REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 07:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5469
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:05 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Here's something that's LIKE what you ask for...

Quote:

Yang-Mills theory is an extension of Maxwell theory that describes interactions in two other forces called the weak and strong nuclear forces. However, ground state fluctuations have a much more serious effect in a quantum theory of gravity. Again, each wavelength would have a ground state energy. Since there is no limit to how short the wavelengths of the Maxwell field can be, there are an infinite number of different wavelengths in any region of spacetime and an infinite amount of ground state energy. Because energy density is, like matter, a source of gravity, this infinite energy density ought to mean there is enough gravitational attraction in the universe to curl spacetime into a single point, which obviously hasn’t happened.
~The Universe in a Nutshell, page 46.



I'll have to keep looking for other (better) examples.


I'm not sure what that has to do with singularities. It merely says that Yang-Mills would seem to suggest that the universe should have collapsed into a singularity, which since that hasn't happened indicates there's something missing from Yang-Mills, not that Singularities don't exist.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:10 AM

BYTEMITE


It's small, but it's not zero. What you have observed, however, is part of a noted paradox in Hawkings radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Trans-Planckian_problem

Quote:

The trans-Planckian problem is the observation that Hawking's original calculation requires talking about quantum particles in which the wavelength becomes shorter than the Planck length near the black hole horizon. It is due to the peculiar behavior near a gravitational horizon where time stops as measured from far away. A particle emitted from a black hole with a finite frequency, if traced back to the horizon, must have had an infinite frequency there and a trans-Planckian wavelength.


Here's a wikipedia entry on Stephen Hawking's no singularity Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_B
ang_theory


Quote:

The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition, in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle-Hawking_state

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:16 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I'd be surprised if he did say such a thing. Hawking once lost a bet that Singularities 'exist' only within Black Holes (his position), when computer models showed naked singularities were theoretically possible. Hell, it was Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose who came up with the Big Bang from a singularity theory. So in fact it would be Hawking saying his entire life's work is bullshit. I suspect such a statement would be big news.

Anyway, I don't see any reason why QM effects, even if they had the effect you say would negate a singularity. In fact the singularity of a rotating black hole is already known to not be a single point but a 'disc'.



Amazingly enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. He refuted his own work that he did in the 1960s on the Big Bang model, because he thought a no singularity big bang model better explained his observations.

Now THERE'S an example of a non-biased scientist! I love that he was willing and able to say he was wrong in the quest for greater understanding.

And prior to reading his work on the subject, I would have said anyone who argued against a singularity based big bang was a total nutjob. But he makes very convincing, easy to follow arguments all based in quantum mechanics, so, like I said, I like the idea. I think it has potential. He even proposed ways in which it could be proved or disproved, that I believe the LHC is going to be looking into... If they ever get it online, that is. ._.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:29 AM

CITIZEN


The Singularities wavelength being shorter than the planck length means it's effect on the 'probability cloud' is meaningless to the singularity. It means it's as good as Zero.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Amazingly enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. He refuted his own work that he did in the 1960s on the Big Bang model, because he thought a no singularity big bang model better explained his observations.

Now THERE'S an example of a non-biased scientist! I love that he was willing and able to say he was wrong in the quest for greater understanding.

And prior to reading his work on the subject, I would have said anyone who argued against a singularity based big bang was a total nutjob. But he makes very convincing, easy to follow arguments all based in quantum mechanics, so, like I said, I like the idea. I think it has potential. He even proposed ways in which it could be proved or disproved, that I believe the LHC is going to be looking into... If they ever get it online, that is. ._.


And I'm saying I find it unlikely until I read it for myself .

As for the big bang, the only updated thinking I've seen from Hawking was that the singularity appeared spontaneously and then began to expand like a bubble.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:36 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Anyway, I don't see any reason why QM effects, even if they had the effect you say would negate a singularity. In fact the singularity of a rotating black hole is already known to not be a single point but a 'disc'.



And I think that the idea of a two dimensional disk violates the concept of a singularity all by itself, without quantum effects.

Even if it doesn't... Hey, look! Quantum effects! You can smear a disk just like you can smear a point.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether that smearing does in fact happen, even though you appear to acknowledge wavelengths of particles in a singularity, and Hawking radiation.

Looks like I'm going to be doing a refresher in quantum gravity right now, since your argument seems to be that the gravity well at a black hole singularity locks particles into place and renders their probability cloud non-existent.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:51 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I think that the idea of a two dimensional disk violates the concept of a singularity all by itself, without quantum effects.


Well it doesn't, the singularity in a rotating black hole is still called a singularity.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether that smearing does in fact happen, even though you appear to acknowledge wavelengths of particles in a singularity, and Hawking radiation.


We disagree on whether it's relevant. Everything has a wavelength, but with anything more massive than an electron it becomes increasingly irrelevant. And Black holes are much more massive than an electron. Even so, QM making a singularities position 'fuzzy' doesn't actually mean it's not a singularity any more than it stops an electron being an electron.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Looks like I'm going to be doing a refresher in quantum gravity right now, since your argument seems to be that the gravity well at a black hole singularity locks particles into place and renders their probability cloud non-existent.


Is there a formalised theory of Quantum Gravity? There's a lot of hopefull's, but it's still very much the holy grail.

Anyway, no, my argument is that the singularity has enough mass to make it's wavelength irrelevant. I'm also saying that the probability cloud is a way of us getting to grips with the fact that a particle could be anywhere within that cloud. But the particle isn't actually a cloud, it is a specific point, it's just we can't be sure where it is without measuring it, and when you do that you change it's state, and you also can't know where it's going to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:59 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
There's a lot of hopeful's, but it's still very much the holy grail.





Excuseshe me?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:00 AM

CITIZEN


Of physics, bitch. Stick Sean Connery in a Wheel chair and you're on to something.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:00 AM

BYTEMITE


Here's some stuff I found on the wikipedia page for Schrodinger's equation. Has to do with particles in very small or one dimensional (point) spaces.

Quote:

For potentials V(x) that are bounded below and are not infinite in such a way that will divide space into regions which are inaccessible by quantum tunneling, there is a ground state which minimizes the integral above. The lowest energy wavefunction is real and nondegenerate and has the same sign everywhere.

To prove this, let the ground state wavefunction be ψ. The real and imaginary parts are separately ground states, so it is no loss of generality to assume the ψ is real. Suppose now, for contradiction, that ψ changes sign. Define η(x) to be the absolute value of ψ.

η = | ψ |

The potential and kinetic energy integral for η is equal to psi, except that η has a kink wherever ψ changes sign. The integrated-by-parts expression for the kinetic energy is the sum of the squared magnitude of the gradient, and it is always possible to round out the kink in such a way that the gradient gets smaller at every point, so that the kinetic energy is reduced.

This also proves that the ground state is nondegenerate. If there were two ground states ψ1(x) and ψ2(x) not proportional to each other and both everywhere nonnegative then a linear combination of the two is still a ground state, but it can be made to have a sign change.

For one-dimensional potentials, every eigenstate is nondegenerate, because the number of sign changes is equal to the level number.



Quote:

Relativity is incompatible with a single particle picture. A relativistic particle cannot be localized to a small region without the particle number becoming indefinite. When a particle is localized in a box of length L, the momentum is uncertain by an amount roughly proportional to h/L by the uncertainty principle. This leads to an energy uncertainty of hc/L, when |p| is large enough so that the mass of the particle can be neglected. This uncertainty in energy is equal to the mass-energy of the particle when

L = {\hbar \over mc} \,

and this is called the Compton wavelength. Below this length, it is impossible to localize a particle and be sure that it stays a single particle, since the energy uncertainty is large enough to produce more particles from the vacuum by the same mechanism that localizes the original particle.



I'm not entirely sure what this MEANS. But that last paragraph digests tasty in regards to how those virtual particles could be emitted from black holes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:02 AM

BYTEMITE


I'm kind of amazed Chris hasn't made any quip yet about hairy rotating black holes.

Come on, man, get your A-game on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:05 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:

I'm kind of amazed Chris hasn't made any quip yet about

That's not the singularity I had in mind.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:07 AM

BYTEMITE


Yeah... I guess the "hairy" part of that equation is kind of a turn off.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah... I guess the "hairy" part of that equation is kind of a turn off.


I've heard some people go for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:13 AM

CHRISISALL


This thread has gone from the stratosphere to the landfill quite abruptly.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This thread has gone from the stratosphere to the landfill quite abruptly.


Maybe there's a black hole at work in this thread.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:27 AM

BYTEMITE


Totally my bad. I just couldn't resist the tasteless joke.

Well... My brain will explode if I keep reading this stuff for much longer. I think I should actually wait until I can get home and have my Universe in a Nutshell book, before I continue looking for an explanation on how there could be quantum variance of particles that then smudges singularities. I think how this happens may be explained in the book, and in ways that don't make me feel cross-eyed like some of wikipedia's quantum mechanics articles.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


I get the distinct impression that every now and then the FSM will catch guys oggling his meatballs and he has to say, "HEY! My eyes are up here, pal."



Yeah, but he really likes when the girlies are goggling his meatballs. :)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:52 AM

RIPWASH


Ya know . . . with Byte and Cit ramblin' on and on, I kinda feel like Jayne. "If I'd wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

Too high falutin' for me, guys.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 11:22 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RIPWash:
Ya know . . . with Byte and Cit ramblin' on and on, I kinda feel like Jayne. "If I'd wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

Too high falutin' for me, guys.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"



Oh, that's okay, Rip - we can have our own decidedly more low-brow discussion going on at the same time. That's the beauty of RWED - discussions can take off on tangents all their own, and can lead damn near anywhere!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:07 PM

BYTEMITE


Sorry guys... Just going to post what I can from a universe from a nutshell, see what Citizen makes of the quotes, then we can go back to worshiping the greatest food conceived by man.

Quote:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. ~Der Speigel


Quote:

When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect. ~The Beginning of Time


Quote:

We are used to the idea that events are caused by earlier events. There is a chain of causality stretching back into the past. But suppose this chain has a beginning. Suppose there was was a first event. What caused it? This was not a question that many scientists wanted to address. They tried to avoid it, either by claiming, like the Russians, that the universe didn't have a beginning or by maintaining that the origin of the universe did not lie within the realm of science but belonged to metaphysics or religion. In my opinion, this is not a position any true scientist should take. If the laws of science are suspended at the beginning of the universe, might not they fail at other times also? A law is not a law if it only holds sometimes. We must try to understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science. It may be a task beyond our powers, but we should at least make the attempt. ~Nutshell, page 79


Quote:

As Chapters 1 and 2 point out, the reason general relativity broke down near the big bang is that it did not incorporate the uncertainty principle, the random element of quantum theory that Einstein objected to on the grounds that God does not play dice. However, all the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. ~Nutshell, page 79


Quote:

The Unified theory will not in itself tell us how the universe began or what it's initial state was. For that, we need what are called boundary conditions, rules that tell us what happens... a colleague named Jim Hartle and I realized there was a third possibility. Maybe the universe has no boundary in space and time. At first glance, this seems to be in direct contradiction with the theorems that Penrose and I proved, which showed that the universe must have a beginning, a boundary in time. However, as explained in Chapter 2, there is another kind of time, imaginary time, that is at right angles to the ordinary real time that we feel going by. ~Nutshell, page 80-82


Imaginary time actually makes sense when explained in chapter two, but I don't really want to get into that here.

Slight contradiction of my argument to follow, but he's explaining it as best as we're able, and that involves singularities. You'll notice I haven't exactly been able to describe the result of star collapse as anything else but a singularity, even though... Well, you'll see in the quote after this.

Quote:

If they [stars ~Byte] are more than about twice the mass of the Sun, the pressure will never be sufficient to stop the contraction. They will collapse to zero size and infinite density to form what is called a singularity. ~Nutshell, page 114


Quote:

The difficulty with determinism arose when I discovered that black holes aren't completely black. As we saw in Chapter 2, quantum theory means that fields can't be exactly zero even in what is called a vaccuum. If they were zero, they would have both an exact value or position at zero and an exact rate of change or velocity that was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle, which says that the position and the velocity can't both be well defined. All fields must instead have a certain amount of what are called vacuum fluctuations... In this case it is helpful to think of vacuum fluctuations as pairs of virtual particles that appear together at some point of spacetime, move apart, and come back together and annihilate each other. ~Nutshell, page 118


And for everyone:

Quote:

I remember going to Paris to give a seminar on my discovery that quantum theory means that "black holes aren't completely black." [meaning they emit particles, like a white hole, which may be one and the same feature. ~Byte] My seminar fell flat because at that time no one in Paris believed in black holes. The French also felt that the name as they translated it, trou noir, had dubious sexual connotations. ~Nutshell page 113

A black hole does not depend on the nature of the body that collapsed to form it. John Wheeler called this result "a black hole has no hair." For the French, this just confirmed their suspicions. ~Nutshell, Page 118



Some of the later chapters of Nutshell get a little silly, and I don't really like Hawking's reliance on the anthropic principle in EITHER Nutshell or a Brief History, but otherwise the books are worth a read.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:16 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sorry guys... Just going to post what I can from a universe from a nutshell, see what Citizen makes of the quotes, then we can go back to worshiping the greatest food conceived by man.



Oh, we're gonna start talking about bacon now? I'm in!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:59 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
[

Sorry - ignoring uncomfortable truths that don't easily fit into a category isn't in my nature. I'm neither religious or Republican.



arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal

Quote:

What is it about the platypus that has you confused? Is it the egg laying? Aren't there reptiles who give birth to live young, and others that lay eggs?


reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material

Quote:

Ditto amphibians and fish.


aphibians and fish are nothing alike. fish dont have hips, and they dont have ear drums, and they dont limbs. you cant explain how any of these distinctions arose, because they were designed uniquely

the differences between invertabrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are enormous. did each category have a common ancestor? we've not been able to determine how the first multi-celled organism began, let alone each one of these species.

let alone human beings.. the brain, which is still not fully understood. that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:10 PM

BYTEMITE


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovoviviparous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish

A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster

Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.

What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?

Quote:

did each category have a common ancestor?


Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:38 PM

CANTTAKESKY


My contribution to the original thread is one of my fav quotations:

The doctrine of the material efficacy of prayer reduces the Creator to a cosmic bellhop of a not very bright or reliable kind.
-Herbert J. Muller, educator, historian, and author (1905-1980)

I am actually very religious, and I pray everyday. But I don't much see the point of a Santa-Clause-God. I believe in a Coach-God. He (or she or it) paces on the sidelines, shouts suggestions and pep talks at me and my teammates, but we are the ones who have to play the game, reach our own goals, and suffer the injuries. But Coach-God's help is still invaluable, given his accumulated experiences and his perspective of a bigger picture.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 2:20 AM

CITIZEN


Bitemite:

Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 2:48 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Granted, the platypus is an odd critter, but I don't find any one particular thing about it that points to any kind of creator or designer, unless you're talking about a very, very, VERY stoned one.


The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H


"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 2:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:

arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal



And one who apparently benefited more from the public education system than some. Oh, that's right - you're a conservative evangelical. Shouldn't expect much in the way of "fancy book-learnin'" from your kind, should I?

Quote:


reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material



Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.

Quote:

that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things


As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:00 AM

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:01 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Granted, the platypus is an odd critter, but I don't find any one particular thing about it that points to any kind of creator or designer, unless you're talking about a very, very, VERY stoned one.


The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H


"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.



The platypus is "proof" of the existence of a creator or designer?

That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]

I know you can't see it,"Hero", but this is what you're doing. I hope you do a better job of lawyering in real life than you do here, because in here, you really, really suck at presenting evidence.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:18 AM

BYTEMITE


I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.




Oh no - PLEASE don't stop on my account! I'm finding it somewhat hard to follow, a bit, but it's fascinating nonetheless. And if we stopped every time things got hard, where would we be?

Oooh - there's probably got to be a better way to phrase that, considering the entendres and innuendo flying around here already!

But carry on. Some of us are fascinated.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:25 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.


I actually think Quantum Mechanics as it stands will be replaced by Multi-Dimension String theory as soon as we have mathematics good enough to do so, so perhaps we do disagree if that makes you feel better?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:29 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.


That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities, more than makes them take on a different shape from a different standpoint.

Like a 3D ball interacting with a 2D universe ala flatworld. It looks one way to the flatworlders, a circle that changes shape size and reappears and disappears at will, but look at it in 3D and you realise it's just moving about in the extra Z direction that flatworlders have no knowledge of, and can't experience. But it still exists, it's just less weird in 3D than it is in 2D.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:42 AM

BYTEMITE


It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.

You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:52 AM

BYTEMITE


Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.

Quote:

In order to predict how the universe should have started off, one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time. If classical theory of general relativity was correct, the singularity theorems that Roger Penrose and I proved show that the beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. All the known laws of science would break down at such a point. One might suppose that there were new laws that held at singularities, but it would be very difficult even to formulate such laws at such badly behaved points, and we would have no guide from observations as to what those laws might be. However, what the singularity theorems really indicate is that the gravitational field becomes so strong that quantum gravitational effects become important: classical theory is no longer a good description of the universe. So one has to use quantum theory of gravity to discuss the very early stages of the universe. As we shall see, it is possible in the quantum theory for the ordinary laws of science to hold everywhere, including at the beginning of time: it is not necessary to postulate new laws for singularities, because there need not be any singularities in the quantum theory. ~A Brief History of Time, page 172.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:05 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]


All you've proved is a lack of imagination.

2004 Tsunami could mean no God, could mean God exists and does things for reasons we don't understand. Could mean God is real, but no loving or merciful. Could mean nothing and have no relevance to the issue since we all die at some point which could mean that its not when you die, why you die, or how you die...its what happens to you after you die that matters.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:12 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities


Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

H


"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.


Hmm, not exactly. Consider the ball example as the Earth, on the Earth we have lines of longitude and latitude, Longitude is regular time. A line of Longitude begins at the north pole, just as the universe's regular time begins at the singularity of the Big Bang. But if you look at the whole Earth, it doesn't begin at the north pole, the pole is just another point on the Earth's surface. That is, the Earth doesn't begin at the north pole, but lines of longitude do.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*


I know, life is so hard. I have this bottle of Red wine, and it's so hot I had to put it in the fridge, now I'm going to have to drink it. *sigh*
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.
...


Well, yeah, the big assumption is that "Quantum Gravity" will remove Singularities from black holes. Now since Black holes form from the collapse of massive objects under gravity, I'm not sure how it plans to do that while remaining compatible with experimental evidence that has confirmed the Einstein Metric, but there you go. At the least I actually believe modern QM will give way to String theory and a more Einsteinian approach of Space-Time geometry to the matter-centric view of QM, and that Quantum Gravity will come from that, which means all bets would be off.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:34 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?


Well, I'm erm, very flattered that you wrote a song about me and everything, but erm, I just don't think of you in that way, and I'm just not that sort of a boy, erm, but like, hang on in there, you'll meet someone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:45 AM

BYTEMITE


Probably, although I think there's some problems with strings as a theory. For one, I haven't actually seen suggestions on how strings will be experimentally shown to exist. For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.

I can understand the use in strings trying to explain what makes up sub atomic particles and energy, but unless the existence of strings and predictions from string theory can be proven or disproven, I just don't know how useful it is.

However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:36 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


All you've proved is a lack of imagination.



You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:37 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities


Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

H


"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.



Your god sounds really, REALLY gay.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.


The point is that exotic quantum particles won't be needed under string theory. Quantum Particles are needed in QM to explain forces and interactions, String theory explains these things in a non-matter centric way.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.


Yeah. Also, you know Maxwell's field equations simplify to a single simple equation under a multiple dimensional theory? One of the allures to String Theory's dimensionality is that it simplifies much of the mess of QM and related theories.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 10:43 AM

BYTEMITE


String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are does string theory mean all sub-atomic particles are really the same particle, made up off the same basic component (strings) but overlapped different ways?

Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 11:31 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are they all the same particle, overlapped and combined different ways?

In supersymmetric string (super string) theory Strings vibrate in different ways, which gives rise to different particles. Particles and forces are a consequence of strings vibrating at different frequencies, like different notes are the consequence of a Guitars strings vibrating at different frequencies.
Quote:

Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.

I have a T-shirt, on the back it says:
and god said:
▽·B=O
▽xE=-aB/at
▽xH=i+aD/at
And there was light.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Not done reading ... what I got so far:

Bytemite is arguing for the breakdown of the equations - and concepts - at the extreme. Even if the probability is very, very near zero, it exists, and so negates the definition.

Citizen is arguing that for all practical purposes the extreme is irrelevant. (This may be the equivalent to the argument as to why x-rays don't come roaring out of the hearth fire.) The wavelength is so small that, practically speaking, it applies to no known particle and is therefore moot.

My brain hurts. And I may not have got it right. Time to start the weekend.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:29 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovoviviparous

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish

A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?



they look like variations within a common species type or phylum. that doesnt show how, as evolutionary biologists claim, amphibians evolved to reptiles, or birds evolved from reptiles, or mammals came from either of the sub catagories. since the Cambrian period, theres no fossil evidence of this overlap that you claim

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster

Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.



oh really?? ITS STILL A FLY! it didnt become a different insect altogether.. so how does mutation result in a new catagory of animal? for example, youre claiming the random mutation of an ancient reptile, led to the creation of the bird.. you cant verify that

Quote:

What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?




right, within its archetype. cats didnt become dogs didnt become horses. fish didnt become aphibians, which didnt become reptiles. that is claim which has never been verified, but through pure speculation is presupposed as fact

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet


that was absolutely ridiculous. so, mammals originated from this species? birds originated from this species? and where are the millions of intermediates which should litter the fossil records? thats right.. almost entirely absent. if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:37 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

KWICKO - Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.



that was a claim made to try to tenously connect birds to reptiles, since the distinctions are quite profound.

birds have hollow bones. the birds feather has literally NOTHING in common with a scale, it has interlocking barbs, it is designed for flight/insulation, it comes in many varieties.. it is nothing like a reptilian scale. also, birds have unique beaks designed to fill their specific niches.. reptiles dont have beaks, let alone genes capable of the varieties of beaks witnessed in nature. also, birds have lungs that constantly circulate air, so that they have a steady stream flowing through them at any given time. no reptile has a lung system even remotely comparable. i could go on, but its pointless

Quote:

As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.


hey, if you want to believe your origins can be found in some prehistoric fish, or that clyde the orangutan is your great great ancestor, be my quest. how that makes me the fool is anyones guess

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:48 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?



thats just it.. it takes an incredible imagination to pretend that mammals came from any other catagory of animal, such as reptiles or aphibians.

where are the more evolved primates? we still have the inferior de-volved versions which supposedly preceded the missing links. shouldnt the more fit 'missing links' be around? instead, you could fit all the fossils on a single table.. not a whole lot of evidence

and where did primates originate? we have yet to discover a fossil of a primate that shared an ancestor with any other mammal. the catagories are distinct, they always have been. there is no overlap.

if progressive evolution were true, there would be millions of fossils of intermediates, animals spanning catagories.. but there arent. according to your logic, there is no difference between birds or reptiles or amphibians.. yet clearly their is. its almost mind numbing

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:55 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated

i (Ooops, let me capitalize that, it's the least I can do),I resent the fact that you say evolution is beyond God's capacity to initiate.
You heathen.
A bipedal heathen at that.
I see a pillar of salt in your future.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 18:43 - 50 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL