Hmph, I'm bored tonight, so I am going to waste my taking taking apart this "argument."

quote:

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

Gee, thanks for dumbing it down, my pitiful 4 years in engineering couldn't possibly compare to an American grade school education.

quote:

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.

What the hell does time travel or prediction of the future have to do with this debate, anyway? If you want to talk about that, save it for another thread.

quote:

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.

This doesn't even make sense. The time it takes for a sound to travel from its origin to our brain is linear in relation to what? To itself? Yes, I suppose if you plot "f(x) vs f(x)" then you will get a linear graph.

Or are you trying to say that the time it takes for a sound to travel from its origin to our brain varies linearly with our distance to that point of origin? If so, that sort of makes sense, but my whole point was that this only holds true because we sense and measure time linearly. But there is no reason why we can't reference time on a logarithmic scale, and indeed that is done in many applications such as passive electronics - and if time can be represented on a logarithmic scale, which it can, then who is to say that logarithmic is not it's "natural state" and that no zero time could ever exist?

Consider "zero" as the point of origin - that makes even less sense. It might makes sense if you worded it backwards - i.e., "let the time of origination of the sound wave be zero" - okay, that makes sense, I guess, but so what, what does it prove? That we can take a point of reference on a much larger absolute scale and call it zero and take measurements relative to it? Wow, thank you for that glorious insight, I never would have figured it out without your help.

quote:

"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.

It doesn't "come from" anywhere. If you want to learn the answer to your question then read a quantum mechanics textbook or search on the web for quantum foam - don't ask it in CAPS like it's same age-old philosophical questions that nobody's been able to come up with a sensible answer to. We are talking about quantum fluctuations, and everyone with even the most elementary knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that the very first principle of quantum mechanics is that it isn't subject to the same laws as classical (macro) mechanics. Energy can be quantized and is not necessarily able to take on an arbitrary value. Energy and matter do not have to be conserved (on the quantum scale). And matter can and does come and go without any causation!

You may think it's some sort of impossible-to-understand miracle that a matter-antimatter pair can materialize out of "empty space", and yet it happens every nanosecond of every day! w00t! Because the fact is, it's not "materializing" out of empty space, it IS empty space. And that's where so many people fail to grasp the concept - it's like an AC current with no DC offset whose average value is thus zero - it's an AVERAGE, the current still EXISTS. Come to think of it, those quantum fluctuations on a sub-microscopic scale would seem to be a very good model for - you guessed it - OUR UNIVERSE!

quote:

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 don't seem to recall saying that I'm adamant about there being no beginning. The fluctuation theory is just one of an unproven few. However, YOU are adamant that there WAS a "beginning", and my adamance lies with the fact that your assumption is WRONG, there IS no evidence that there was a "beginning" and it is not "basic human logic" to assume that it is!

quote:

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.

And your evidence of this is where? Have you been to the end of time and back? Have you been to the beginning of time and back? No? Then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY EXIST? People thought the Earth was flat many centuries ago, I guess they would have thought it had corners and a beginning and an end too, but apparently, THEY WERE WRONG! MAYBE YOU ARE TOO!

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce 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.

Religion tells us what the beginning is, but that by definition drills the idea into our heads that there WAS a beginning. "Imagining" that there was no beginning obviously does not prove that there wasn't one, but "imagining" that there WAS a beginning doesn't prove that there WAS one either. The singular reason why people choose the latter is because it is easier to imagine than the former, because they haven't had enough of an education in mathematics and sciences to wrap their minds around the concepts of an infinite phenomena.

quote:

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.

Well if what you posted originally wasn't a misinterpretation of Newton's Law, then it was just crap pulled out of your ass. You said it yourself, Newton's Law doesn't make any reference to how, why, or when an object was set in motion. Therefore, your "pitcher-baseball" comment is nothing more than a warped version of the classic fallacious Theistic "argument from design" - i.e., the complexity of an object suggests that it must have been designed and that therefore there was a designer.

Your argument is fallacious for the same reasons that the Intelligent Design argument makes no sense: specifically, the baseball is an object WE create and WE set in motion and thus it is reasonably to assume that it won't fly by itself if it isn't thrown. This logic, however, does not and cannot apply to, say, the movement of planetary bodies. We didn't create those and they are quite good at moving on their very own due to interacting gravitational forces. The planets weren't "thrown" by anyone, they move due to a phenomena that simply exists. Period. And sure, you can go ahead and ask and imagine where gravity came from but that doesn't mean that there's a logical answer to your question. If we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume that anyone created it, and thus no reason to assume that it had some kind of beginning or will have some kind of end.

Please, don't pursue this line of reasoning any further. It's a good start that you don't believe in any God or Creationist arguments, but you're still trapped in the religious view of cosmology that suggests everything must have a beginning and/or end. This isn't true! I'll say what my professors have said so many times in our classes - you don't have to understand it, just accept it.

___________________
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

sweet jeebus i read this whole thread, my head hurts

Ps. im still looking for dinosaurs in the bible

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Gee, thanks for dumbing it down, my pitiful 4 years in engineering couldn't possibly compare to an American grade school education.

I don't mean to offend. I'm just trying to simplify my point, thinking that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely. Though its probably impossible to do at this point in this discussion. Its not an attack on your intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut What the hell does time travel or prediction of the future have to do with this debate, anyway? If you want to talk about that, save it for another thread.

My original response was to the idea of cycling universes that have no beginning or end. I interpreted this cycling as either:

[ Universe A dies, then creates Universe B; B dies then creates C. C dies then creates Universe A again. Time travel would be required for C to create A again. To go back to a point where A never existed in the first place. Then a paradox comes into play. How can C create an A, that doesn't exist yet, when C can't exist itself without A. You know the "Kill your Great Grandmother" time travel paradox. But without time travel, Universe C would only be able to create Universe D. Then infinately expand that way, which I do think is possible. This would make a long, linear, string of cycles, or dimensions, that exist in something even larger than our universe. And there's probably something even larger than that. My point is that no matter how large we are thinking, we cannot escape the grasp of time. ]

or:

[ Universe A dies then creates Universe A again. And so on...
The same pardox as above would occur between the death of A and the creation of A. So a linear string of different Universe A's would infinately expand just like above. ]

I've just been trying to say that these strings should have a beginning. Created by something outside of where these infinate dimensions are held. Then that will lead to more questions. Where did the "something" that created the string come from? And so on. The further outside you think from, the more Linear things are going to look.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Or are you trying to say that the time it takes for a sound to travel from its origin to our brain varies linearly with our distance to that point of origin?

Yes. That is what I meant. Sorry for the poor wording.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut If so, that sort of makes sense, but my whole point was that this only holds true because we sense and measure time linearly.

Yes, my point as well.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Consider "zero" as the point of origin - that makes even less sense. It might makes sense if you worded it backwards - i.e., "let the time of origination of the sound wave be zero" - okay, that makes sense, I guess,

That is what I meant too. Didn't think there was a difference between considering "zero" as the origin of the sound wave and considering the origin of the sound wave as "zero."

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut but so what, what does it prove? That we can take a point of reference on a much larger absolute scale and call it zero and take measurements relative to it? Wow, thank you for that glorious insight, I never would have figured it out without your help.

I'm TRYING to be simple. I'm not using exponential, logorithmic equations as source for a reason. They are not applicable because, when talking about the size, age, or origin of the universe, there is no scientific data to apply them to. Everything is speculation.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It doesn't "come from" anywhere. If you want to learn the answer to your question then read a quantum mechanics textbook or search on the web for quantum foam - don't ask it in CAPS like it's same age-old philosophical questions that nobody's been able to come up with a sensible answer to. We are talking about quantum fluctuations, and everyone with even the most elementary knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that the very first principle of quantum mechanics is that it isn't subject to the same laws as classical (macro) mechanics.

I have studied basic quantum mechanics, and the subject is amazing. I try learn as much as can, though that is not a field that I wish to take a career in. But Quantum Mechanics is only based on data that scientists have at hand. It can't be applied to something that we know nothing about...yet. Its still speculation that quantum foam has or will always exist when nothing else does. Maybe we will find that this is an age-old question that can't be answered. Who knows?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Energy can be quantized and is not necessarily able to take on an arbitrary value. Energy and matter do not have to be conserved (on the quantum scale). And matter can and does come and go without any causation!

Kind of like God then, I guess. And you say I'm the one thinking religiously.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut You may think it's some sort of impossible-to-understand miracle that a matter-antimatter pair can materialize out of "empty space", and yet it happens every nanosecond of every day! w00t! Because the fact is, it's not "materializing" out of empty space, it IS empty space. And that's where so many people fail to grasp the concept - it's like an AC current with no DC offset whose average value is thus zero - it's an AVERAGE, the current still EXISTS. Come to think of it, those quantum fluctuations on a sub-microscopic scale would seem to be a very good model for - you guessed it - OUR UNIVERSE!

I don't think anything's is a miracle. I just believe in causality. We may not see it now, but there may be a cause for the materialization of matter-antimatter pairs. I don't think that we have the knowledge, yet, to consider our take on Quantum Mechanics final, and applicable to the rest of the universe.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't seem to recall saying that I'm adamant about there being no beginning. The fluctuation theory is just one of an unproven few. However, YOU are adamant that there WAS a "beginning", and my adamance lies with the fact that your assumption is WRONG, there IS no evidence that there was a "beginning" and it is not "basic human logic" to assume that it is!

Let me be clear. I'm not adament about anything that I have no proof to back up. I take an opposing view on a topic like this to try and understand why an individual can believe in something that they have no solid reason to. Thats my extreme anti religious background in effect. The conflict arises when someone sees this and assumes that I actually believe in everything I say, and does the same thing I do. To me. Which you have done very well and very intelligently. Please don't consider my responses as attacks. I just like to oppose. I'm an Anarchist. I'm not here to prove that I'm right, I'm here to be proven wrong. It might not be basic human logic to assume there is a beginning, but for me it is less logical for me to think that there isn't. I believe that we came from somewhere, maybe the Giant Cookie Monster, and we continue to move forward. I believe its impossible to move backwards and end up where we started. Quantum Mechanics doesn't seem to refute that in any way.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And your evidence of this is where? Have you been to the end of time and back? Have you been to the beginning of time and back? No? Then HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY EXIST? People thought the Earth was flat many centuries ago, I guess they would have thought it had corners and a beginning and an end too, but apparently, THEY WERE WRONG! MAYBE YOU ARE TOO!

Again, as shown above, to have the future affect the past would create a paradox in which none of us would exist. Since I believe that we do exist, I think looping time is extremely illogical. You don't have to travel to the end of the universe to figure that out. Not when talking about time. And whether people thought the world was flat in the past has no barring.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Religion tells us what the beginning is, but that by definition drills the idea into our heads that there WAS a beginning. "Imagining" that there was no beginning obviously does not prove that there wasn't one, but "imagining" that there WAS a beginning doesn't prove that there WAS one either. The singular reason why people choose the latter is because it is easier to imagine than the former, because they haven't had enough of an education in mathematics and sciences to wrap their minds around the concepts of an infinite phenomena.

I don't like believeing in the easier things. Especially when I see major problems with those things. If I did, I'd believe in God and leave it at that. I have to ask questions.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Well if what you posted originally wasn't a misinterpretation of Newton's Law, then it was just crap pulled out of your ass. You said it yourself, Newton's Law doesn't make any reference to how, why, or when an object was set in motion. Therefore, your "pitcher-baseball" comment is nothing more than a warped version of the classic fallacious Theistic "argument from design" - i.e., the complexity of an object suggests that it must have been designed and that therefore there was a designer.

Then there was a designer of the designer, and a designer of that designer, and so on...But under the cycling universe theory, the pitcher would throw the ball to the catcher, the ball would instantly be in the pitcher's hand again. He will not have memory of throwing it in the first place and throw it again, and again, forever. That seems much more likely. Right.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Your argument is fallacious for the same reasons that the Intelligent Design argument makes no sense: specifically, the baseball is an object WE create and WE set in motion and thus it is reasonably to assume that it won't fly by itself if it isn't thrown. This logic, however, does not and cannot apply to, say, the movement of planetary bodies. We didn't create those and they are quite good at moving on their very own due to interacting gravitational forces. The planets weren't "thrown" by anyone, they move due to a phenomena that simply exists. Period.

Take a comet. Probably a piece something that was projected off of something else. Who knows how? Explosion, ricochette, Giant being from from Giant planet hurls Giant rock into space towards our sun. Whatever. The comet moves toward our sun. Doesn't hit it, but passes it, gets caught by the sun's gravity, and gets hurled in a different direction. During this the comet's speed is decreased by the gravity of the sun. So it moves away slower than it came. Say that comet's speed was affected so much that it didn't have enough speed to escape the sun's gravity then gets locked into a decaying orbit around the sun. Such is our planets. They are not in a perfectly stationary, circular orbit around the sun. We are, very slowly, actually falling into the sun. This is a recent NAS finding, I'll try to find the article. Cool stuff. But our planet is not in the same place it was a million years ago. And it isn't moving on its own. It could very well have been thrown here.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And sure, you can go ahead and ask and imagine where gravity came from but that doesn't mean that there's a logical answer to your question. If we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume that anyone created it, and thus no reason to assume that it had some kind of beginning or will have some kind of end.

I'm not going to even touch on how gravity is formed. You say if we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume that anyone created it. But you might as well say that if we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume it even exists at all. Everything outside of ourselves is just our imagination. We're all trapped in The Matrix. Possible...but The Matrix sucked.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please, don't pursue this line of reasoning any further. It's a good start that you don't believe in any God or Creationist arguments, but you're still trapped in the religious view of cosmology that suggests everything must have a beginning and/or end. This isn't true! I'll say what my professors have said so many times in our classes - you don't have to understand it, just accept it.

Thats what preists say to their followers too. Funny.


ps. I'm glad that you're a trained engineer and intelligent with your opposition.
Again, I'm not saying I believe in everything that I say, I'm just opposing. You have made it a lot more interesting. Respect...

quote:

Originally posted by nic01445 A bit off topic, but if someone sees into the future, that would imply that the future is predetermined. That would mean that the future someone sees is a result of their reaction to their forsight.

If someone were able to see the future, it would be an estimation based on our standing right now. During that forsight the person seeing would react to what they saw. Then the future would react to their reaction and change. then the person would react again, and the future would change again.

That is why the future cannot be accurately seen or predicted.

quote:

Originally posted by Ondrayce My original response was to the idea of cycling universes that have no beginning or end. I interpreted this cycling as either: [ Universe A dies, then creates Universe B; B dies then creates C. C dies then creates Universe A again. Time travel would be required for C to create A again. To go back to a point where A never existed in the first place. Then a paradox comes into play. How can C create an A, that doesn't exist yet, when C can't exist itself without A. You know the "Kill your Great Grandmother" time travel paradox. But without time travel, Universe C would only be able to create Universe D. Then infinately expand that way, which I do think is possible. This would make a long, linear, string of cycles, or dimensions, that exist in something even larger than our universe. And there's probably something even larger than that. My point is that no matter how large we are thinking, we cannot escape the grasp of time. ] or: [ Universe A dies then creates Universe A again. And so on... The same pardox as above would occur between the death of A and the creation of A. So a linear string of different Universe A's would infinately expand just like above. ]

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you either oversimplify or misinterpret things. A repetitive universe about which you're talking about is possible and it's not analogous to the kill your grandfather paradox. But that's not really what the theory talks about anyway. Nowhere does it say that the universe itself is the reason for its own existance. You have again misinterpreted the theory. The theory just states that when the density of the universe becomes too small, the 5th dimension collapses and causes a big bang. The new big bang does not have to be identical to the previous one, and the new iteration of the same universe does not have to be identical to the previous one.

quote:

I've just been trying to say that these strings should have a beginning. Created by something outside of where these infinate dimensions are held. Then that will lead to more questions. Where did the "something" that created the string come from? And so on. The further outside you think from, the more Linear things are going to look.

Now they shouldn't. If something can go on forever, it just as well may have existed forever. The point of origin is always arbitrarily given. Although you probably didn't notice it, you yourself say that prior to your "beginning", there has been something. Well, then it isn't really an absolute beginning, right? Basically you're hinting at an infinite sequence of beginnings. Yes, that's right, notice the word infinite here.

quote:

That is what I meant too. Didn't think there was a difference between considering "zero" as the origin of the sound wave and considering the origin of the sound wave as "zero."

There is, because 0 is the applied value, while the sound wave is the existing fact. You can't put it vice-versa.

quote:

I'm TRYING to be simple. I'm not using exponential, logorithmic equations as source for a reason. They are not applicable because, when talking about the size, age, or origin of the universe, there is no scientific data to apply them to. Everything is speculation.

God damn it, that was just an example to show you that 0 is not a necessity for the function of time.

quote:

Kind of like God then, I guess. And you say I'm the one thinking religiously.

No, it's not like god, because it is a scientifically observed phenomena.

quote:

I believe that we came from somewhere, maybe the Giant Cookie Monster, and we continue to move forward. I believe its impossible to move backwards and end up where we started. Quantum Mechanics doesn't seem to refute that in any way.

Again, you're applying overly simplified and erroneous logic. To move back through time in an existing universe is not the same thing as it is to destroy and recreate the very same universe. I won't comment more on this, as this is just your misinterpretation of the mentioned theory.

quote:

Again, as shown above, to have the future affect the past would create a paradox in which none of us would exist. Since I believe that we do exist, I think looping time is extremely illogical. You don't have to travel to the end of the universe to figure that out. Not when talking about time. And whether people thought the world was flat in the past has no barring.

God, you're comparing a situation where one entity travels through time in one way while the universe travels in another. Well, if time were to loop, then the whole universe would go the same way, so there wouldn't be paradoxes such as the grandfather one.

quote:

Then there was a designer of the designer, and a designer of that designer, and so on...

And guess what? You just described an infinite sequence with no beginning!

quote:

But under the cycling universe theory, the pitcher would throw the ball to the catcher, the ball would instantly be in the pitcher's hand again. He will not have memory of throwing it in the first place and throw it again, and again, forever. That seems much more likely. Right.

It is not more likely, but it is possible.

quote:

Take a comet. Probably a piece something that was projected off of something else. Who knows how? Explosion, ricochette, Giant being from from Giant planet hurls Giant rock into space towards our sun. Whatever. The comet moves toward our sun. Doesn't hit it, but passes it, gets caught by the sun's gravity, and gets hurled in a different direction. During this the comet's speed is decreased by the gravity of the sun. So it moves away slower than it came. Say that comet's speed was affected so much that it didn't have enough speed to escape the sun's gravity then gets locked into a decaying orbit around the sun. Such is our planets. They are not in a perfectly stationary, circular orbit around the sun. We are, very slowly, actually falling into the sun. This is a recent NAS finding, I'll try to find the article. Cool stuff. But our planet is not in the same place it was a million years ago. And it isn't moving on its own. It could very well have been thrown here.

Wow, thanks for the physics lesson. I would have cut this part out, except if it weren't for that "recent NASA finding" that planets are falling into the sun. Wow! I've never seen that coming!

quote:

I'm not going to even touch on how gravity is formed. You say if we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume that anyone created it. But you might as well say that if we didn't create it, then there's no reason to assume it even exists at all. Everything outside of ourselves is just our imagination. We're all trapped in The Matrix. Possible...but The Matrix sucked.

I don't see how you concluded that we can be sure only of the existance of objects that we ourselves have created.

quote:

Thats what preists say to their followers too. Funny.

Yes, except that priests aren't talking about observed phenomena. If you don't understand gravity, well, it still exists so you might just as well accept it.

___________________
1+1=10

I think he considers these to be "deep philosophical questions", like:
- Are cucumbers really so different from auto exhaust?
- Can you imagine life without a left shoulder?
- Why don't badgers wear long pants?

It really doesn't take a genius to ask a question that makes no sense, nor does it take a lot of wit to say that these questions are "deep" because nobody knows the answer.

Imagination has no place in scientific discourse. Creativity is a great asset, but "imagine" is a word that you want to use sparingly.

___________________
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 DigiNut I think he considers these to be "deep philosophical questions", like: - Are cucumbers really so different from auto exhaust? - Can you imagine life without a left shoulder? - Why don't badgers wear long pants? It really doesn't take a genius to ask a question that makes no sense, nor does it take a lot of wit to say that these questions are "deep" because nobody knows the answer. Imagination has no place in scientific discourse. Creativity is a great asset, but "imagine" is a word that you want to use sparingly.

Go easy on 'em Dig. I personally give him credit for trying here. And I also slightly disagree with your analysis on imagination, but just ever so slightly. I think when it comes to cosmology, exponential measurements, and quantum physics, it seems somewhat to the layman that an imagination is almost necessary in order to fathom the data. It even appears that way somewhat to myself, and I have a science background in biology. Of course it is merely a matter of mathmatics and observed recorded phenomena, but the metaphysical understanding of it is truly "out there" to think about.

Quantum physics truly mindboggles the f$ck out of me, and I think it really takes an open mind to be able to accept quantum fluctuations of particles coming in and out of existence (i.e. Casimir Effect). Regardless, I think you should give this guy the benefit of the doubt and not label him too quick as an ID apologist. I think he has the potential arguments of an IDer (esp. with the need for pinning a "causation" on things), but he hasn't really "come out" as one, and until he does I think it's in good spirit to allow him to continue his arguments and questions.

Now I've got a quick summary of my own, which may or may not be related to what he's implying. And just pretend I'm a cosmic amateur (actually, don't pretend - it's quite true). Feel free to make corrections, so here it goes:

We know that the universe is expanding by the measurements of galaxies moving away from one another, correct? So we can deduct that by going backwards in time the galaxies and all matter in space is closer and closer, all the way to what we would like to label as a singular point, which indicates a point of origin for the Big Bang to occur. So perhaps what Ondrayce may be asking is that since there was a point of origin for the Big Bang, we have to call this point of origin a "zero point" from which space and time had begun in a linear fashion.

But quantum physics kinda mucks up this simplistic idea, indicating that matter has the possibility of appearing and disappearing at will. Furthermore, if the amount of anti-matter in the universe is the same as the amount of matter, then the total energy level of the universe is zero. A universe of zero net energy/matter could easily spontaneously form, giving no set point of origin to where matter actually comes from? Finally, the split of energy into matter and anti-matter is caused by the expanding and cooling of the universe. The "cause" of matter is the cooling of the universe, just like the "cause" of an ice crystal is the cooling of water. But to complicate things more, space itself was created with the Big Bang so it actually occurred everywhere at once, not at a specific point, correct? Along with all the matter and energy in today's Universe, space itself began with the Big Bang event and has been expanding ever since. The Big Bang is simply the result of the regression into the past of our observations of an expanding universe. It is a point of infinite density and infintesimal dimension, thus no real point of origin or "zero point" truly existed.


So because of quantum understanding, you are saying that there really is no point of origin to begin with, correct?

How'd I do?

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

Oh yeah, I would also like a perspective on a couple of theories on what may have occurred or what "caused" the Big Bang.


Ekpyrotic Universe:

http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

The Many Worlds Theory:

http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/many.htm

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/everett.html

Now my brain is officially leaking out my ears.

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

Cripes, man!

14 Followers and counting!!!!!!!!!!!

Woohoo!

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

I miss the theists. Where did they go? When does the next bumper crop get in? Anyway, I posted this in the chill out room hoping to offend someone but no luck ... might as well post it here for the amusement of atheists.





Fark did a photoshop contest on jesus a while ago and the theme was: "To celebrate the opening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, add a little Jesus to your favorite movie"

Here are some of my favorites (die you 56kers):












http://www3.telus.net/newmane/jesus.jpg very big so click on the link











http://idisk.mac.com/johnkamowski/P...earandjesus.jpg Really big but a must see. Click.

___________________
Retro ...

ohhhhh those are great. The fear and loathing one was hi-larious same goes for American History X and Momento. Good post.

+1