Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 10:43 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 10:40 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why? What "logic" is that?

The logic of all known reality.

Please demonstrate to me just one single thing that moves but does not go anywhere.

I shall eagerly await your response.

That's not logic, that's your premise. How do you come to it?

In any case - behaviour of objects within the universe cannot be extended by fiat to properties of the universe itself. A set is not bound by the rules of its members. Do you understand this? Do you accept it?

"Parts of a thing work a certain way therefore the entire thing does too" is not logically sound. So there's that.

Incidentally, quantum objects do possess momentum without moving in a classical sense. An electron in a point trap exists in a steady state with a fixed, unmoving standing wave state - the peak of its distribution is indefinitely stationary. Recall what I said earlier - stubbornly insisting that non-classical theories must obey classical laws is an incoherent non-starter.

Your intuitions are based on superficial, classical understandings. They are based on a very limited set of mid-range interactions with objects of similar size, nature, and energy. The do not and cannot apply to the extremes of our reality. To insist they must is asinine.

The universe is expanding. This is as close to a fact as any other scientific observation ever made. Do you understand this? Do you accept this?

If you do understand and accept the expansion of the universe, do you understand the prevailing theories as to why this is so? Do you accept them?
(to which the answer is no, judging by past statements - but no matter)

If you do not accept these theories, do you propose any alternatives? If so, what? How do you form your ideas? What evidence do you see for them?

And if trivial superficial objections are so manifestly obvious to the likes of you, why does the vast majority of the scientific community persist in such "illogical" theories as they do?
(papers marked "lol conspiracy" will not be graded)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
11-11-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Free, I think you're still viewing this the wrong way. You live in a certain place, Earth, where things work a certain way. Everything in your life has some degree of predictability. Even things you never experienced can be somehow guessed. That's because while growing up, you had experiences and you also studied in school, this gave you the tools to interpret what we consider as the physics of our world.

However, the moment you step out of here, what you know is not true anymore. Not necessarily everything, I don't know that, but many things will not be the same.

Example. If I throw a ball, it will keep rolling on the ground until it stops. That's because of various factors, one of them being friction. I suppose also gravity, since it pulls the ball towards the ground and increases the effects of friction.

Now do the same in space. The ball will literally never stop, no friction up there. Until it falls into a star, is sucked into a black hole, or is caught by an alien. This is a banal example, but goes to show that you cannot apply what you know or feel to be "true"/common sense to things that are not from here.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Polyglot Atheist's post
11-11-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 10:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 10:43 AM)Free Wrote:  The logic of all known reality.

Please demonstrate to me just one single thing that moves but does not go anywhere.

I shall eagerly await your response.

That's not logic, that's your premise. How do you come to it?

In any case - behaviour of objects within the universe cannot be extended by fiat to properties of the universe itself. A set is not bound by the rules of its members. Do you understand this? Do you accept it?

"Parts of a thing work a certain way therefore the entire thing does too" is not logically sound. So there's that.

Incidentally, quantum objects do possess momentum without moving in a classical sense. An electron in a point trap exists in a steady state with a fixed, unmoving standing wave state - the peak of its distribution is indefinitely stationary. Recall what I said earlier - stubbornly insisting that non-classical theories must obey classical laws is an incoherent non-starter.

Your intuitions are based on superficial, classical understandings. They are based on a very limited set of mid-range interactions with objects of similar size, nature, and energy. The do not and cannot apply to the extremes of our reality. To insist they must is asinine.

The universe is expanding. This is as close to a fact as any other scientific observation ever made. Do you understand this? Do you accept this?

If you do understand and accept the expansion of the universe, do you understand the prevailing theories as to why this is so? Do you accept them?
(to which the answer is no, judging by past statements - but no matter)

If you do not accept these theories, do you propose any alternatives? If so, what? How do you form your ideas? What evidence do you see for them?

And if trivial superficial objections are so manifestly obvious to the likes of you, why does the vast majority of the scientific community persist in such "illogical" theories as they do?
(papers marked "lol conspiracy" will not be graded)

Okay .,.. BUT ...

The current model of the Big Bang suggests movement of space through expansion. It postulates that all matter and energy were at one time at a fixed point.

As expansion occurred, all matter and energy went from the fixed point to their current positions.

My question remains perfectly and logically legitimate.

If all space, time, matter, and energy expanded, how can it do this if there was no where to go?

You, nor anyone else here, is actually answering that question.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 10:57 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not logic, that's your premise. How do you come to it?

In any case - behaviour of objects within the universe cannot be extended by fiat to properties of the universe itself. A set is not bound by the rules of its members. Do you understand this? Do you accept it?

"Parts of a thing work a certain way therefore the entire thing does too" is not logically sound. So there's that.

Incidentally, quantum objects do possess momentum without moving in a classical sense. An electron in a point trap exists in a steady state with a fixed, unmoving standing wave state - the peak of its distribution is indefinitely stationary. Recall what I said earlier - stubbornly insisting that non-classical theories must obey classical laws is an incoherent non-starter.

Your intuitions are based on superficial, classical understandings. They are based on a very limited set of mid-range interactions with objects of similar size, nature, and energy. The do not and cannot apply to the extremes of our reality. To insist they must is asinine.

The universe is expanding. This is as close to a fact as any other scientific observation ever made. Do you understand this? Do you accept this?

If you do understand and accept the expansion of the universe, do you understand the prevailing theories as to why this is so? Do you accept them?
(to which the answer is no, judging by past statements - but no matter)

If you do not accept these theories, do you propose any alternatives? If so, what? How do you form your ideas? What evidence do you see for them?

And if trivial superficial objections are so manifestly obvious to the likes of you, why does the vast majority of the scientific community persist in such "illogical" theories as they do?
(papers marked "lol conspiracy" will not be graded)

Okay .,.. BUT ...

The current model of the Big Bang suggests movement of space through expansion. It postulates that all matter and energy were at one time at a fixed point.

As expansion occurred, all matter and energy went from the fixed point to their current positions.

My question remains perfectly and logically legitimate.

If all space, time, matter, and energy expanded, how can it do this if there was no where to go?

You, nor anyone else here, is actually answering that question.

I've never seen you ask that question(maybe you did earlier) I'll I've seen is you ASSERT it can't be the case.

The answer is unknown as far as I know, but I've never read the top current understanding on that to see if Krauss or others have ever found a "reason" or answer for that.

Here's a different question you could ask to try and think about it. Does spacetime/matter/energy NEED some "where to go?"

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay .,.. BUT ...

The current model of the Big Bang suggests movement of space through expansion. It postulates that all matter and energy were at one time at a fixed point.

As expansion occurred, all matter and energy went from the fixed point to their current positions.

My question remains perfectly and logically legitimate.

If all space, time, matter, and energy expanded, how can it do this if there was no where to go?

You, nor anyone else here, is actually answering that question.

I've never seen you ask that question(maybe you did earlier) I'll I've seen is you ASSERT it can't be the case.

The answer is unknown as far as I know, but I've never read the top current understanding on that to see if Krauss or others have ever found a "reason" or answer for that.

Here's a different question you could ask to try and think about it. Does spacetime/matter/energy NEED some "where to go?"

At last! An honest fucking answer!

It's unknown, and that answer implies possibly "something."

And that is what I call "intellectually honest," as opposed to the following statement by cljr which said:

Quote:The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid683895

I can accept the unknown, but what I cannot accept is a positive claim that not only defies logic and reasoning, but is asserted as if it is some kind of indisputable truth.

Thank you.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay .,.. BUT ...

The current model of the Big Bang suggests movement of space through expansion. It postulates that all matter and energy were at one time at a fixed point.

Yes - but due to its nature calling it a "fixed point" can introduce a lot of colloquial baggage that shouldn't apply.
(I think this is what has happened for you)

(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  As expansion occurred, all matter and energy went from the fixed point to their current positions.

This is a fundamentally poor understanding.
(you've been corrected many times but have stood by it - why?)

Things did not just go whooshing out from a central point into space that was already there.
(remember - the universe is not a box!)

Objects, of course, do move, but the space between them is what is expanding. That is what causes cosmological redshifting.

How else would you explain it?

(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  My question remains perfectly and logically legitimate.

No, it doesn't.

Your premise remains a fiat assertion couched in naive supposition.

Doubling down on what you feel "should" be is singularly unhelpful.

(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  If all space, time, matter, and energy expanded, how can it does this if there was no where to go?

Because the universe does not obey your intuitions.

Modern physics does not tailor itself to meet your expectations. The universe does not behave the way our evolution conditioned us to expect; we exist only in a tiny subset of conditions and are godawful at extrapolating outside those conditions.

(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  You, nor anyone else here, is actually answering that question.

You're not going to get an answer. The question itself is invalid. How many times need that be said?

If I reject the premises underlying your question, I am certainly not going to provide an answer within the confines of those premises. That's nonsensical.

Leave aside for a moment the insistent feels that lead you to it. Do you understand that everyone else rejects your premise? Insisting they adopt it in order to answer an incoherent question to your satisfaction is going to be unproductive at best.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
11-11-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:17 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've never seen you ask that question(maybe you did earlier) I'll I've seen is you ASSERT it can't be the case.

The answer is unknown as far as I know, but I've never read the top current understanding on that to see if Krauss or others have ever found a "reason" or answer for that.

Here's a different question you could ask to try and think about it. Does spacetime/matter/energy NEED some "where to go?"

At last! An honest fucking answer!

It's unknown, and that answer implies possibly "something."

And that is what I call "intellectually honest," as opposed to the following statement by cljr which said:

Quote:The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid683895

I can accept the unknown, but what I cannot accept is a positive claim that not only defies logic and reasoning, but is asserted as if it is some kind of indisputable truth.

Thank you.

So "intellectually honest' is what you interpenetrate as agreeing with you? That's pretty pathetic.

And read it again, turn up your comprehensions skills.. I didn't say it's unknown that if is the case. Your question was HOW can it? The reason HOW is unknown. That doesn't mean it isn't the case... so no I'm actually not confirming anything you are thinking. So I guess that makes me back to "intellectually dishonest" in all these answers.

Again, what logic and reasoning in application to spacetime is being being defyed? It just comes off like you're refusing to acknowledge anything about the subject of how our so called simple understanding isn't universal in all situations.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
11-11-2014, 11:33 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:17 AM)Free Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:07 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I've never seen you ask that question(maybe you did earlier) I'll I've seen is you ASSERT it can't be the case.

The answer is unknown as far as I know, but I've never read the top current understanding on that to see if Krauss or others have ever found a "reason" or answer for that.

Here's a different question you could ask to try and think about it. Does spacetime/matter/energy NEED some "where to go?"

At last! An honest fucking answer!

Well; for a certain bizarre interpretation of "honest", perhaps...

Do you suppose prior answers have been wilfully deceptive? It would seem very strange otherwise to imply them not to be honest.

Do you genuinely wish for every definite statement by everyone else ever to carry with it the explicit caveat that it may be wrong? That seems excessive, but maybe that's just me*.
(*: I don't actually know this and I may be wrong)

(11-11-2014 11:17 AM)Free Wrote:  It's unknown, and that answer implies possibly "something."

In the most tedious sense that we can't prove what we don't know, yes*.
(*: I don't actually know this and I may be wrong)

In the sense that every statement ever must be predicated with, "well, but we don't really know for sure", yes*.
(*: I don't actually know this and I may be wrong - okay, I'm getting tired of this...)

(11-11-2014 11:17 AM)Free Wrote:  And that is what I call "intellectually honest," as opposed to the following statement by cljr which said:

Quote:The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid683895

I can accept the unknown, but what I cannot accept is a positive claim that not only defies logic and reasoning, but is asserted as if it is some kind of indisputable truth.

You appear not to understand what constitutes a positive claim here. Your claim that the universe must follow certain subjective feels-based intuitive "rules" (which you call "logic and reasoning", for some strange reason) is very much a positive claim. And no, "BUT IT JUST DOES" is not compelling substantiation.

The universe is expanding - this is, as I mentioned, as close to a fact as we can get.
(do note that my "close" qualifier is already an explicit admission that no, we do not know these things with any absolute certainty, and handily pre-empts the disingenuous aspersion you're trying to pin on me)

Is that seriously all you were trying to get to? The ol',
"Well you can't prove me wrong so therefore I might be right!" bit?
'Cause, yeah. Granted. Freely granted. You might be right. I have no reason to think you are, and many to think you're not, but what do I know?

Jeez, man. No wonder you already busted out the ol' "my intuition knows better than science" canard. Right of the WLC playbook.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
Quote:
(11-11-2014 11:04 AM)Free Wrote:  If all space, time, matter, and energy expanded, how can it does this if there was no where to go?

Because the universe does not obey your intuitions.

Modern physics does not tailor itself to meet your expectations. The universe does not behave the way our evolution conditioned us to expect; we exist only in a tiny subset of conditions and are godawful at extrapolating outside those conditions.

And this somehow answers the question? How?

It simply doesn't.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2014, 11:42 AM
RE: Is there such thing as "Creation"?
(11-11-2014 11:24 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-11-2014 11:17 AM)Free Wrote:  At last! An honest fucking answer!

It's unknown, and that answer implies possibly "something."

And that is what I call "intellectually honest," as opposed to the following statement by cljr which said:


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid683895

I can accept the unknown, but what I cannot accept is a positive claim that not only defies logic and reasoning, but is asserted as if it is some kind of indisputable truth.

Thank you.

So "intellectually honest' is what you interpenetrate as agreeing with you? That's pretty pathetic.

And read it again, turn up your comprehensions skills.. I didn't say it's unknown that if is the case. Your question was HOW can it? The reason HOW is unknown. That doesn't mean it isn't the case... so no I'm actually not confirming anything you are thinking. So I guess that makes me back to "intellectually dishonest" in all these answers.

Again, what logic and reasoning in application to spacetime is being being defyed? It just comes off like you're refusing to acknowledge anything about the subject of how our so called simple understanding isn't universal in all situations.

Here's your quote:

Quote:The answer is unknown as far as I know

So what part of that am I failing to comprehend?

Whether you agree with me or not is not relevant. I asked a question, and YOU gave an answer.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: