let all the christians and muslims share a black hole

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Don't be a fool. Mathematics DOES teach you that zero is the constant. Just because there are an infinite number of fractions between zero and one, doesn't change the fact that one (or one half, or one millionth, etc...) comes AFTER zero on the numeric scale. And don't start talking about negative numbers. When talking about time, negative numbers have no application other than signifying a moment before a given point on a timeline. And that moment, signified by a negative, is still a moment that occured AFTER another moment further back in that timeline. Now let me make this clear. I absolutely do NOT believe in any kind of God. And if I did I would probably be asking where that God came from. I think all religion is an exploitation of people's ignorance, and is driven by fear and guilt, especially Christianity. But there has to be a beginning. Its physics. For an object to be in motion, it must be set in motion. This applies to the Universe just as much as it does to anything else. Where that beginning would be; I'm not so bold as to tell you as some seem to think they can. I especially don't think that the beginning will EVER be found within our existance. Not as long as we continue to have the ability to ask questions without being stifled by mindless, non-forward thinking, religious intervention.

You're trying to apply grade-school mathematics and physics to a very complex theoretical question. Mathematics is merely a tool and a model for problem solving, it does not serve to explain anything profound about nature.

By your logic I could just as easily say that time is an exponential function and therefore it never reached 0 and time will somehow massively explode in the future. Or I could say that it's a reciprocal function and started out with a massive IMplosion, has been shrinking ever since then, and will eventually fade out and disappear. Neither of these things make any sense, nor are they supposed to - they're just to illustrate how ludicrous it is to simply assume that time operates in a linear fashion with a clear beginning and/or end. You're using "zero" and "one" as if there actually is a time at "zero" or "one", but what makes you think that time even exists on such an absolute scale? There is only a "zero" time when it is used on a relative scale, i.e. with a stopwatch, starting at point A and ending at point B, and this is how we use it in day-to-day applications.

Is this sinking in yet? Just because you cannot grasp a concept doesn't mean it cannot exist. Many forces in nature are not linear at all. Look at our physiology and the way we hear - on a logarithmic scale. And guess what, on a logarithmic scale, zero does not exist as an input.

Study some quantum. Learn about quantum foam. This thing we call "nothing" - a vacuum, for instance - it doesn't exist. Even in a total vacuum without any matter, there are still oscillations - quantum fluctuations, or quantum foam. Matter and anti-matter simultaneously coming into existence and annihilating each other on the quantum level. "Nothing" only exists in the general sense, as a macro property, as the sum of many smaller parts, like when you zoom into a seemingly smooth curve and find out that it has jagged edges, or when you zoom into a DC signal and find out that it has noise or ripple.

And mathematics has limitations even in its own field. We can't integrate compound exponentials like the Bell curve [e^(x^2)] - the mathematics to represent its integral simply does not exist, that's why lookup tables or computer programs are used for statistical applications. So it's hardly reasonable to expect that such a limited faculty of thinking is sufficient to explain the origins (if there indeed were any) of the universe.

You don't have to be a religious nut to be wrong in your argument - the fact is, the logic you're using to imply that there ever was a beginning is completely fallacious. I'm certainly open to anyone presenting a proper scientific proof that such a beginning ever existed, but a proper scientific proof is worlds apart from what you've presented to us. All you've given us is a weak argument having something to do with number lines (something we learned about in grade 6), and a gross misinterpretation of the law of inertia (which, properly read, states that a body will tend to remain in motion once it is set in motion, NOT that a body must have been deterministically set in motion in order to be in motion).

Next contestant?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce Good article, but it seems that these scientists' brains are running around in circles along with their universe. They haven't really answered anything. We could be in an endless cycle right now, but the cycle did have to start somewhere. Thats basic human logic. Saying that there is no beginning and that the universe always existed seems just as confining as saying "Adam and Eve were born and life continued from there." For the universe to exist, there has to be a point where it didn't exist. You can't count to one without starting with zero. And Constant Cycle does not address that zero factor.

That is human logic, why it had to start? That is the way humans are used to thinking. It absolutely has to start. Why? Also, I don't buy the whole theory with Adam and Eve. Again, it comes back to the notion of the start. How about we go past that confinement and imagine that there was no beginning. It has always existed.

___________________
Blip, blip, blip...

Again, I must agree with diginut here. There's no reason for us to believe that universe ever had a beginning. The theory is quite interesting, but as most cosmological theories, it's just a speculation and not very proveable. If it, however, somehow proves to be true, it would open up a series of interesting questions, primarily the one asking how those 2 3D membranes came to exist in the first place, as the theory really doesn't ensure their temporal infinity. Anyway, if the theory is true and there's somebody outside of our universe, they could certainly use us as a pretty good impulse generator.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce In this case, when I use the term "zero," what I really mean is "nothing." No mass, no matter, no elements, nothing. Just empty space. If the universe gradually grew and evolved into what it is now, it had to start from nothing. The universe can't begin from a single element. Because you can still ask "where did that element come from?" The beginning of the universe lies where you can no longer ask those kinds of questions. And you cannot ask "where did nothing come from?" because, well, nothing is there. Then comes a new question. "How something be created from nothing?" And that is a question that I will neither answer or debate. My brain hurts just thinking about it.

Well, at least you yourself admit that you don't know what you're talking about. You mention that only empty space existed. Well, I've got a newsflash for you: nothing does not include empty space either! Besides, that empty space is not really empty, so empty nothingness is not really nothingness in a pure sense of the word. And you can sure as hell ask yourself if there was something else before that nothingness. If something appeared out of nothing, there had to be some unusual fluctuations in that nothingess, right? And if there were, then it wasn't really nothing, there was something going on.

___________________
1+1=10

Last edited by DrUg_Tit0 on Mar-15-2004 at 21:11

Perhaps a little off-topic, but interesting nonetheless:

quote:

'God particle' may have been seen By Paul Rincon BBC News Online science staff A scientist says one of the most sought after particles in physics - the Higgs boson - may have been found, but the evidence is still relatively weak. Peter Renton, of the University of Oxford, says the particle may have been detected by researchers at an atom-smashing facility in Switzerland. The Higgs boson explains why all other particles have mass and is fundamental to a complete understanding of matter. Dr Renton's assessment of the Higgs hunt is published in Nature magazine. His paper in the journal reviews the current state of play. "There's certainly evidence for something, whether it's the Higgs boson is questionable," Dr Renton, a particle physicist at Oxford, told BBC News Online. "It's compatible with the Higgs boson certainly, but only a direct observation would show that." It's compatible with the Higgs boson certainly, but only a direct observation would show that Dr Peter Renton, University of Oxford If correct, Dr Renton's assessment would place the elusive particle's mass at about 115 gigaelectronvolts. Unstable particle This comes from a signal obtained at the large electron positron collider (LEP) in Geneva, Switzerland, which has now been dismantled to make way for its replacement - the large hadron collider (LHC). However, there is a 9% probability that the signal could be background "noise". Before the LEP accelerator was decommissioned, physicists used it to send particles called electrons and positrons careering in opposite directions around its circular pipe, which had a circumference of about 27km. When these particles collided, they created bursts of high energy. Such collisions themselves are too small to study but new, heavier particles can appear amongst the debris. The Higgs boson is thought to be highly unstable and, once produced, should quickly decay. Dr Renton cites indirect evidence taken from observations of the behaviour of other particles in colliders that agrees with the figure of 115 gigaelectronvolts for the mass of the Higgs boson. "It's controversial. The data is possibly indicative, but it needs confirmation," said Bryan Webber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge. "Its mass is right at the maximum energy they could run the [LEP] at. But the indirect indications are that the Higgs boson should be close to that value." Mass giver Physicists have observed 16 particles that make up all matter under the Standard Model of fundamental particles and interactions. But the sums do not quite add up for the Standard Model to be true if these particles are considered alone. If only 16 particles existed, they would have no mass - contradicting what we know to be true in nature. Another particle has to give them this mass. Enter the Higgs boson, first proposed by University of Edinburgh physicist Peter Higgs and colleagues in the late 1960s. Their theory was that all particles acquire their mass through interactions with an all-pervading field, called the Higgs field, which is carried by the Higgs boson. The Higgs' importance to the Standard Model has led some to dub it the "God particle". Dr Renton said he hoped that once the large hadron collider was up and running in 2007, the Higgs boson would be detected within a year or two. The LHC is a more energetic accelerator which will allow a much higher mass range to be explored. It will also be capable of producing much more intense particle beams which means that data can be aggregated much faster. It is also possible the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago, US, could make the discovery. Researchers there are hopeful they can secure enough data to prove the Higgs' existence before the LHC comes online. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/...ech/3546973.stm Published: 2004/03/10 18:02:44 GMT © BBC MMIV

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps a little off-topic, but interesting nonetheless:

Plagiarism!!!

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=167087

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Plagiarism!!! http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=167087

Oopsies!

Well call me your bitch for that one!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You're trying to apply grade-school mathematics and physics to a very complex theoretical question. Mathematics is merely a tool and a model for problem solving, it does not serve to explain anything profound about nature.

I'm using grade school mathematics so that you can understand that one comes after zero.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut By your logic I could just as easily say that time is an exponential function and therefore it never reached 0 and time will somehow massively explode in the future. Or I could say that it's a reciprocal function and started out with a massive IMplosion, has been shrinking ever since then, and will eventually fade out and disappear. Neither of these things make any sense, nor are they supposed to - they're just to illustrate how ludicrous it is to simply assume that time operates in a linear fashion with a clear beginning and/or end. You're using "zero" and "one" as if there actually is a time at "zero" or "one", but what makes you think that time even exists on such an absolute scale? There is only a "zero" time when it is used on a relative scale, i.e. with a stopwatch, starting at point A and ending at point B, and this is how we use it in day-to-day applications.

Time is not calculatable. There is absolutely no way to predict the future. And technically the future doesn't even exist. If someone were able to see into the future, because of their response to it, that would no longer be the real future. Based on our perception. There is only "then" and "now." And in that sense, Time is absolutely linear. Say if someone were able to travel from now to 1786. From the perspective of the Time Traveler, technically he is not travelling backwards. His timeline will continue to move forward and he will grow older. He just happens to be in a representation of 1786. And I say representation because the fact that he is there makes that a false 1786. Based on the perception of that single entity, Time Travel is impossible and will continue to be linear. A circular universe that has no beginning or end would have to introduce time travel somewhere into its existance.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Is this sinking in yet? Just because you cannot grasp a concept doesn't mean it cannot exist. Many forces in nature are not linear at all. Look at our physiology and the way we hear - on a logarithmic scale. And guess what, on a logarithmic scale, zero does not exist as an input.

No, not everything in the universe is linear. As far as hearing, the time it takes for a sound to travel from its origin to our brain is deffinately linear. For hearing, consider "zero" as the piont of origin.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Study some quantum. Learn about quantum foam. This thing we call "nothing" - a vacuum, for instance - it doesn't exist. Even in a total vacuum without any matter, there are still oscillations - quantum fluctuations, or quantum foam. Matter and anti-matter simultaneously coming into existence and annihilating each other on the quantum level. "Nothing" only exists in the general sense, as a macro property, as the sum of many smaller parts, like when you zoom into a seemingly smooth curve and find out that it has jagged edges, or when you zoom into a DC signal and find out that it has noise or ripple.

"Nothing" exists when "something" doesn't exist. Simple as that. When speaking on macro properties, you refer to something that exists. Matter and anti-matter simultaneously coming into existence? WHERE DID IT COME FROM? That matter and anti-matter had to come from somewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You don't have to be a religious nut to be wrong in your argument - the fact is, the logic you're using to imply that there ever was a beginning is completely fallacious. I'm certainly open to anyone presenting a proper scientific proof that such a beginning ever existed, but a proper scientific proof is worlds apart from what you've presented to us. All you've given us is a weak argument having something to do with number lines (something we learned about in grade 6), and a gross misinterpretation of the law of inertia (which, properly read, states that a body will tend to remain in motion once it is set in motion, NOT that a body must have been deterministically set in motion in order to be in motion).

If you need scientific proof, then why are you so adement that there is no beginning? You have no evidence to prove me wrong in any way. I'm not really saying that the beginning is where nothing exists. Because we can still ask where nothing came from, as Drug Tito asked. And "nothing" is only a comparison to a lack of "something." I'm just say that the end of this universe cannot trigger the beggining of this same universe. I'm open to it triggering the creation of ANOTHER universe. Time doesn't loop like that. Time is continuous.

This is an awesome discussion, though. I'm glad you're here Diginut. Its deffinately been fun.

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 That is human logic, why it had to start? That is the way humans are used to thinking. It absolutely has to start. Why? Also, I don't buy the whole theory with Adam and Eve. Again, it comes back to the notion of the start. How about we go past that confinement and imagine that there was no beginning. It has always existed.

The human logic isn't WHY it had to start. The logic is THAT it had to start. Religion doesn't tell you THAT there is a beginning, only WHAT that beginning is. The story of Adam and Eve is a story written for children. Its just that those children grew up without being told that the story was fiction. Now 95% of this planet is suffering from neurological dissorders. Besides imagining that that there is no beginning, doesn't prove that there isn't. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I can't prove that either. I'm just debating the other side.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut All you've given us is a weak argument having something to do with number lines (something we learned about in grade 6), and a gross misinterpretation of the law of inertia (which, properly read, states that a body will tend to remain in motion once it is set in motion, NOT that a body must have been deterministically set in motion in order to be in motion).

The law of inertia wasn't misinterpreted. Newton's Laws of Inertia do not address how the object in motion was set in motion. Newton's Laws only address the motion, speed, and force and implies that the object in motion was previously set in motion. How does a baseball travel from the pitcher to the catcher? THE PITCHER THREW IT.

Occ, Tito and Yoepus, I leave this thread up to you, I'm not eeeeven going to waste my time.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

Last edited by squirrelly on Mar-16-2004 at 02:07