Perhaps.. or any number of navel gazing concepts.. better than being a pawn in some pseudo open forum, than resorts to censorship to quash any alternate views.. You would probably prefer to not see any of my posts. Shall i put this to a vote? Is there no recourse for injustice here? Have censorship and mandated conformity become the (New!) methodology in Progresso World?
Here is a link to the forum rules; http://politicalforum.com/index.php?help/terms EVERYONE who posts here is subject to the same rules. Onus is on each of us to LEARN those rules and ABIDE by them. It isn't difficult. That you FAILED to refute the EXISTENCE of Space-Time and have NOTHING to offer in the way of ON TOPIC rebuttal says volumes. Have a nice day!
Have you considered that it might have been Chemengineer who reported your post? By you defending him, considering that he has put practically everyone else on his ignore list, you high lighted that you thought he needed defending, and one way to have all posts where Chemengineer was quoted, deleted, is to report a post which has the effect of linked posts being also deleted.
'Who' reported the post is immaterial. The deletion/censorship is the issue. I expect opposition, and have many hostile detractors, here. I just do not expect the mods to use their powets to promote one view over another.
I'm not ready to accept that, mostly on the grounds that we don't have any evidence of that. Religion poses the idea of eternity. I don't know of science that disputes that, or any reason to believe that eternity necessitates a god (though a belief in a god such as the Christian god would incude a religious belief in eternity, since that's a fundamental assumption of the religion). If there is such an eternity, it could include physical properties such as required for this big bang. Also, our Earthly concept of time isn't particularly simple since Einstein. And, once considering what's "outside" or "before" the big bang what does time or eternal even mean?
I absolutely agree. The idea of using moderator power in order to "win" something is pointless and an admission of failure. Ad hom can get bad enough to report, because it blocks discussion. But, I haven't seen anything like that here.
Then supposedly the moral is beware of philosophical pseudoscience boondoggles stemming from cutting edge physics related to the ideas of Nobel prize winners and books by authors on the NYT best-sellers list.
Here's my interpretation. Indirectly, the evidence may be in the manipulation of E = M x (C squared), i.e. M = E / (C squared). In the reality of the existing universe, the former reaction is prevalent and is congruent with the direction followed by the arrow of time and entropy. The latter reaction must belong in the sequence of a different time frame. Precreation leads up to it, featuring dissolution (deflating). All matter is disintegrated and converted to the energy that is next used to build (create) the matter (and the restart of a new time frame) of the new universe. The conversion is a quantum process, but the process does not completely confine the entire energy of the universe into something as small as the Planck dimension. So, it's not a business of creation from nothing. Quantum tunneling has been cited as the backbone of photosynthesis, but the net effect is not confined to the microcosm, a single Planck mass. Per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the momentum and location of a subatomic particle cannot both be determined to a high degree of accuracy because of disturbance to the small item being measured. However, quantum mechanics confers certainty to the description of properties based on a statistical summation of microlevel effects IAW net effect at the macrolevel. Bottom line: Itzhak Bentov's model of the universe as a cosmic egg seems to be valid in principle at least. Someone else's speculation is that the entire universe may end up as one giant black hole before reversal. A branching/budding proliferation via multiverse pattern seems more likely. Maybe the ancient metaphysicians got it right: Cyclic Involution/Evolution.
As is the case in math, the "=" in that formula states an equivalence - not a progression. It says nothing about entropy. I would add that there is no evidence that the energy represented by our entire universe and all that is within it is all that exists. That is, we have no evidence that this universe is all there is. Perhaps there are other universes, for example. I'm not suggesting that - I'm just pointing out that we don't know. There are lots of speculations concerning the environment which produced this universe. BUT, those are speculations - not testable theories of science. They belong in theoretical physics, not science/scientific method. Questions in this area still must be answered by "I don't know". And, the question of whether the environment that caused our universe is eternal is still properly answered with "I don't know". I would add that adding in various models based on quantum mechanics doesn't particularly help at all. We don't understand quantum mechanics well enough to pick some mathmatical model of the "total" cosmology (from which our universe arose). There are lots of QM models being worked on. But, none is without serious holes and none can be tested. In fact, almost all are working on reverse engineering what we have, which is not the same thing as actually searching for something fundamental. I'm glad they are all out there thinking, but it's a long way from having something that is both significant and testable.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is more profound than you indicate with your explanation being that the momentum and location of a subatomic particle cannot be determined because of a measurement disturbance. An exact momentum and location of a subatomic particle does not exist prior to the measurement. That is because the particle has wavelike properties and is described by a wave function. It is often described as being in a superposition of many states at the same time. That is where quantum indeterminacy comes and why randomness is an inherent part of nature. Also, because the universe is expanding and the expansion rate is accelerating, the universe could expand forever. I copied this from Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe The fate of the universe is determined by its density. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "Big Freeze" scenario below.[9] However, observations are not conclusive, and alternative models are still possible.[10] Big Freeze or heat death[edit] Main articles: Future of an expanding universe and Heat death of the universe The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature.[11] This scenario, in combination with the Big Rip scenario, is currently gaining ground as the most important hypothesis.[12] It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. In this scenario, stars are expected to form normally for 1012 to 1014 (1–100 trillion) years, but eventually the supply of gas needed for star formation will be exhausted. As existing stars run out of fuel and cease to shine, the universe will slowly and inexorably grow darker. Eventually black holes will dominate the universe, which themselves will disappear over time as they emit Hawking radiation.[13] Over infinite time, there would be a spontaneous entropy decrease by the Poincaré recurrence theorem, thermal fluctuations,[14][15] and the fluctuation theorem.[16][17] A related scenario is heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed and there are no gradients—which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The heat death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum.[18] .
The key word is direction. Neither the reaction nor entropy reverses in the normal span of physical existence. Until recent times, our universe was considered to be a closed system. That viewpoint was changed by the realization that some quarks are popping in and out of existence. Successful investigation of dark matter and dark energy might further shake things up. As a poster in another thread stated, theories are offered as plausible explanations for phenomena that are not yet fully understood. Theories are neither factual nor erroneous until additional information shows otherwise.
Hence the resort to labelling the issue as wave/particle duality. Without yet reviewing all such speculative variations on the fate of our universe, I consider them counterintuitive compared to what nature tends to do: run through cycles.
The way the various ideas on the fate of the universe are being batted back and forth do not inspire a lot of confidence in such proclamations. The prospects for entropy decreasing are interesting because they seriously weaken the presumed absolutism of the second law of thermodynamics, which seemed to preclude any known process, other than wild speculation, in which entropy could decrease. Still, it rests on a lot of probability and seems to be very dependent on certain transitory conditions in non-equilibrium states. Note that data proliferation is considered to be an organization gain that offsets the increase in entropy.
In my experience whenever something insulting about others is posted that can be a rule infraction because it applies to both individuals and groups.
Donnie junior has a book at the TOP of the NYT's best-sellers list so what does that tell us? I am old enough to recall some of the "best-sellers" that turned out to be nonsense because the author was just telling people what they wanted to hear. Try reading ALL of the REVIEWS of your pseudoscience book and you will discover WHY it was NEVER peer reviewed by any REPUTABLE Science Journal. The content just doesn't measure up to GENUINE Scientific Methods. Here is another HINT! If you discover that you are agreeing with everything you are reading then your Confirmation Bias is being stroked and your Skepticism setting is in the OFF position. I will stick with GENUINE Science instead.
My poit is that Einstein's famous equality for matter and energy has NOTHING to do with "direction" or entropy. It simply states a conversion factor. It's like how many tons of tnt does a Hiroshima bomb equal? It doesn't imply that tnt is turning into Hiroshima bombs or vice versa. The statement of equivalence is all it does. That's all it can be interpreted as saying, as "=" means equal - not "leads to" or something else related to time. There are two parts to exploration of cosmology and of fundamental particle physics. There is science as per scientific method - where a theory is an aggregate of one more closely related hypotheses that have undergone serious testing by independent teams as well as wider review and have become accepted as theory in that way. Then, there is "theoretical physics" where a theory need not be tested at all - in fact, where testing based on gathered evidence is quite likely to be totally impossible. This is where we get qm versions of cosmolgy, multiverse theory, string theory, etc. This is a realm of mathmatical models that get tested by comparison to each other and to mathmatical models of our real world - "testing" that doesn't qualify as scientific method. It CAN become possible to test things from theoretical physics. Higgs fields cam from theoretical physics, where they seemed to have sound footing concerning Higgs, but testing was not possible - untill human technology rose to the challenge. So, Higgs crossed the line from theoretical physics to the real world of experimental science as per scientific method. Theoretical physicists and experimental scientists had a party toghether - not that common an event!
True. Direction is not in the equations, but those equations are in directional circumstances. Also, I vaguely recall something in chemistry where equilibrium/buffer reactions are conditionally bidirectional across the equal symbol. We should keep in mind that an intent of those who conjured up the workings of "creation from nothing" was to explain how something could develop in the total absence of matter, i.e. before any universes existed.
I haven't been following your conversation, but just saying that the equation for states of equilibrium did not use an equal sign but two arrows pointing in opposite directions. Particular memory I have in a chemistry class was of a solution in equilibrium where the colour of the mixture continually switched colours which I found amazing
There are pressure equations where if you change one side you can expece a change on the other side of the equal side. But, that's just more math. It doesn't confer some other logic to the "=" sign. I don't know of anyone in science that backs the idea of "creation from nothing". That is a purely religious idea. As per Eistein, whatever exists can be matter or energy since they are equivalent. So, some methods of detection might not work. Particle physicists measure mass in electron volts.
There is however a repeatable experiment that contradicts biblical creation. It proved that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means that not even a God can create energy.
The logic behind it is pure theoretical physics and is notably the speculation of scientists who are skeptical of religion.
Whatever can or can't be accomplished within the constraints of objective physical reality does not in any way prove what a God can or cannot do, since a God can operate from beyond the constraints of time, space, matter, and energy. Rudolph Steiner, back in the 1920s and 1930s, challenged the law of conservation of matter and energy, claiming that it is false. Reality is destroyed and reassembled from one microsecond to the next. Per Tom Campbell of present times, each renewed physical reality is a virtual reality that is the most probable and logically consistent one computed by the larger consciousness system.
Well, the big bang theory starts off with the universe being larger than a point source and not at t=0. The theory does not explain origins - somewhat like evoluion does not explain abiogenesis. What it explains is what came after - the radical expansion, the percipitation of our physical forces, etc., as supported by evidence of current physics, the cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. And, anything before that IS theoretical physics, ideas that have not been tested. There isn't anything "anti religion" about this. What would be the reason for scientists to STOP LOOKING? How would one go about figuring out when to stop exploring, on the grounds that any further exploration would be heretical? Have we already looked "too far"? Are we now damned for looking? Could it be wrong for a Christian to look? I think your argument is similar to saying that if one doesn't give up on exploration, then one must be anti-god.
Let's remember that Genesis has two specific timelines, describing events that have significant metaphorical power. Clearly, the Bible was not trying to bolt down creation to a concrete physics progression. And, why would it? Mankind has not needed a physics lesson. That was true then, and it's true right now. There is no way to suggest that our progress in physics could possibly determine something about the nature or even existence of a god. So, attacking the Bible with science is just a misunderstanding of what science and religion are.
