oh, i think i know what you mean...  They've been here since earlier times. I get it.

But that excludes anything from "before the Big Bang". No objects would survive that, you know?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:19 PM on June 6, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer

If our universe is an oscillating universe...

If our universe is just one out of many, than is it not conceivable ....

For our personal universe ...

.. if our universe is part of something larger  ...


I think you've proved my point for me.

Once you choose to ignore the constraints of our universe then anything you can imagine is possible (like 1=2).

That is called fantasy!



(Edited by waterboy 6/7/2009 at 12:03 AM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 12:01 AM on June 7, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly my point when i say that Tolkien described events from before the Big Bang, and that anything we imagine "before" the Big Bang does not belong to the factual world (A.K.A. reality).

You sum it up really well... Perhaps i need to learn to do the same...

Fencer, i go you a nice one!!
Perhaps you and i switched places without noticing! I didn't notice because, even if i used to be you, when i got here i took this body, these memories, this location, and the rest of these circumstances.

Does that sound like a possibility to you?

Do you understand what lazy thinking is?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:55 AM on June 7, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 4:19 PM on June 6, 2009 :
Then the concept of "existence" needs a serious update.

If there are some other dimensions (or whatever you want to call them) and we have access to them (or they have access to our universe) then they ARE a part of this universe.


Why are you bringing up dimensions? All the current models say that we live in a universe with more than the standard 4, ranging from 7 to 15, I think the most common now is 10. And none of it has to do with anything that I'm talking about.

There is no test for it,
Because "it" doesn't belong to the factual world (A.K.A. "reality")


??? 100 years ago there was no test for the big bang because we didn't have sensitive instruments that could have picked up the cosmic background radiation, but that didn't mean that there could have never been a big bang.

Or go back a little further, the ancient Greeks thought of an idea that everything was made up of little indivisible particles (atoms), and they had no way to test that, they didn't even know about cells! But that didn't stop the fact that we are made up of atoms, and that there are even smaller particles.

Just because scientists cannot confirm string theory, and there are other models out there, it doesn't mean that string theory cannot be correct, because no one knows.

If two things can interact, they are a part of the same universe.


Not true. Tiny quantum fluctuations from other universes can exert a small force on this universe with out them actually touching, but still very close. And scientists are trying to use sensitive enough equipment to detect these tiny fluctuations that would be given off by other universes. There are no results yet for either side.

You're just attacking possible facts with mere concepts. Just like creationists do when they speak of "information", or "intent", or stuff like that.


Yes, because I say that we do not know what started the big bang, or what is outside our universe, there could be a before the big bang. You know when people first came up with the concept of the big bang they were laughed at, and called it a mere concept that had no place in reality.

P.S.
Theoretically you can travel back in time,
No. Not even in theory. And i can demonstrate it easily.

Suppose you "travel back in time" to your childhood, and tell yourself to register famous internet domains.

Nevermind if your time-tangential alter-ego is successful or not. That is NOT your past. You've just traveled to a tangential system which resembles your past.


Theoretically microscopic wormholes can exist and you can create one, and use energy to expand the wormhole  big enough for a human to pass through. And in X amount of time you can go to that same wormhole, expand it and travel through it to another time period. However, the energy required to make the wormhole big enough would be like taking all the mass of Jupiter and converting it to energy, that is what it would take. Science hasn't ruled this out

although I doubt it will ever happen, even with an infinitely scientifically advanced civilization. The energy required is just too much.
Opposing "too much" to "infinitely" sounds specious,


?, 'too much' and 'infinitely' are about two separate things.

but it does seem like you would need to create an entire universe which resembled your past, but adding your adult self into it.

Never_mind_that. It would NOT be your past.


You know how light acts as a wave until something interferes with it, then it becomes a particle. But where that particle ends up is based on random chance, as much of the quantum world does. In science there are two schools of thought, both are mathamatically equal and neither has the upper hand. One school of thought says that the photon has only one option when it changes from a wave to a particle, the other says that the photon goes to all the possibilities, and each possibility results in a universe. So from the second school of thought there are essentially infinite universes, each one of them different. If you travel back in time, you may end up in an alternate universe. So it doesn't necessarily matter if you change the past, because it may not be your past.

Again this is theoretical, I'm not presenting this as fact, but these are things real scientists have come up with that could be real and cannot be ruled out with our current level of knowledge.

If our universe is an oscillating universe,
There's no "if".


Actually there is. The critical mass density of the universe controls what will happen to our universe in the end. If the mass of the universe is less than the number, then the universe will expand forever, if it is the same then it will eventually become static, if it is larger then we have a big crunch with an oscillating universe. As of now the number is very very close to the critical mass density number, although it does lean towards an expanding forever universe, but it could easily change to either of the two other options because it is so close.

If our universe is just one out of many,
Then we would need to update the concept of "universe" to include those, but only if there's interaction. If there's not, then mentioning them is lazy thinking. Occam would be rolling in his grave.


I assume if you lived a few hundred years ago, and any one suggested to you that cells are very very complex you would laugh at them saying they can only be simple, never mind we don't have the technology to look closer at the cell to see what exactly is going on. Not everything is simple, in fact most things are not.

"Before our universe" could never mean anything real.


Of course it could. Even if nothing was beyond, and time only started after the big bang, we could still be surrounded by a quantum field which would be real with no space, no time. Nevertheless very very real.

Penrose (a smart guy) has nevertheless come up with a new model of Big Bang (and before the Big Bang).


Haven't heard about this, but I don't think he's the type to be playing around.

But if the Big Bang means even an instant of rupture of the laws of the universe, then there are no reasons to consider any "previous" event as a "previous event".


The big bang breaks down everything we know about physics when you go 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. By your logic we should abandon this theory as well.

The only reason to put events in the same temporal line is that they are joined by an uninterrupted chain of events according to the laws of physics.

Division by zero does not produce nonsense, it produces an undefined, and unknown.
Sounds pretty much like nonsense.


Division by zero produces holes in equations when you graph them, which you can then derive derivatives from which is used in calculus. But yeah, calculus is nonsense and should be abandoned as pseudo mathematics.

Much the same way we don't know what created the big bang,
I see an assumption there. One that doesn't even make sense.


Does that mean you know what started the big bang?

or if there is anything outside of our universe,
If we can interact with it, it's not outside our universe. If we can't, it's not "anything".


And what if we can interact with it, but it wasn't caused by the big bang? Would you still consider it part of our universe?

You're trying to demonstrate that possibility just by defining concepts through lazy thinking.


How is any of my thinking lazy?

that excludes anything from "before the Big Bang". No objects would survive that, you know?


I'm not talking about objects that survived the big bang, but are outside of our universe.




-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:01 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from waterboy at 12:01 AM on June 7, 2009 :
Fencer

If our universe is an oscillating universe...

If our universe is just one out of many, than is it not conceivable ....

For our personal universe ...

.. if our universe is part of something larger  ...


I think you've proved my point for me.

Once you choose to ignore the constraints of our universe then anything you can imagine is possible (like 1=2).

That is called fantasy!



(Edited by waterboy 6/7/2009 at 12:03 AM).



I'm not ignoring any contraints, only that we don't know, which opens up many possibilities. As we learn more about our universe, it will most likely narrow down the choices and new ones will arise. But right now this is what we have to go with. We simply do not know.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 7:05 PM on June 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then the concept of "existence" needs a serious update.

If there are some other dimensions (or whatever you want to call them) and we have access to them (or they have access to our universe) then they ARE a part of this universe.
Why are you bringing up dimensions?
"Or watever you want to call them", don't forget!

I meant other dimensions as other "universes", or "twilight zones". I just didn't want to call them "universes".

I wasn't clear. I apologize.

If string theory is correct, then it is possible for other universes to exist outside of our own, or so I've been told by an astronomy professor. There is no test for it,
Because "it" doesn't belong to the factual world (A.K.A. "reality")
??? 100 years ago there was no test for the big bang because we didn't have sensitive instruments that could have picked up the cosmic background radiation, but that didn't mean that there could have never been a big bang.
To exist: The process of being manifested into the confines of the Universe.

That's my definition.

What's yours?
Because i don't get it.

Or go back a little further, the ancient Greeks thought of an idea that everything was made up of little indivisible particles (atoms), and they had no way to test that, they didn't even know about cells! But that didn't stop the fact that we are made up of atoms, and that there are even smaller particles.
Doesn't sound like indivisible to me.

Just because scientists cannot confirm string theory, and there are other models out there, it doesn't mean that string theory cannot be correct, because no one knows.
I didn't mention string theory. I objected to the concept of "outside our universe".

That concept does not belong to the realm of reality, or existence. That's all i'm saying.

If two things can interact, they are a part of the same universe.
Not true.
Oh!
Tiny quantum fluctuations from other universes can exert a small force on this universe with out them actually touching, but still very close.
Is this issue really just semantic?

If they can interact, what makes you call them "other universes"?

It seems like i need your definition of "universe", "reality" and "existence", to see if i can make sense of what you say.

Perhaps there is, under certain definitions of those words.

You're just attacking possible facts with mere concepts. Just like creationists do when they speak of "information", or "intent", or stuff like that.
Yes, because I say that we do not know what started the big bang,
Nonsense.
or what is outside our universe,
Nonsense.
there could be a before the big bang.
Nonsense.

Sounds like plain denial, but i mean it.
Non_sense!

The current definition of Big Bang includes a rupture in the laws of the Universe. So there's no reason to connect "before" and "after".

The very Big Bang lies beyond that alleged rupture. So it's merely conceptual to me.

To me "Universe" pretty much means "Everything". You can't top that. No "more everything". No "everythinger" as a part of "everythingest".

Again, our difference might be semantic, but not just, because you seem to include Wonderland into what i call "universe".

You know when people first came up with the concept of the big bang they were laughed at,
Hahahahaha!
and called it a mere concept that had no place in reality.
That's exactly what it is.
It is a mere concept that has no place in reality. But it can be helpful anyway (Mathematics are built upon concepts that have no place in reality). It is a model that could predict, for instance, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which was pretty cool.
Any new theory about the origin and evolution of the Universe should account for that.

Theoretically microscopic wormholes can exist and you can create one, and use energy to expand the wormhole  big enough for a human to pass through. And in X amount of time you can go to that same wormhole, expand it and travel through it to another time period.
Look, i like those ideas, ok? They suck at being reasonable, but they make great sci-fi stories.

You're avoiding my clear answer.

IT WOULD NOT BE YOUR PAST!

"Another time period"... Well, the future is quite easy, isn't it?

A week ago i put some vegetables in the freezer and sent them to the future!
Today i ate them. They tasted like past.

Traveling BACK in time does not make sense.

It's the very concept that doesn't make sense. That's why it's not possible even theoretically.

In the quantum world particles travel back in time all the time, in a way. No big deal. I can explain it if you want (it's not that hard to understand, and it's very interesting).
But when we humans talk about time travel we're using the human concept of "time".

There's a mental or psychological arrow of time (i can remember my past but not my future).

There's a thermodynamical arrow of time.

When you figure out why you can remember your past and not your future (it's not as easy to figure out as it might sound), you'll figure the relationship between the mind and thermodynamics. The two arrows of time are intimate friends. This one determines that one.

I already gave you lots of hints.

However, the energy required to make the wormhole big enough would be like taking all the mass of Jupiter and converting it to energy, that is what it would take. Science hasn't ruled this out
You think it's too arrogant to rule it out myself, don't you?

it does seem like you would need to create an entire universe which resembled your past, but adding your adult self into it.

Never_mind_that. It would NOT be your past.
You know how light acts as a wave until something interferes with it, then it becomes a particle.
I do. I'd replace the "becomes" with an "acts" as well, but i get you.
But where that particle ends up is based on random chance, as much of the quantum world does.
I know Heisenberg, if that's what you're asking (he was brilliant).

Do you know Einstein's reply to the uncertainty principle?

In science
I think you mean "in quantum physics".
there are two schools of thought, both are mathamatically equal and neither has the upper hand. One school of thought says that the photon has only one option when it changes from a wave to a particle, the other says that the photon goes to all the possibilities, and each possibility results in a universe.
Aha.
So from the second school of thought there are essentially infinite universes, each one of them different.
Nopes. Not infinite.
If you travel back in time, you may end up in an alternate universe.
Huh??? Suddenly you can travel back in time??

That's exactly what i said you can't do!!

And you don't "end up" in a different universe. You would initially travel to a universe different from your past (one that receives a visitor from the future).

"Travel back in time" is just another example of lazy thinking. It doesn't mean anything.

It's like you're saying "Perhaps one day a car can be fast enough that it can circle the Earth and arrive at the starting point before departing!"

No, that will NOT happen, because that doesn't mean anything. There's nothing to "happen". Sorry.

So it doesn't necessarily matter if you change the past, because it may not be your past.
What??

If you travel back in time that means you changed the past, which doesn't make any sense.

Again this is theoretical, I'm not presenting this as fact, but these are things real scientists have come up with that could be real and cannot be ruled out with our current level of knowledge.
Perhaps their geekiness surpassed their reasoning skills.

If our universe is an oscillating universe,
There's no "if".
Actually there is. The critical mass density of the universe controls what will happen to our universe in the end. If the mass of the universe is less than the number, then the universe will expand forever, if it is the same then it will eventually become static, if it is larger then we have a big crunch with an oscillating universe.
Seems like you've read "A brief history of time".

Still, a big crunch also includes a collapse of the physical laws. Causality is determined by those.

Get it?

No laws. No causality. No chain of events. No events. No nothing.

As of now the number is very very close to the critical mass density number,
Don't you think there's a reason for that?
although it does lean towards an expanding forever universe, but it could easily change to either of the two other options because it is so close.
However, all of that is irrelevant to the point i made. Unless you postulate a Big Bang or Big Crunch that does not include a collapse of the physical laws.

If you do, well, that's new. Your Big Bang deserves a new name. Because it's not THE Big Bang everyone is talking about.

If our universe is just one out of many,
Then we would need to update the concept of "universe" to include those, but only if there's interaction. If there's not, then mentioning them is lazy thinking. Occam would be rolling in his grave.
I assume if you lived a few hundred years ago, and any one suggested to you that cells are very very complex you would laugh at them saying they can only be simple, never mind we don't have the technology to look closer at the cell to see what exactly is going on. Not everything is simple, in fact most things are not.
Are you changing the subject?

"Before our universe" could never mean anything real.
Of course it could. Even if nothing was beyond, and time only started after the big bang, we could still be surrounded by a quantum field which would be real with no space, no time. Nevertheless very very real.
It depends on your definition of "real".

However let us not discuss the "reality" of the quantum field. Let's talk about "before".

With no time... What the heck do you mean by "before"?

Penrose (a smart guy) has nevertheless come up with a new model of Big Bang (and before the Big Bang).
Haven't heard about this, but I don't think he's the type to be playing around.
Everything about theoretical physics is a big game. A very cool one.

Here you can listen to this theory straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

Crazy idea. Beautiful, really.

But if the Big Bang means even an instant of rupture of the laws of the universe, then there are no reasons to consider any "previous" event as a "previous event".
The big bang breaks down everything we know about physics when you go 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. By your logic we should abandon this theory as well.
That won't scare me.
If the BBT is useful, use it. If it's not, faq it.

Division by zero does not produce nonsense, it produces an undefined, and unknown.
Sounds pretty much like nonsense.
Division by zero produces holes in equations when you graph them, which you can then derive derivatives from which is used in calculus. But yeah, calculus is nonsense and should be abandoned as pseudo mathematics.
Hum... Sorry, i won't pretend i follow. I'm prepared to say that you're right though, if i see it.

Much the same way we don't know what created the big bang,
I see an assumption there. One that doesn't even make sense.
Does that mean you know what started the big bang?
No. It means that you assume that something started it, which means that you assumed that it started.

or if there is anything outside of our universe,
If we can interact with it, it's not outside our universe. If we can't, it's not "anything".
And what if we can interact with it, but it wasn't caused by the big bang? Would you still consider it part of our universe?
I don't see why not. The Big Bang will not intimidate me. xD

You're trying to demonstrate that possibility just by defining concepts through lazy thinking.
How is any of my thinking lazy?
You use everyday concepts and try to apply them to theoretical physics.

Most of us know that when we say "a wave travels" we don't mean that a physical entity travels, but a perturbation of the water molecules.
When discussing quantum physics or cosmology you seem to forget this, and end up with a mess of concepts that don't apply.

You try to use a "before" devoid of time... A time devoid of entropy... Etc.

that excludes anything from "before the Big Bang". No objects would survive that, you know?
I'm not talking about objects that survived the big bang, but are outside of our universe.
"Are"... Now you need to define "to be".

(Edited by wisp 6/9/2009 at 04:36 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:35 AM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I didn't mention string theory. I objected to the concept of "outside our universe".

That concept does not belong to the realm of reality, or existence. That's all i'm saying.


This stand puts you rather at odds with many physicists today.  While there are other approaches, string theory is one of the major theories in modern physics.  At this time it appears to be that case that if string theory is correct then there are many other universes.  An estimate I read was that there are about 10^500 possible "varieties" of universe.

PS: For a quick and dirty definition I would define universe as a space-time continuum that has a set of associated physical constants and laws.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 1:25 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would you say that those "universes" influence each other in "real time"?

Can a single "instant" (of course, associated with a time cone, we know that "instants" don't exist) be affected by two or more separate instants in another "universe"?

It's not entirely clear to me. But it's pretty close to. Your definition of "universe" is very different from mine, yet yours seems to make sense too (in my opinion).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:40 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:40 PM on June 9, 2009 :
Would you say that those "universes" influence each other in "real time"?

Can a single "instant" (of course, associated with a time cone, we know that "instants" don't exist) be affected by two or more separate instants in another "universe"?



I'm not sure what you mean by "instance."  

One way that a universe may influence another is via gravitational waves.  It may be that we will be able to detect these waves if there are multiple universes.  I think Kaku has mentioned this idea on his Web site.



-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 1:53 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I did not say "instance".

It's cool that they're investigating that. I bet they won't find anything though.

And if they do, that would imply an update for my concept of "Universe".

It would be quite exciting, but it wouldn't prove me wrong in any way that i can think of.

It doesn't seem like you understand what i say. Perhaps i'm not good at explaining it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:28 PM on June 9, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I meant other dimensions as other "universes", or "twilight zones". I just didn't want to call them "universes".


Dimension has a different meaning. We live in 4 dimensions (X,Y,Z, and time). Although current math models say that there are more, generally speaking we live in 4.

If you don't want to call them universes can you come up with a better term? Even if you have to make one up.

(Me: talking about string theory)

Because i don't get it.


String theory could be correct, there is real science behind it. Just because we don't know the answer yet doesn't mean it doesn't belong in reality. Before the big bang was the leading candidate it still had a possible place in reality and was debated among scientists. We're seeing the same thing with string theory now.

Or go back a little further, the ancient Greeks thought of an idea that everything was made up of little indivisible particles (atoms), and they had no way to test that, they didn't even know about cells! But that didn't stop the fact that we are made up of atoms, and that there are even smaller particles.
Doesn't sound like indivisible to me.


Well if you divide atoms they essentially explode, making them indivisible. But I think you missed the point, unless you're just not showing it.

If two things can interact, they are a part of the same universe.
Not true.
Oh!
Tiny quantum fluctuations from other universes can exert a small force on this universe with out them actually touching, but still very close.


If they can interact, what makes you call them "other universes"?


How big do you think the universe is?

It seems like i need your definition of "universe", "reality" and "existence", to see if i can make sense of what you say.


Our universe: Space created by the big bang.  


You're just attacking possible facts with mere concepts. Just like creationists do when they speak of "information", or "intent", or stuff like that.
Yes, because I say that we do not know what started the big bang,
Nonsense.
or what is outside our universe,
Nonsense.
there could be a before the big bang.
Nonsense.

Sounds like plain denial, but i mean it.
Non_sense!


Plain denial about what facts? Is it nonsense to state that we don't know how the big bang happened?

The current definition of Big Bang includes a rupture in the laws of the Universe. So there's no reason to connect "before" and "after".


I doubt that, the big bang happened so unless you want to say it was magic it did not break the laws of the universe. I would say that the big bang leads to questions that we cannot yet answer because our understanding of the universe does not go that far.

The very Big Bang lies beyond that alleged rupture. So it's merely conceptual to me.


Do you think the big bang has any place in reality, or is it merely a conceptual thing that can predict CBR and can explain why there's a Hubble constant?

To me "Universe" pretty much means "Everything". You can't top that. No "more everything". No "everythinger" as a part of "everythingest".


That it not my definition. Space created by the big bang is our universe.

Again, our difference might be semantic, but not just, because you seem to include Wonderland into what i call "universe".


If Wonderland was real it would be part of your universe, not mine. For me it would probably be in another universe or realm like thing.

That's exactly what [the big bang] is.
It is a mere concept that has no place in reality. But it can be helpful anyway (Mathematics are built upon concepts that have no place in reality). It is a model that could predict, for instance, the cosmic microwave background radiation, which was pretty cool.
Any new theory about the origin and evolution of the Universe should account for that.


Everything in science has to do with reality, and math is a very real concept.

Theoretically microscopic wormholes can exist and you can create one, and use energy to expand the wormhole  big enough for a human to pass through. And in X amount of time you can go to that same wormhole, expand it and travel through it to another time period.
Look, i like those ideas, ok? They suck at being reasonable, but they make great sci-fi stories.


They do make great movies, but they are also theoretically possible, and they do have a place in science.

You're avoiding my clear answer.

IT WOULD NOT BE YOUR PAST!


I never said it would be your past, just in the past, or a past.

"Another time period"... Well, the future is quite easy, isn't it?


I meant you would go back to when the wormhole was created, my mistake.

Traveling BACK in time does not make sense.


500 years ago fish becoming mammals didn't make sense, who knows what will make sense in another 500 years now that doesn't now.

It's the very concept that doesn't make sense. That's why it's not possible even theoretically.


But theoretically you can.

In the quantum world particles travel back in time all the time, in a way. No big deal. I can explain it if you want (it's not that hard to understand, and it's very interesting).
But when we humans talk about time travel we're using the human concept of "time".


Well the quantum world is timeless from what I know, I know we have teleported things faster than the speed of light in the lab, and we have done time travel in the lab as well, but it is different then what we're talking about. But it is still theoretically possible, even if it really isn't. I would agree that time travel may be impossible, even if it is possible at the theoretical level.

When you figure out why you can remember your past and not your future (it's not as easy to figure out as it might sound), you'll figure the relationship between the mind and thermodynamics. The two arrows of time are intimate friends. This one determines that one.


This sounds more like refuting some one talking about a time machine, and how it can travel backwards and forwards in time with no constraints. The time travel I'm talking about is more like teleporting to other periods of time in the past.


However, the energy required to make the wormhole big enough would be like taking all the mass of Jupiter and converting it to energy, that is what it would take. Science hasn't ruled this out
You think it's too arrogant to rule it out myself, don't you?


If I'm just an irrational person that thinks like a creationist and has no understanding of the physical world, does it matter what I think about you? Although I'm not sure how you would deny it, I may not see it as arrogant.

it does seem like you would need to create an entire universe which resembled your past, but adding your adult self into it.


Maybe, no one knows how time travel would really work if it is possible, it is all theoretical.

But where that particle ends up is based on random chance, as much of the quantum world does.
I know Heisenberg, if that's what you're asking (he was brilliant).


I don't think so. I only know Heisenberg briefly, I don't know who came up with this part. Maybe Heisenberg maybe some one else.

Do you know Einstein's reply to the uncertainty principle?


Actually no, but I have a feeling he didn't like it. I know Einstein liked order, and the uncertainty principle wouldn't have help his idea of an ordered universe.

So from the second school of thought there are essentially infinite universes, each one of them different.
Nopes. Not infinite.


I said essentially, too many too count kind of thing. It would be so high I doubt that there would be any kind of meaningful number beyond it being an asymptote to infinity.

It's like you're saying "Perhaps one day a car can be fast enough that it can circle the Earth and arrive at the starting point before departing!"


If that was the argument I would agree with you, but it's not.

So it doesn't necessarily matter if you change the past, because it may not be your past.
What??

If you travel back in time that means you changed the past, which doesn't make any sense.


I have a feeling I'm going to regret this but... not necessarily.

Again this is theoretical, I'm not presenting this as fact, but these are things real scientists have come up with that could be real and cannot be ruled out with our current level of knowledge.
Perhaps their geekiness surpassed their reasoning skills.


Everyone is human, but I don't think this is what is going on here.


If our universe is an oscillating universe,
[color=teal]There's no "if".
Actually there is. The critical mass density of the universe controls what will happen to our universe in the end. If the mass of the universe is less than the number, then the universe will expand forever, if it is the same then it will eventually become static, if it is larger then we have a big crunch with an oscillating universe.
Seems like you've read "A brief history of time".


Nope, never heard of it. In fact I don't read, you could say it is one of my vices.

Still, a big crunch also includes a collapse of the physical laws. Causality is determined by those.


The physical laws we know now, they could be fine tuned, and a big crunch is a viable option to the universe based on what we know. Just because we don't fully understand how it would work doesn't mean it can't.

As of now the number is very very close to the critical mass density number,
Don't you think there's a reason for that?


Yes, but why do you think so?

although it does lean towards an expanding forever universe, but it could easily change to either of the two other options because it is so close.
However, all of that is irrelevant to the point i made. Unless you postulate a Big Bang or Big Crunch that does not include a collapse of the physical laws.


Just to get it straight you don't think the big bang has a place in reality and it didn't happen? And how is it irrelevant? You stated that it could not happen and I showed you how it could happen.

If you do, well, that's new. Your Big Bang deserves a new name. Because it's not THE Big Bang everyone is talking about.


Einstein's gravity is different than Newton's, but we still call it gravity.

If our universe is just one out of many,
[color=teal]Then we would need to update the concept of "universe" to include those, but only if there's interaction. If there's not, then mentioning them is lazy thinking. Occam would be rolling in his grave.
I assume if you lived a few hundred years ago, and any one suggested to you that cells are very very complex you would laugh at them saying they can only be simple, never mind we don't have the technology to look closer at the cell to see what exactly is going on. Not everything is simple, in fact most things are not.
Are you changing the subject?


No... I could if you want, we have different views on what the universe is, and until we at least understand each other's ones we aren't going to get anywhere.

It depends on your definition of "real".

However let us not discuss the "reality" of the quantum field. Let's talk about "before".

With no time... What the heck do you mean by "before"?


I would say that if there is only a quantum field before the big bang, than there was a before, although that before was timeless and cannot be measured as such, perhaps measureless in the sense of time.

Everything about theoretical physics is a big game. A very cool one.


Agreed!

Here you can listen to this theory straight from the horse's mouth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

Crazy idea. Beautiful, really.


Thanks, I'll listen to it when I have a little more free time.

The big bang breaks down everything we know about physics when you go 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. By your logic we should abandon this theory as well.
That won't scare me.
If the BBT is useful, use it. If it's not, faq it.


The geocentric model is useful, even NASA uses it, but it doesn't mean it is right.

Division by zero produces holes in equations when you graph them, which you can then derive derivatives from which is used in calculus. But yeah, calculus is nonsense and should be abandoned as pseudo mathematics.
Hum... Sorry, i won't pretend i follow. I'm prepared to say that you're right though, if i see it.


You have your standard y=x graph okay?

Now some equations can look like y=1/(x-3)

when x equals 3 you are dividing by 0. Which means that there is a hole in the graph on the x intercept. I don't know how but calculus uses these holes to find derivatives which are used in higher math. So dividing by 0 isn't useless or nonsense, it has real mathematical (and real world) value.

No. It means that you assume that something started it, which means that you assumed that it started.


If you are saying that the universe had no beginning than you are going against every modern day cosmologist. Everyone agrees that there was a beginning and it was around 13.7 billion years ago.

or if there is anything outside of our universe,
If we can interact with it, it's not outside our universe. If we can't, it's not "anything".
And what if we can interact with it, but it wasn't caused by the big bang? Would you still consider it part of our universe?
I don't see why not. The Big Bang will not intimidate me. xD


Good for you.

You're trying to demonstrate that possibility just by defining concepts through lazy thinking.
How is any of my thinking lazy?
You use everyday concepts and try to apply them to theoretical physics.


I'm not applying it, scientists are. I do not make up these concepts, I hear about them from legitimate sources.

Most of us know that when we say "a wave travels" we don't mean that a physical entity travels, but a perturbation of the water molecules.
When discussing quantum physics or cosmology you seem to forget this, and end up with a mess of concepts that don't apply.


As before, I don't make up the concepts.





-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:38 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 5:28 PM on June 9, 2009 :
I did not say "instance".

It's cool that they're investigating that. I bet they won't find anything though.

And if they do, that would imply an update for my concept of "Universe".

It would be quite exciting, but it wouldn't prove me wrong in any way that i can think of.

It doesn't seem like you understand what i say. Perhaps i'm not good at explaining it.



Oops, my bad -- I read "instant" but typed "instance" for some reason.  I'm still unclear about what you meant.  Were you talking about Planck time?

Physicists tend to use the term multiverse -- if you have different physical constants and laws in operation in different "specks" of space-time, then I think you have more than one universe whatever words you wish to use.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:48 AM on June 10, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.