Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 19 posts ] 
Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang
Author Message
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

It is an idea have have been struggling with. The problem of inifinity. I responded below a YT user's post on this subject.

I would like to get you guys opinion.

The user Styxhexenhammer666 and his post:


(how do I link a YT video directly in my post???)

This is what I said to Styx:
Your problem with infinity is that it is unexplainable and undiscribable. It exists in mathemathics - which we use every day - as a strange thing. It does not only stand on its own, but also exists it strange mathematical numbers such as pi, which go on and on and on forever. Untill some genius mathematician solves the riddle, I think the final question if god exists or not can never be solved. Or can it not?

Personally I am an irreligious Darwinian Atheist that does not believe in the supernatural, so I support the Big Bang Theory fully realizing it needs alot of tweaking still for that riddle can be solved. But each year we get a bit closer to solve the mystery.

I do not know how close to 0 Planck time we are to knowing what happened really during the Big Bang,... but we still have not reached 0 (else that would have been HUGE news), which is something that is often negated in discusions between believers and non-believers.

But as we are not close to 0 Plack time yet,... science simply does not know what happens before. Henche to talk of the before Big Bang 'time'... is a dangerous mindtrick to step in.

Believers though have it right (sadly) when they say that the science model has no explanation for the need for infinity to explain our universe. Logic dictates the force that is needed to create the universe has to be infinite. Even science has no way around it.

But do not they?

Well no.... You see the problem is that our species can only see the universe through our eyes and interpret it with our brains. The problem is that we are very comfortable to experience the passing of time.

One of the strengths of the Big Bang Scientific Theory - which is often negated in discussions - is that this claims that all the forces came together at Plank Time Zero. This means that TIME DID NOT EXIST before Plank Time Zero.

If time does not exist,... infinity means nothing, as there is no infinite time.

This would mean... that whatever made the Big Bang that resulted into our Universe,... will 'see' the existence of our Universe from BIG BANG... to its DEATH (whatever that will look like and be), and all the time in between that has passed for those in the Universe (like us),... directly as in an instant flash where no time is wasted, as that what created it is beyond time.

So... once you realize that.... you will see that Infinity means nothing,... and thus should not be the point of the discussion.

What needs to be the point of the discussion is... if an intelligent creator, made this universe or not.

And there is nothing a believer can bring to the table, that suggests intelligence is needed to create a Universe.

Because infinity is NOT a scientific problem we can not deal with as science enthausiasts.

In fact.... once you realize that from our universe's perspective trillions of attempts would be needed to make a 'perfect' Universe like ours, will actually means nothing when you realize that mechanism that created us is beyond our concept of time.

Do not think like a human here; what do 'trillions of attempts' actually mean, if no time passes doing so? I will tell you: 'NOTHING!'... Time does not exist!

So that is the whole scientific point. Whatever MADE our universe,.... spend 0,000,000.000,000,000.000 seconds and not even 0.0 Planck Time creating it. In its realm of existence time does not exist.

So FUCK OFF, with the troubled question of infinity.

Ask only: 'Does the universe need an intelligent creator?'

As far as I can see, from everything we know about science thus far... the Universe can work without an intelligent designer just fine.

Why?


Because the question of infinity is not a problem. Once that is out of the way, believers may notice they are shooting blanks. Their best strategy to debunk Big Bang followers, by questioning Infinity and Beyond,.... just got tossed out of the window.

Science does not need an infinite creator to explain the Universe,..... believers like christians seem to think though we do.

But ofcourse,... we already know the believers next step.

The believers will start to change the meaning of the words and the interpretations,... showing YET AGAIN,.... they will go through any length to defend their bullshit doctrines.


I have changed a few words from the original post and I have ofcourse marked words in bold or italic and yellow which I would have been unable to do on YT.

Anyway... I'd like your guys opinion on my idea on the problem of INFINITY AND BEYOND. I know some ppl here do not like me. Let that not stand in the way of new idea's.

Humble and most respectfully and whithout mercy.
Last edited by Estheria Quintessimo on Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Sat Jun 07, 2014 9:28 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

It's late and I am tiered, and I won't go trough all this now, but let me throw in something to think about. If you find infinity in the universe confusing and perplexing then let me throw in something even worst. Like phenomena that are best model with imaginary numbers, if you were to use it to explain a fixed quantity it would be completely meaningless to me nor could I imagine what that think would look like, yet there are phenomena in this universe which is best described with imaginary numbers. Explain that!
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:01 am
VivreUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pmLocation: dungeon of despair Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Hello,
Estheria Quintessimo wrote:(how do I link a YT video directly in my post???)

read what it shows underneath when you hover over the youtube-button on the comment-editmenu:
'Insert video: [Youtube]0J5esUT-yKs[/Youtube] instead of http://www.youtube.com?v=0J5esUT-yKs'

so with your video it should become this, while only using the vid-ID:
[youtube]Nn8kehZH24E[/youtube]
but it won't work with an additional time-point
(tip: if you click 'select' you can easily copy and use this code)

As for the topic, I can't say much as first of I'm not allowed to view any of that y-tubers videos in my country. (I tested 40vids)
2nd: that y-tuber's name is heavily overloaded with meaning - I wouldn't trust him to be honest, but sitting deep in a dungeon of dilemma and screaming the hell out.

Anyway ... when I'm beyond an infinte amount of sleep I'll come back and see if I can grasp your intentions from your comment.

~ greets :)
Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:37 am
WWW
VivreUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pmLocation: dungeon of despair Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Hi again,
that infinite sleep didn't take longer than 6hs but to work through the vid and your comment took endless ;-)


Small observation about Styx's vid:

Only because the idea of an infinite circle of creating creators is addressed with ignorance by believers can't follow to be a prove of goddess' non-existence. Immediately after this conclusion he (Styx) backs down to the possibility there might be an even higher/outer/beyond/super something that started that infinite circle.
And short after that he defines 'satanism' to be a none-theistic path. ... Well that's obviously a lack of logic.


Estheria Quintessimo wrote:Your problem with infinity is that it is unexplainable and undiscribable. .... I think the final question if god exists or not can never be solved.

To me Styx doesn't have a problem with infinity and uses it quite apropriate. But I agree that even using infinity as argumentation won't prove or disprove a super beings existence.

to talk of the before Big Bang 'time'... is a dangerous mindtrick to step in.

I don't think it's dangerous at all in and of itself, except for those people who fear to loose their feel of elemantary grounding, their safty net.

This means that TIME DID NOT EXIST before Plank Time Zero.
If time does not exist,... infinity means nothing, as there is no infinite time.

To me that does not follow. Only because we can't look beyond Plank Zero doesn't exclude time to be existing outside (hence?) of it. Therefore your following assumtions don't hold either.

you will see that Infinity means nothing,... and thus should not be the point of the discussion.

Yes an endless circle of circling infinities will likely lead nowhere ... still it's a possible argument and you cannot demand someone not to use it as train of thought. If a subject doesn't apply to you, than why don't you simply move on?

once you realize that from our universe's perspective trillions of attempts would be needed to make a 'perfect' Universe like ours, will actually means nothing when you realize that mechanism that created us is beyond our concept of time.

Sorry, but that's only an overloaded bunch of assumtions and a completely unrealistic conclusion. Hot air that doesn't help the discussion to be fruitful.

Do not think like a human here;

What would you recommend as alternative? Like an animal or even an alien ? ;-)

So FUCK OFF, with the troubled question of infinity.

Isn't is possible that it is you who is having the issues, if I may ask?


Ok, I understand that you as 'Big Bang follower' are being molested by some believer's accusations that you can't solve a non-existing theoretical infinite problem. And therefore science has to rely on a creating superforce. To me that is just nuts, it doesn't follow.

Any theoretical questioning of 'the beyond' has nothing to do with the current description of how our observable universe evolved from the point onward that we are able to determine. Within this description neither super-entity nor deliberate pushed developement are needed.

These are two separate independent discussions and to mingle them is the basic error and can only result in vain endeavour. The moment you accept such an interference as valid you are trapped in an infinite fruitless circle of mind-confusions, not allowing both parties to step beyond.

I don't think that your train of argumentation will persuade and your recommendation to change the basic question only supports to keep that intermingling alive.

~ greets :-)
Sun Jun 08, 2014 2:42 pm
WWW
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

The comment I posted below his video was not a pre-planned thought.

I started responding on it, and edited my brainstorms as I went through it ending up with the end result I posted here (editing only for color and if I recall 1 grammar correction). Perhaps ofcourse not the best way to go at it.... but it happened. After reviewing it for a last time I posted it as a comment below his YT-channnel.

I was wondering though if it - as a thought-experiment - is worth exploring further, as most creation video's out there will defend the point of infiniti for the reason Science has no answer to that issue yet.

I do not recall reading any book, or hearing any well-known atheist attacking the religions point of infinity.
Is there such material out there for educational purposes I am not aware off?

I have not read the above postal respondses yet, I'll do so now...
Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:28 am
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Vivre wrote:Only because the idea of an infinite circle of creating creators is addressed with ignorance by believers can't follow to be a prove of goddess' non-existence. Immediately after this conclusion he (Styx) backs down to the possibility there might be an even higher/outer/beyond/super something that started that infinite circle.
And short after that he defines 'satanism' to be a none-theistic path. ... Well that's obviously a lack of logic.
That is kinda the reason I made my post below his upload. He comes to no new insight but continues a thought process that religious thinking has been continueing for centuries, IMHO.

Vivre wrote:
to talk of the before Big Bang 'time'... is a dangerous mindtrick to step in.

I don't think it's dangerous at all in and of itself, except for those people who fear to loose their feel of elemantary grounding, their safty net.
I savvy, henche I used the words 'dangerous mindtrick'. Ofcourse in this case it goes for me too - trying to solve the 'infinity' problem - I thread on (philosophical) mined fields unkown for me. But I have no gods to loose. Nothing to loose, when not reckognising their existence even. The burden of proof is with those that make a claim, the believer.

Vivre wrote:
This means that TIME DID NOT EXIST before Plank Time Zero.
If time does not exist,... infinity means nothing, as there is no infinite time.

To me that does not follow. Only because we can't look beyond Plank Zero doesn't exclude time to be existing outside (hence?) of it. Therefore your following assumtions don't hold either.
I disagree. I am merely following the scientific idea that at the moment of the Big Bang, all the laws of physics were created. This will include time. I think it was Hawkings that came up with it. Atleast this it what it says on his website:
In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
Basically meaning the photons that make up light and which are travelling through out the Universe, show Time has a beginning. If the Universe is static, time sure has a beginning as all the stars spreading out their photons would have lit up the sky (on earth by now) and we would not see black skies, but bright skies always.
So the Universe had a beginning or was dynamic according to Hawkings. It was dynamic. So he concluded The Universe had a beginning in a singularity (scuzi ruffly skipping huge parts here):
At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Vivre wrote:
you will see that Infinity means nothing,... and thus should not be the point of the discussion.

Yes an endless circle of circling infinities will likely lead nowhere ... still it's a possible argument and you cannot demand someone not to use it as train of thought. If a subject doesn't apply to you, than why don't you simply move on?¨
I can demand it, if it is not based on current agreed Scientific Theories.
First) If someone does not agree with a Scientific Theory he/she should have a solid ground to base it on.
Second) I do not move on because I have not gotten a proper answer on agreed Scientific Theory.
This is actually a very important point in my thought proces here. Let me explain it:

If time does not exist at the moment of the Big Bang, you can reasonably assume time did not exist prior the Big Bang. But if Time indeed existed prior a Big Bang than, it would conclude several things:
- One) The proces that made this Universe, required time to not exist at the moment of creation. It is concluded from the hypotheses that Time did not exist prior the Big Bang.
- Two) What created this Universe eliminated all traces - that we have been able to detect sofar technologically - of the existence of a previous Reality that included a reality with Time. These traces may perhaps be found in the future if we develop technology to detect it, if that is even possible.

Still I can only come to a conclusion where Time did not exist (atleast) at the moment of the creation of this Universe based on well founded and agreed Authorites like Hawkings.
Are we now going to start debating of a time before a period of existence there was no time that lead to the creation of this Universe and the Time we experience in this Universe? This will make the job for religious people ever finding evidence for their socalled god even more difficult.

Heck, it may even be true. But you CAN NOT skip ahead a conclusion, making grandious claims that god exists, based on assumptions that are based on assumptions that are based on assumptions, which would IMHO be the case here, and never provide any evidence for it.

Vivre wrote:
once you realize that from our universe's perspective trillions of attempts would be needed to make a 'perfect' Universe like ours, will actually means nothing when you realize that mechanism that created us is beyond our concept of time.

Sorry, but that's only an overloaded bunch of assumtions and a completely unrealistic conclusion. Hot air that doesn't help the discussion to be fruitful.
I disagree, as it is simple mathematics.
First) If one attempt fails,... try and try again. Eventually you will succeed.
Second) Perfect is not perfect hench I put it in a markers 'xxx'. I was being sarcastic. I said 'perfect,' not perfect.

A major philosophical question is how it is possible we even exist. If what ever created this Universe had countless attempts to do so...because of the fact Time is not a issue (as in Time does not even exist for that mechanism) Then creating a Universe is not an issue. If you try something trillions of time but no time passes doing so, than no time has passed. See beyond the meaninng of our human words here. An 'attempt' is just a word which for its explanation requires time spend to accomplish the task provided. But if there is no time an 'attempt' is actually the wrong word to describe the proces. Our human language simply lacks the words to describe some processes that are not found within our experienced Universe.

And even IF time is an issue,... we are just lucky to live in the Universe that succeeded with no knnowledge of our failed ancestor Universes and/or Realities.
Ask any gambler in Vegas on odds and they will agree.
I think this particular sollution was not even first proposed for the existence of the Universe, but first proposed for the existence for alien lifeforms, beyond our little pale blue dot. Give it enough time,... it can happen. But the Vegas odds idea works perfectly on the grander scale if we size up from own little planet towards the grand scale of the Universe.

Ask yourself this:

'How silly is it for a sentient human to ask the question: Do I exist?' ... and you have the answer to the Vegas-odds question.

Vivre wrote:
Do not think like a human here;

What would you recommend as alternative? Like an animal or even an alien ? ;-)

Ofcourse not. You took it out of context. I actually said:
Do not think like a human here; what do 'trillions of attempts' actually mean, if no time passes doing so? I will tell you: 'NOTHING!'... Time does not exist!
Refering to god is NOT a problem for Scientists and Atheists to explain the seemingly desperate NEED to explain infinity. If what created this Universe was founded in a reality where Time does not exist,..... you do not need a god that is inifinite in time.

The need to have a god that is infinite living in time who created everything, is based on the human perception fallacy of the natural mechanisms in our Universe that you need an infinite living creator or mechanism to create this Universe.

My whole point was:

'SCIENCE DOES NOT NEED AN INFINITE CREATOR/GOD/MECHANISM TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE.' Science works fine without it. That is my hypothesis..

Vivre wrote:
So FUCK OFF, with the troubled question of infinity.

Isn't is possible that it is you who is having the issues, if I may ask?

On infinity? No.

Vivre wrote:Ok, I understand that you as 'Big Bang follower' are being molested by some believer's accusations that you can't solve a non-existing theoretical infinite problem. And therefore science has to rely on a creating superforce. To me that is just nuts, it doesn't follow.
Yes to me that would sound nuts too. If that is what you read in my post than I think you seriously misunderstood my intent. I'm not getting spanked by believers and a 'superforce' sounds to me like supernatural B.S. that does not exist. I don't believe in ghosts and magic either and other supernatural claims. I'm a irreligious Darwinian Atheist that does not believe in the Supernatural.

Vivre wrote:Any theoretical questioning of 'the beyond' has nothing to do with the current description of how our observable universe evolved from the point onward that we are able to determine. Within this description neither super-entity nor deliberate pushed developement are needed.

These are two separate independent discussions and to mingle them is the basic error and can only result in vain endeavour. The moment you accept such an interference as valid you are trapped in an infinite fruitless circle of mind-confusions, not allowing both parties to step beyond.

I don't think that your train of argumentation will persuade and your recommendation to change the basic question only supports to keep that intermingling alive.
I do not mingle them. I'm very sound to follow the scientific viewpoints and I have not sidetracked here. Mostly just answering with my personal viewpoints on his troubled viewpoints by providing my personal hypotheses... on how it can be also. Providing alternatives that make more sence scientifically, then his ideas on it.

Not sure yet though you provided solid enough counter arguments for my proposed hypotheses here. I'll let it sink in and await a responds I savvy.

I would like you to specify the two independent discussions you mentioned. You did not specify them inn your post and I have absolutely no idea which ones these should be in your eyes. These are important if I would want to discuss with you further as you obviously see them as a fallacy in the counter-argumentation I gave towards Styx.

In your eyes these 2 discussions or viewpoints interfere with eachother. One should only discuss one, and VOILA., no more infinity problem??? Is that what you are saying?
I'd than like to also hear your viewpoint on the infinity sollution that christians like to come up with.
Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:52 am
VivreUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pmLocation: dungeon of despair Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Hello, I'd like to start with the last point first

Estheria Quintessimo wrote:I would like you to specify the two independent discussions you mentioned. You did not specify them inn your post and I have absolutely no idea which ones these should be in your eyes.

Those two discussions are:
a - speculating about anything that is 'beyond' Plank Zero, outside of our Universe, the 'realm of infinity'
b - talking about everything that is within our Universe, which can be observed or reasonably concluded

Those two shouldn't be mingled because there is no way that any argument from one side can apply to the other side, because nothing from the 'beyond' is verifiable. Trying to assign any law of physics or nature onto what's beyond nature will instantly fail as it can't be tested and validated. Therefore every speculation about what's beyond is true and false at the same time until it could be conceded or dismissed.

If someone speculates our Universe is nothing but a bubble in a foam of universes or within one of waving branes of potential realms of realities or if it's an empty vacuum or an infinity of energy or mind ... is all completely irrelevant towards our reality.

So when you argue that time cannot exist outside of our Universe just because our (inside) observable time only just came to existence after the BigBang then this is a non-legit conclusion as you know nothing about the 'beyond'.
This is why I say I can't follow your argument and say that it fails as prove that there couldn't be something infinite. You can only loose if you try to impute any attribute onto the 'beyond' - it instantly falls into the realm of speculation.

That also applies to other attempts that you take, like e.g. that 'trillions of attempts' argument. How do you know it was not a success on first trial? Our statistical assumtions can't match the unknown - it's mere speculation.
btw: I understood your 'perfect' as you meant it, but it didn't matter within the overall argument and wasn't targeted with my objection.

And even IF time is an issue,... we are just lucky to live in the Universe that succeeded with no knnowledge of our failed ancestor Universes and/or Realities.

Again several assumtions: How do you know ancestor Universes existed? How do you know we caught the 'lucky' Universe?

One should only discuss one, and VOILA., no more infinity problem??? Is that what you are saying?

In a way - yes. ... The 'infinity problem' is none as it is baseless.

My whole point was:

'SCIENCE DOES NOT NEED AN INFINITE CREATOR/GOD/MECHANISM TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE.' Science works fine without it. That is my hypothesis..

Yes - but that is already the end of the discussion ... and does not exclude a claimed existence of anything supernatural.

Sorry I need to skip the other points for now, as it simply is too time-devouring.
And I can't address you final request because I do not know what 'the infinity sollution that christians like to come up with' is.
.
Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:04 pm
WWW
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Those two discussions are:
a - speculating about anything that is 'beyond' Plank Zero, outside of our Universe, the 'realm of infinity'
b - talking about everything that is within our Universe, which can be observed or reasonably concluded

I understand the hesitation to go into such subject matter. However I did not invent the topic on it; he did. And as it was a thing that has been troubling my mind from time to time 'how to deal with the question of infinity' I took a change to throw in my two cents.
So on that:
First) I was responding to him, So in all fairness I can provide a different viewpoint on it, if it is made a topic of discussion.
Second) Science has some hypotheses on it already. I did not come up with (all) this stuff myself.
Third) Though I am not a scientist, there is nothing wrong with presenting hypotheses. Alternatives to a scetchy topic of discussion.

I do not believe in the supernatural. It is just a word. There is no such thing as supernatural.
Claims that god is supernatural, or that supernatural things as ghosts (whatever) even exist, is just limited by our limited human ability to understand the Universe and our limited language abilities to describe it. It is FACT we lack the words to describe the Universe. It is the reason we invent new words to describe a phenomenon we do not understand yet.
I can give you two good examples; 'Dark matter and Dark Energy'

Science simply does not know what these things are, so with our limited understanding of reality and lacking the words to describe them,.... we invent the words. But there is no shame in this. This is how science works. In 100 years, if we are lucky perhaps even in 20, we may be more technnologically advanged to give a better definition for these two examples and assign new or invent better words for them.

Why this long talk on the semantics of words? Because it is a core part of science. Scientists KNOW they lack the understanding of reality and that they lack the words to define it. But not knowing and the natural curiosity of humans is what brought us sofar already. To throw it all away on religious doctrines 2000 years old UTTERLY goes against human nature.

Religious thinking is the stalemate of knowledge; with our blocked natural curiosity on one side and the possibility of knowing it all on the other, and the failure to act to progress being the stalemate.

God(s),... or whatever supernatural phenomenon claimed,... is/are nothing more than our lack of understanding the Universe.

If god(s) exists or anything we think of that is supernatural, than science will only need to extend their understanding of reality to include these specific phenomenons.
If god(s) or any phenomenon is beyond THIS universe,.... this only means we need to broaden our horizons. We need to readjust the semantics of our words and perhaps invent a few new words.

THEREFOR, I dare to challenge, with my own hypotheses, the question of infinity. The claim is that god(s) is(are) infinite and superatural, beyond the scope of our abilities to detect him/her/it.

I say nothing supernatural exists
, it is a matter of semantics, our human sences and their abilities to describe the natural Universe. Childish that be, but simple, because if god or gods exist he/she/it or they are a reality, than reality just got supercharged on semantics to include them.

However,... there is this claim by religious folks that god or the gods are beyond us, beyond our detection ability. If you are a believer of the bible however, you are using a 2000 year old doctrine. Humans 2ky ago had no idea how far we would technologically progress at this time period (2014). What is impossible in their primitive bronze or iron age eyes may very well be possible in our moderns technological eyes. And for science,... it is all just a matter of time anyway.

Am I ranting by now?

I appologize for it. But I had to spew all this out for you to understand my view on it all. Everything I said I believe is true. Its the background informationn you needed to understand my thinking processes.

Those two shouldn't be mingled because there is no way that any argument from one side can apply to the other side, because nothing from the 'beyond' is verifiable. Trying to assign any law of physics or nature onto what's beyond nature will instantly fail as it can't be tested and validated. Therefore every speculation about what's beyond is true and false at the same time until it could be conceded or dismissed.
So I disagree.

I do not think your 'beyond' even exists. If god or gods exist within your definition of 'beyond', I would have already included them within my realm of reality and understanding.

You are limiting yourself to words that have no meaning in reality. I can tell you to see beyond it,.... but you and your brain need to do that, or accept simple scientific value of the word. A good example for this is:

'Spacetime'

Which human on earth can truly understand its value, its weight, its essence? I can not,.... but I accept it as a scientific reality to be a fact.

So when you argue that time cannot exist outside of our Universe just because our (inside) observable time only just came to existence after the Big Bang then this is a non-legit conclusion as you know nothing about the 'beyond'.
It is an conclusion drawn from the scientific hypothesis that has been considered valid within the scientific community; that at the moment of the Big Bang all forces we experience in this Universe today were created AT that moment.
These forces are:
Strong force, Electromagnetic force, Weak force and Gravity.

At some point these forces did not exist. Gravity and Time did not exist, henche space-time did not exist. I think I already said (I hope) we are not down to scientific 0 planck time yet. For now though the general scientic consensus is that space and time did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang, because that is where science is leading us too atm.

I would agree the proposed singularity is an undescribable phenomenon at this time. It does not mean we will never be able to describe it.

But if the by science proposed singularity is true, and thus Time and Space did not exist prior,.... if time did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang... than:
(1) NO TIME existed at the moment of the creation of this Universe.
(2) This does not exclude the existence of Time prior whatever proposed Reality existed prior this Unniverse,... but the Singularity hypothesis proposes Time did not exist at the moment for the Big Bang that created THIS Universe.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? It is so logical.

Now... how about my trillions of attempts proposal to create this perfect Universe. Did I draw that out of my ass? No I did not.
In fact there are several counter proposals against the classic Big Bang Theory. Granted most are of similar flavor.

A news article that drew my attention to possibilities not thought of before (I read stuff about it earlier though):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nce-space/

But there is plain human logic behind the premiss of a Multiverse. It is a question asked by religious folks too:
'How is it possible we humans, live on a perfect planet in a perfect Universe that is allowing our excistence?'

It is not possible unless you believe in powers beyond. This world is NOT perfectly designed for our existence. It is a faulty observation. It is only thought off to be perfectly designed without any proven fact that is actually is. More counters that argument than favors it. We limit our thought of desires, to our own lifetime experiences on this planet.

So ONE Big Bang made this ahum 'perfect' Universe on which we mere mortal humans live?

Science has already shown this planet is far from perfect. Several MAJOR wipeouts events have occured in the millions of years past. The most well known is the utter destruction of the Dinosaurs by the proposed meteor, that spawned the domination of mamals.

This is NOT a lucky planet. We just happen to live in a time of no major destructive events. A new Ice age is comming, that will be our species first major challenge to see if we are truly up to the task of survivability. It has been predicted to occur in about 1500 years time. Might be due to our way we screw up our environment, we are speeding it up,.... but whatever.

Again several assumtions: How do you know ancestor Universes existed? How do you know we caught the 'lucky' Universe?
I personally do not know this. I make no claims. I never said a Universe existed before this one. I only said that if the result of our current agreed upon science tells us that if at the moment of the Big Bang, time did not exist,... than at moment of the Big Bang,... time did not exist.

I specifically said this:
if Time indeed existed prior a Big Bang than, it would conclude several things:
- One) The proces that made this Universe, required time to not exist at the moment of creation. It is concluded from the hypotheses that Time did not exist prior the Big Bang.
- Two) What created this Universe eliminated all traces - that we have been able to detect sofar technologically - of the existence of a previous Reality that included a reality with Time. These traces may perhaps be found in the future if we develop technology to detect it, if that is even possible.


One should only discuss one, and VOILA., no more infinity problem??? Is that what you are saying?
In a way - yes. ... The 'infinity problem' is none as it is baseless.
Really? You think the problem of defining INFINITY is not important, as long as you ignore discussing it? What a BS logic is this? Countless religious peoples have spend countless time, carved trillions kilograms of rocks using minnimalistic tools to shape their gods in rock, murdered other tribes and peoples, all spanning numerous centuries,... wanting to be,... hoping to be,... thinking to become,... a bit closer to their god or gods, who are so much more powerful than they themselves -small humans- are,...
And you think it is not important to discuss the problem,.... because you can simply ignore it? What kind of a human being are you? You have no morals?

My whole point was:
'SCIENCE DOES NOT NEED AN INFINITE CREATOR/GOD/MECHANISM TO MAKE THIS UNIVERSE.' Science works fine without it. That is my hypothesis..

Yes - but that is already the end of the discussion ... and does not exclude a claimed existence of anything supernatural.


(the next not directly intended for Vivre)

Nothing supernatural exists. If you claim it does, than do this for me:
FIRST) Explain Nature
SECOND) Explain Supernature

Because if you are using these BIG FANCY religious words, you must know what they actually mean,... dont ya?
Because you can not talk about the SUPERNATURAL if you dont even know yourself what it means. Can ya?

What are ya....? A 3 year old CHILD... or a supposed grown up?
Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:30 pm
VivreUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:05 pmLocation: dungeon of despair Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Estheria Quintessimo wrote:
Vivre wrote:Those two discussions are:
a - speculating about anything that is 'beyond' Plank Zero, outside of our Universe, the 'realm of infinity'
b - talking about everything that is within our Universe, which can be observed or reasonably concluded

I understand the hesitation to go into such subject matter. However I did not invent the topic on it; he did.

On the contrary. My replying to you shows I didn't hesitate to address the subject and from my standpoint it is you who brought up the subject to my attention and asked for an opinion on your rebuttal.
I showed you at what point it fails for me and that I see an untenable mixing of two independant areas of discussion.

Third) Though I am not a scientist, there is nothing wrong with presenting hypotheses. Alternatives to a scetchy topic of discussion.

Yes, I'm glad to see that you moved from "should not be the point of the discussion" and "I demand it" to allowing everyone his/hers own subject of argumentation.

I do not believe in the supernatural. It is just a word.

Yes. A word to express an area that lies 'beyond' the observable nature. It's useful for to distinguish which one is addressed.

There is no such thing as supernatural.

Of course not. If it would be a thing it would likely be detectable. (If not yet then maybe someday.)

THEREFOR, I dare to challenge, with my own hypotheses, the question of infinity. The claim is that god(s) is(are) infinite and superatural, beyond the scope of our abilities to detect him/her/it.

Yes, that's the tricky part in it. No matter how deep into reality one is able to look there'll always be that point of 'beyond'. That can only be moved but unlikely be demolished. And that is one reason why it is fruitless to engage into a discussion of 'infinite loops of infinity'.

I do not think your 'beyond' even exists. If god or gods exist within your definition of 'beyond', I would have already included them within my realm of reality and understanding.

It's not MY beyond. It's any beyond that follows the border of observable realms.
I don't understand why you assign that 'beyond' to be my personal definition, but I grasp that there is something frightening in it for you, as it would force you by your own logic to accept gods (or similar claims).

You are limiting yourself to words that have no meaning in reality. I can tell you to see beyond it,.... but you and your brain need to do that, or accept simple scientific value of the word. A good example for this is:
'Spacetime'

Wow. You have the power to make people see beyond reality ... please try.
Oh - you make a difference between 'you' and 'your brain'. Tell me who is that 'you'? ... and which of both is superior over the other?
Your good example fails in so far, as also 'Spacetime' cannot become an argument to counter what's beyond.

if time did not exist at the moment of the Big Bang... than:
(1) NO TIME existed at the moment of the creation of this Universe.
(2) This does not exclude the existence of Time prior whatever proposed Reality existed prior this Unniverse,... but the Singularity hypothesis proposes Time did not exist at the moment for the Big Bang that created THIS Universe.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? It is so logical.

I can't tell you why it's difficult for you to grasp it and assume there's an emotional urge preventing it. What I emphasised in your quote is what I've tried to make you aware of.

It doen't help if you lecture on what has been discovered, validated and reasonably concluded within our reality. None of it can be transfered beyond that dividing point that you describe as "prior this Unniverse". [Please note that even you are now using the word 'prior'.]

Now... how about my trillions of attempts proposal to create this perfect Universe. Did I draw that out of my ass? No I did not.

We are not discussing about scientific theories and their developement ... , but if a scientific conclusion/resolution/assumtion can be a valid argument against the claim of anything beyond. To me it is not. And not because it could not be reasonable but because it'll stay unverifiable.

Again several assumtions: How do you know ancestor Universes existed? How do you know we caught the 'lucky' Universe?

I personally do not know this. I make no claims. I never said a Universe existed before this one.
Yes, you proposed it in the statement that I addressed:
And even IF time is an issue,... we are just lucky to live in the Universe that succeeded with no knnowledge of our failed ancestor Universes and/or Realities.


I only said that if the result of our current agreed upon science tells us that if at the moment of the Big Bang, time did not exist,... than at moment of the Big Bang,... time did not exist.

Again. This only applies to what's within our Universe and not what is in the hypothetical outside.

if Time indeed existed prior a Big Bang than, it would conclude several things:
- One) The proces that made this Universe, required time to not exist at the moment of creation. It is concluded from the hypotheses that Time did not exist prior the Big Bang.

This appears as circular argument to me. To start a proccess wherin something is going to be developed doesn't require that that what is going to be developed must not exist outside of such a closed proccess.

- Two) What created this Universe eliminated all traces

No, that's a conclusion based on the invalid assumtion from point One.
Don't get me wrong. I'd very much welcome any detectable trace that can only be explained on 'something' from beyond. But even if so it won't help you with your argument.

One should only discuss one, and VOILA., no more infinity problem??? Is that what you are saying?

In a way - yes. ... The 'infinity problem' is none as it is baseless.

Really? You think the problem of defining INFINITY is not important, as long as you ignore discussing it? What a BS logic is this?

We aren't trying to find definitions on infinity, but to figure out if your train of argumentation can lead to your above conclusion:

Because the question of infinity is not a problem. Once that is out of the way, believers may notice they are shooting blanks.


(the next not directly intended for Vivre)

You mean you (mis)use a quote of mine to finalize your reply to me that's to address only to an imagined audience and imply to me to only 'indirectly' feel assaulted/offended?
I pity you.

Because you can not talk about the SUPERNATURAL if you dont even know yourself what it means. Can ya?
But you can?
Personally I am an irreligious Darwinian Atheist that does not believe in the supernatural,

... so you know what it means. Dare to tell us?
.
Mon Jun 16, 2014 4:40 pm
WWW
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

I sort of got bored reading mid topic, it has more nonsense than I can take.
If a Universe can be in one state and then in another state, then this is time.
If you say that before the Big Bang there is no time, so talking about the before the Big Bang what caused it is utter nonsense. Let's say that the Big Bang is instant A, if you say that there was B before A it means that B is a point in time before A and thus A cannot be the beginning of time.
And you can not talk about cause with something happening, you need a state A and a state B in order for C to be the mediator (the cause) responsible from transitioning from state A to state B. Causality without time is completely meaningless.
You can not go on forever asking what is the cause of whatever happened to be the cause of the question before, eventually there will have to be a point where you must accept that the universe simply is, and if ever find an answer the answer will be of that sort.

As for infinities in the universe, it means that you are not dealing with fundamental properties. Infinity is just mathematical construct, trying to deduce more than that is just trying to be peter pan.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:26 pm
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:I sort of got bored reading mid topic, it has more nonsense than I can take.
If a Universe can be in one state and then in another state, then this is time.
If you say that before the Big Bang there is no time, so talking about the before the Big Bang what caused it is utter nonsense. Let's say that the Big Bang is instant A, if you say that there was B before A it means that B is a point in time before A and thus A cannot be the beginning of time.
And you can not talk about cause with something happening, you need a state A and a state B in order for C to be the mediator (the cause) responsible from transitioning from state A to state B. Causality without time is completely meaningless.
You can not go on forever asking what is the cause of whatever happened to be the cause of the question before, eventually there will have to be a point where you must accept that the universe simply is, and if ever find an answer the answer will be of that sort.

As for infinities in the universe, it means that you are not dealing with fundamental properties. Infinity is just mathematical construct, trying to deduce more than that is just trying to be peter pan.

I appologize and I understand. I have my own head spinning on it myself. This is only logical as it is a topic not easily understood by most, surely not by me completely.
I myself only have a layman understanding of it all, because I read about it in media, see alot of documentaries, read books and look up lots stuff on the internet. I am sincere in my intend but even all that wont make me an expert as I'd be lacking a proper education on it.

Like today some creationist in a G+ religious discussion section came up with a big idea on some stuff about DNA and I had to look up what he was even talking about. Turned out he had copypasted most of it straight from creationist websites, but besides that... normally I do research what I write about. In this case I am kinda shotgunning it.

I would by no means claim what I am proposing has yet any scientic base or would have in the future. I do not rally myself amongst those great thinkers (it would be utter arrogance if I did), but I do rally myself enough mentally as I have a severe interrest in these things and I like to break my pretty little head about it.

But what I thusfar understood about it is that all scientific knowledge prior a certain point in planck time is speculation because we have sofar not been able to go beyond that point with experimentation and observation. This gap in scientific knowledge is what still allows creationist BS to sprinkle in mainstream media and corrupt the unknowing and not wanting-to-know-because-we-have-god.

Perhaps I am doing the same and confusing/corrupting the uncorrupted with this idea I have and not realizing it, but I assure you my intend is sincere toward science.
Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:17 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Nobody said that you were not sincere. I quite believe you are. And you are not like creationist, at least I don't think you ask questions in the arrogance that they cannot be answered. I believe you have a genuine interest, and that you really want to learn something.
Don't be afraid to ask questions, there are no stupid questions. Malformed questions, yes. Nobody started in this world as a genius, you ask question to learn things and that is never stupid, it's actually a smart thing. Don't be upset when the answers don't really go the way you expected.

Having said, let me try to explain some of the infinites in science, perhaps in a topic that you are more familiar with. I know its a bit lengthy and has some technical bits, but that is because I need you to learn something before you can appreciate it, I added a couple of exercises at the end for you to do. If you are capable to follow along and understand this, then on the next post I will have something that you are going to love it, its worth it!

Let us take sound waves for example, lets that I am a marine zoologist what want to study the singing of whales, but whales travel long distances and they are very hard to find so what I would like to know is how to make better microphones so that I can register with my instruments and to conduct my study.
A sound wave is essentially moving atoms that hit other atoms and then in turn make them move which in turn hit other atoms and makes them move.
My recording device takes an electrical signal, so all I have to do is to transform a sound wave into an electrical signal and in such that way that the more intense the sound the more intense the signal. A microphone sort of does that kind of job, a microphone is essential a membrane which is attached to some copper coils with a magnet on the inside, that when the moving atoms that make the sound wave hit the membrane is going to push on a membrane and move the wires and because of electromagnetic induction it will create a current. Brilliant! Now the more atoms that hit the membrane the easier it is for the membrane to move and thus generate a higher signal, the more momentum that each atom has, the more momentum will be imparted on the membrane and thus the bigger the signal. In other words if I am smart enough in the way I build my microphone the more energy I capture with the membrane of my microphone the bigger my signal will be, thus I will be able to hear better. So the intensity of my signal will be proportional to the amount of energy from the sound I can receive I = K.E, where "I" is the intensity, "E" is the energy I receive, and "K" is a constant that converts between the 2.
So far with me?
If so good.
This bit wasn't the most important bit, now what follows is the important bit.
So now all I have to know is how much energy from the sound source I am able to receive in my microphone.

And to do that let's start with something simple, let us say that you have a tank water with a speaker in the middle of it. Let us say that the tank is so incredibly big and the borders are so far away that we might as well say that it has no walls (so you don't have to worry about echoes or other things). And also for simplicity let us forget about things like frequency attenuation, they aren't relevant anyway.
So now let's say that I have a speaker that sends a very short pulse which transmits to the water 200J of energy.
Image
So at beginning all the 200J of energy were concentrated in that reddish circular surface in the middle marked as "1", and as it progress the wave propagates to cover a bigger area and the energy will now concentrate in the surface area in pink (2). Due to conservation of energy, the amount of energy must be preserved; if you have 200J of energy in 1 you must also have 200J of energy in 2, except that the energy in 2 is divided into a bigger area. If you could capture the entire surface area you would get everything if you could capture only a bit, you would get that bit.
To characterize this property we can calculate how much energy there is per surface area. And if you remember from geometry the surface of a circle is:
Image
So if we divide the energy by the surface area we get that the energy dispersal is given by the following equation:
Image
Where S is the dispersal and Es is the energy emitted at the source.
So what this means at a distance of 10 meters we put in the numbers,
We get:
Image
This means that per square meter of surface we have 0.159 J of energy.
Now let us add the microphone membrane:
Image
We can have different sizes of membranes however as you could expect bigger membranes would be able to catch more energy, simply because they cover bigger areas. And with the equation we have before we can even calculate how much energy we would expect to collect depending on the size of the membrane, we just have to multiply the area of the membrane by the dispersal of energy at that distance and presto. Here it finally is, the equation that describes the energy received by a microphone at a certain distance, depending on its size and the energy emitted by the source:
Image
Where As is the surface area of the membrane, and Er is the received energy.
And we will use this for our exercise.
Let me give you an example, let us say that we have a source that emits 3000J, we have a membrane with an area of 0.2m^2 at a distance of 20 meters. How much energy will the membrane receive?
Simple, we just put the values into our equation and calculate:
Image
Now let me give another example, now without Latex, because those things are annoying to upload, Es= 4000J at R = 200m and membrane surface of As = 0.5m
Er = 4000 * 0.5 /(4 *3.141592 * 200 ^2) = 2000/(12.566*40000) = 2000/502654.825 = 0.00398J

Ok now you try:
a) Es = 5000J, R = 100m, As = 0.3m
b) Es = 450J, R = 10m, As = 0.01m
c) Es= 50000J, R = 150m, As = 2m

If you understand enough to be able to use that equation and solve those 3 problems, then on the next post I will show you a property about it that is going to leave you scratching your head. But it will give you a completely different perspective on how you look at some of those infinities in physics.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:13 pm
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

So at beginning all the 200J of energy were concentrated in that reddish circular surface in the middle marked as "1", and as it progress the wave propagates to cover a bigger area and the energy will now concentrate in the surface area in pink (2). Due to conservation of energy, the amount of energy must be preserved; if you have 200J of energy in 1 you must also have 200J of energy in 2, except that the energy in 2 is divided into a bigger area. If you could capture the entire surface area you would get everything if you could capture only a bit, you would get that bit.
Yes I understood all you said before this fully. I payed attention during physics.

But no disrespect meant... where are you going with this compared to what I said and proposed?

I am absolutely not a dumb person, but what you are throwing at me is NOT within my field of knowledge.

I fully realize that this may be your point,.... and you would not be posting all that if you had no point to make.

May I suggest that before you overwhelm me with calculations ...

..... that... You first make your point ?!?

Throwing calculations at me while you aint even explaining yet why you are doing that,,,,
...and than seemingly wanting me to follow up on you,... without a stich wrong,,, seems fuzzy to me.


Make your Point !!!

I'll make mine using Thin Lizzy.

Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:27 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Estheria Quintessimo wrote:I am absolutely not a dumb person, but what you are throwing at me is NOT within my field of knowledge.

You are not dumb, and I totally understand why you would have difficulty understanding this for the first time.
But that is ok, you have time, we are not going anywhere.
This was the easiest example I could have taught at the time which has a particular type of behavior that is relevant in this case to explain certain infinities in physics.

Estheria Quintessimo wrote:I fully realize that this may be your point,.... and you would not be posting all that if you had no point to make.

No it's not, I really did hope that you would be able to understand this, else whatever I am going to say next has absolutely no meaning to you.

Estheria Quintessimo wrote:May I suggest that before you overwhelm me with calculations that You first make your point ?!?
Throwing calculations at me while you aint even explaining yet why you are doing that and than seemingly wanting me to follow up on you, without a stich wrong seems fuzzy to me.
Make your Point !!!

But you don't know enough to understand the point. I could have just straight out tell you what it is, but then you wouldn't understand it, it would mean nothing to you, you would end-out knowing exactly the same before we started.
If you hope to understand it, you don't have much hope but to look at the details of where the rubber meats the road, you got to look at some physics and at some calculations and you got to do some math, there is no other way around it. I wouldn't have gone trough all the trouble if I didn't taught that is was important.

So again.
You have Es which is the energy at the source, you divided that energy uniformly trough the spherical surface (4 pi R^2) and grab the energy from the area of the membrane (As) which touches this spherical surface to determine how much energy reaches the membrane.
So you have a formula Image which if you put in some number corresponding to the variables (Es, R and As) it will give you another number that is the energy received by the membrane. So if you agree that the equation is right, you don't need to contemplate it, as long as you know that you can replace the variables by the respective numbers and now how to calculate in order to get to the final number.
At what point did you have trouble in understanding? At what point did I lost you? The surface area of the sphere? Was it why I divided the energy by the surface area of the sphere? Was it why I multiplied the area of the membrane by the previous result to get the energy received? Was it that you don't know how to get numbers from an equation?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:09 am
Estheria QuintessimoUser avatarPosts: 67Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:36 pmLocation: EVE Space Gender: Female

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

Bla bla.

I understand your meaning and why you are doing this.. But you are using the same tricks as any religious person would do.

Lety me clarify.

I do not know ALL there is to know about religion(s)
I do not know all there is to know about science.

Knowing what I know,.... will this exclude me from any and all discussions regarding these subjects?

I do not have a PhD, I never threw myself into the scriptures.... however I am 42 years old,.... I have been wondering and reading and gaining knowledge about it all for 3 decades.
Sure there is prob a twenty year old around with some phd that has more knowledge about a particular field of interrest than I will ever have in that particular field of interrest.

Does this mean whatever knowledge I gained over several decades is BS just because I cant live up to your personal TEST or do not have a phd ?

I dont know everything about the bible,... does that mean I cant question its thruthfulness?
I dont know everything there is to know about science... does that mean I should shut of my own brain and let those that know all there is to know about science, tell me how stuff works?

Please give me more respect. Im not a moron.

I ask you... what is you particular field of science?
Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:42 am
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4345Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

What the balls is a "Darwinian atheist"?
Image
Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

This is not a test or a challenge. The point is not to expose you for not knowing this, in fact I didn't expect you to know this, nor anyone who was never trained in physics to know this. I genuinely wanted you to learn something new so that you can better understand this. I was a bit disappointed that you haven't at least tried to expose what is it that it is troubling you so that I can explain better and move on.

Given that now you are never likely to get this. I will straight up give you the answer, which will mean nothing to you because you didn't understand how we get to the answer.

If you had understood the equation:
Image
Then we could use it in the following way.
Let us suppose that I'm no longer interested in marine zoology, and now I want to generate energy. This equation tells me that the closer i put my membrane to the source, and the bigger the membrane is, the more energy I can get from the system.
So let's get a 0.5 square meter membrane and put it 2 cm away from a speaker that emits a 200J pulse.
How much energy would the membrane receive per pulse?
You plug in the numbers:
Er = 200 * 0.5 /( 4 * pi * 0.02 ^ 2) = 19894 J
I would have received 19894 J from a 200 J pulse.... Wait, WHAT????? How can I get more energy than that which was available? What about conservation of energy?
Does this mean that if I reroute 200J back into the speaker and use the remainder 19694J, I would have a free energy machine?
You maybe thinking, "maybe this isn't the equation that they use for this sort of problem, MGK is just feeding me a load of tripe!", nope it is the actual equation, it is not only used for sound, it is also used for Radar, radar waves are waves and have similar behavior, the same ideas apply.
So why isn't anybody using this to solve the world's energy problem?
And you could put the membrane closer and closer, the distance will get closer and closer to 0 and thus the equation would provide energies closer and closer to infinity! So what now?
Well the answer to this problem is really simple. Lets take a closer look to what it would look like to put a 0.5m^2 membrane 2cm away from a 200J source.



Now it is clear, it couldn't in fact even get 100J of energy no matter how close it actually is. There has always only been 200J total no matter what you do to the system. In this case we failed to account for the curvature of the wave.
If the distance between the source and the membrane is relatively large compared to the actual size of the membrane then the curvature is almost none-existent. In fact the larger the radius the harder its is to see any difference between he experiment and the model, so insignificant in fact that engineers that design radars ignore this and use this slightly wrong model out of the convenience of being simple to use (it's simpler, it produces the same results as far we care to measure, it's good enough), but if you want to study something really small, now the nature of the problem has changed and you have to use something completely different to understand it.
Now imagine that instead of Radar or sound waves, you were studying a phenomena which was less understood. That you were not so sure what is happening. You have this phenomena that works in a certain manner on the lab, and as far as you know the concept is solid and should work as the model describes, you try to apply it to something so extreme as the big bang, and now all of a sudden the answer is infinite and makes no sense.
Knowing this, is the answer to this problem:
A) The theory is incomplete, and there is something about the phenomena that we don't understand, and that our models may not actually be describing something fundamental about the universe but that is none the less very good at describe everything that we observe a far as we have observed.
B) GAWWWWWWWWWWWD!!!!!!!

This what It looks like to me when people choose B.
Christian - "I have waffles in my crotch, please smell my farts"
Me - "Ok.. you gonna do that over there at the other end of the street and I'm going to stay over here".. Poor guy...
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:40 pm
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

australopithecus wrote:What the balls is a "Darwinian atheist"?



It's a term I've heard many times from Casey Luskin.

I think it's possible that Dawkins may have used the term before when trying to come up with a clearer classification.
It's seems to be loaded terminology as it seems to equate Darwinian thought as the reason for the atheism.

I guess there is nothing wrong with labelling yourself that way, and I have not met any other atheist that had a different perspective on the diversity of life, a distinction seems unnecessary.
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:08 pm
australopithecusLime TordUser avatarPosts: 4345Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:27 pmLocation: Kernow Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Solved: Infinity explained concerning god and Big Bang

It's as ridiculous as defining oneself as a Newtonian atheist. It's superfluous.
Image
Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:48 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 19 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
cron