I've come...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 09:25 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 09:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 08:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Holy fuck, Rahn!

That's poetry, that is.

HoC, when you've tidied up the tissues, please could you write a verse or two on...

Before God's First Heart Beat

Our Poetry Corner thread is collecting cobwebs.

Eww... that doesn't happen every time...

And! I'll think about it. Last poem I wrote sucked. I don't think I'm depressed enough. Consider

I've found one can fake it with drugs. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-03-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 09:25 AM)Chas Wrote:  I've found one can fake it with drugs. Yes

Do you deliver? Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
01-03-2014, 10:13 AM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 03:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What you say is correct. We really don't have a physics which takes all the way back to the beginning. But we do have a physics which takes us back to the Planck time and on that trip it really seems we are headed toward something that looks like a beginning.

The problem is, we can't make that final leap. This is telling us we are missing something - which we already know anyway since we don't have a theory of everything.

Models that are known to be imperfect can only be trusted to a point. Even though the math works all the way to Planck time, it then abruptly breaks down. It's possible to resolve this by interjecting a multiverse and posulating that our known universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation in a multiverse, but that's just speculation at this time. However, if true, then there need not be a beginning.

At any rate, we can not conclude things we don't have sufficient knowledge to conclude.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like toadaly's post
01-03-2014, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 01:28 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 02:30 AM)toadaly Wrote:  All we can say, is that things make sense up until Planck time, and then they don't, so the concept of a beginning is undefined.

Did you mean the converse? "Shit don't make no sorta sense up until Planck time and then it starts to" ?
...
On reread I think you meant "We can only make sense of shit as far back as Planck time, don't make no sense to talk about shit before that without copious amounts of hallucinogens."

(01-03-2014 02:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So, what have you got that's more 'poppy'?

At the earliest theoretically possible point of measurement?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-03-2014, 01:27 PM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 10:13 AM)toadaly Wrote:  At any rate, we can not conclude things we don't have sufficient knowledge to conclude.

Pfft. You're clearly an amateur.

We can always conclude "GAWD" when we don't have sufficient knowledge.

Just ask HJ...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 08:22 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  At it's most basic concept, time is change. The change from one state, one position to another.
The concept of time is dependent upon something existing and changing.

This was precisely my first reaction.

As the oft-misattributed saying goes: time is what keeps everything from happening at once. Spacetime is the coordinate system by which we relate interactions and observations.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
Spacetime is the coordinate system by which we relate interactions and observations.

Of course Dodgy

So obviously the snappiest way of avoiding the word 'beginning' and denying a potential insertion of anything supernatural is...

The point prior to which the co-ordinate system by which we relate interactions and observations has no relevance.

Or TPPTWTCSBWWRIAOHNR for short.

Case closed.

Awesome.

Facepalm

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
01-03-2014, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 02:09 PM by cjlr.)
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 01:59 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Of course Dodgy

So obviously the snappiest way of avoiding the word 'beginning' and denying a potential insertion of anything supernatural is...

The point prior to which the co-ordinate system by which we relate interactions and observations has no relevance.

Or TPPTWTCSBWWRIAOHNR for short.

Case closed.

Awesome.

Facepalm

Sounds pretty snappy to me, no?

But yeah, time (and space) are relative. They are properties of the universe. We can extrapolate backwards to a convergent origin, but cannot actually describe the entirety of that regression in detail.

You (by which I generally mean, anyone making cosmological arguments assertions) can't say before "time"; that's incoherent and meaningless.

Attempting to apply naive macroscopic physical intuition to the extremes of modern understanding is not a productive avenue. But it certainly appeals to the ignorant.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
01-03-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: I've come...
What you wrote:
(01-03-2014 02:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Sounds pretty snappy to me, no?

But yeah, time (and space) are relative. They are properties of the universe. We can extrapolate backwards to a convergent origin, but cannot actually describe the entirety of that regression in detail.

You (by which I generally mean, anyone making cosmological arguments assertions) can't say before "time"; that's incoherent and meaningless.

Attempting to apply naive macroscopic physical intuition to the extremes of modern understanding is not a productive avenue. But it certainly appeals to the ignorant.

What I read:
(01-03-2014 02:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
You ... is ... ignorant.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
01-03-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: I've come...
(01-03-2014 02:22 PM)DLJ Wrote:  What I read:
(01-03-2014 02:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
You ... is ... ignorant.

Please.

When I insult people I use proper grammar.

Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: