[Lunick]

[MrBlackCat]

Fox, on 05 February 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

The problem with that kind of theory is that it (sort of) relies on another universe to have created ours. According to the Big Bang theory, not even time existed before the initial expansion, so it doesn't really makes sense to rely on the occurrences of another universe.

This to me is where a problem comes in though... I expect it likely there are other existences besides universes as we perceive, but not places we could go or exist etc for whatever we are in the scope of existence. (e.g. It seems shadows can't exist without light for example)
Time is based around motion and gravity. It would not surprise me if even the Big Bang, was based in our perception, and is not likely at all what it seems.

I guess what I am saying is that I believe that much of our ideas like Time, Distance, Space etc are all attempts to quantify our perceptions of something we can't likely understand yet. This doesn't mean I don't believe in trying as we do... considering the complexity of our existence here in time/space, I think trying to understand it is a great thing.

MrBlackCat

[Fox]

MrBlackCat, on 05 February 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

(e.g. It seems shadows can't exist without light for example)

Shadows don't exist. They are merely a concept.

[Forge]

Fox, on 05 February 2014 - 05:20 PM, said:

The problem with that kind of theory is that it (sort of) relies on another universe to have created ours. According to the Big Bang theory, not even time existed before the initial expansion, so it doesn't really makes sense to rely on the occurrences of another universe.

nothing existed in that "area" of the bubble until the singularity ripped through the wall - since only one universe can rip though one "spot" at a time
when the singularity rips through the bubble wall it's bringing time and space with it.

it's just an idea. not any more radical than the string theory or ekpyrotic brane theory with all these multiple dimensions needed to make them work

[Fox]

Forge, on 05 February 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

nothing existed in that "area" of the bubble until the singularity ripped through the wall - since only one universe can rip though one "spot" at a time
when the singularity rips through the bubble wall it's bringing time and space with it.

The problem is that if time doesn't exist on the other bubble, how can you change it?

A similar problem would be if person A is frozen in time, while person B is trying to contact him. It would be impossible for B to leave a message for A.

[Kathy]

The Commander, on 05 February 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

https://www.google.c...alaxy+s3+review

Yet you still bitch about it.

[Forge]

Fox, on 05 February 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

The problem is that if time doesn't exist on the other bubble, how can you change it?

A similar problem would be if person A is frozen in time, while person B is trying to contact him. It would be impossible for B to leave a message for A.

by creating motion. fundamentally time is just the measurement of motion; be it particles or space.
introducing an incredibly hot and unstable singularity into a void will cause it to expand radically and instantaneously - which in a way correlates with the inflation theory
the singularity will pop, not freeze into an inert and immobile state

supposedly there was no such thing as time prior to the big bang, so it had to have come from somewhere. even quantum fluctuation requires time/space, position/momentum, and/or interaction between ordinary particles

without time and motion there would be no heat, no instability, no big bang

i'm guessing it had to be introduced through an external influence - just like it requires person B to stick person A in an oven for your example

[Fox]

The problem is, time is frozen for person A, so he/she cannot contact B. If time is frozen, it would take an infinite amount of time for a message from A to reach B, meaning that technically B would never receive the message. Overall it's a logical impossibility for person A to be frozen in time forever, while time is still flowing for person B in a time later.

The same goes for your universe hypothesis. If time doesn't exist in universe A, the time in the future which an external influence is introduced is never reached, which is the same as saying it never happens. It's like an repeating decimal with a number added to the end (i.e. 0.999...8), it makes no difference.

[Master Fibbles]

Spoiler

The problem some of you seem to have is that you grew up in a "either/or" reality and are incapable of seeing the world any other way. The "either/or" world is the world of Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson. They are both ignorant, small-minded fools who can only see the world one way (the wrong way). There is no "either/or" it is "both/and" when it comes to religion and science. The big bang theory proposes that there was nothing and then there was something. It doesn't bother with the how or why nothing became something. Faith answers those questions. There is room for God in the big bang. Queue the lynch mobs.

Science depends just as much on faith as religion, if not more. People believe the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, that 1+1=2. We can't prove those things definitively. We can only believe them. All we have is faith in our own observances of the physical world. The entire thing could be an illusion, but we choose to believe that it isn't. What if the force between our mass and the mass of the earth was not such that our bodies fall at 9.8 m/s/s? What if something can travel faster than 3.00e8 m/s in a vacuum? We don't know these things, we can only believe them.

The medieval belief that the earth is flat is mythical. 12th century Christian writings assume and promote the idea of the earth being round (the Arab astronomers brought this with them when they invaded Spain). The Dark Ages were bad, but they weren't that bad. Without the Benedictines and Dominicans, the whole world would have gone to hell. The myth that the Christian church suppressed science is also unfounded. Scientists suppress science until they agree with the belief of their fellow scientist.

What modern "either/or" people believe is not representative of the entire history of Christianity. They absurd tenets of "sola scriptura" and historical inerrancy of Scripture are only from the last few hundred years. Creationism is a modern myth. Augustine, the 4th century theologian, philosopher, and all around badass, wrote that we cannot read Genesis as literal. Why should one believe that anyone between him and the 19th century reactionaries to modernism held the belief in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago?

I am finally about the finish House of Cards. This is a good thing because next Friday the new season apparently goes live. I only find two choices of Frank Underwood unacceptable. I think that makes me a pretty horrible person.

[Forge]

Fox, on 05 February 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

The same goes for your universe hypothesis. If time doesn't exist in universe A, the time in the future which an external influence is introduced is never reached, which is the same as saying it never happens.

there are two problems with your approach.

the same thing happens when particles fall into a black hole. theoretically time slows down the closer the particle gets to the black hole. by your logic the particle would never reach the black hole, but we know it does because black holes grow by accumulating mass.

the second is the obvious one, and you're existing in it right now. so it's happened before.

[Fox]

Forge, on 05 February 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

the same thing happens when particles fall into a black hole. theoretically time slows down the closer the particle gets to the black hole. by your logic the particle would never reach the black hole, but we know it does because black holes grow by accumulating mass.

They are different cases, a particle in a black hole never stops in time indefinitely.

An analogy would be with a vehicle (particle) in a road (time). In a black hole the vehicle would simply have varying speed and possible even moving backwards. Before the Big Bang there was no road.

Forge, on 05 February 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

the second is the obvious one, and you're existing in it right now. so it's happened before.

According to the Big Bang theory nothing existed before it, no law of nature or anything. How or why the singularity started is unknow for science.

However, your hypothesis of another universe introducing time to our universe in the future is sort of a logical impossibility. And I should add that adding another universe to the equation is just postponing the question of how things started.

[Hendricks266]

The Real Slim Flibble, on 05 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

There is no "either/or" it is "both/and" when it comes to religion and science.

The scientific search for evidence is at odds with faith-based belief in scripture and tradition. Technically, the existence of a deity is unfalsifiable, but specific dogma of organized religions can be found to be self-contradictory with a thought experiment as simple as the problem of evil. Moreover, specific beliefs such as the soul can also be put into doubt, in this case with neuroscience. ("The Ghost in the Machine" was the article that convinced me of atheism over my previous position, deism.)

The Real Slim Flibble, on 05 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

The big bang theory proposes that there was nothing and then there was something. It doesn't bother with the how or why nothing became something.

Analogy: Evolution does not cover abiogenesis. However, abiogenesis is still a field of study. Likewise, people have explored the concept of "before the big bang" under the banner of science. However, science has not yet come up with evidence for any, mostly because the beginning of time and existence is a curveball to human comprehension that is often explained away by recursion, such as the "infinite loop theory", postulations of higher dimensions (such as string theory's branes), and belief in a Creator. However, all of these are subject to the same question.

The Real Slim Flibble, on 05 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

Science depends just as much on faith as religion, if not more. People believe the theory of evolution, the big bang theory, that 1+1=2. We can't prove those things definitively. We can only believe them.

Here you conflate two different uses of the word "believe" to make a point. People "believe" science because evidence supports it. People "believe" religion on the basis of faith--in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence. The two are entirely different.

The Real Slim Flibble, on 05 February 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:

All we have is faith in our own observances of the physical world. The entire thing could be an illusion, but we choose to believe that it isn't. What if the force between our mass and the mass of the earth was not such that our bodies fall at 9.8 m/s/s? What if something can travel faster than 3.00e8 m/s in a vacuum? We don't know these things, we can only believe them.

Mountains and mountains of experimental evidence have shown that established constants such as the speed of light are, in fact, constant, and that our working model and understanding of the world (physics, etc.) is reproducible and useful for making predictions. Again, your use of the word "believe" proves ambiguous. Doubting that we can trust the experimental evidence we acquire with our senses is a slippery slope to solipsism. Leave that outdated debate to Parmenides.



(Mr. Butler, my high school history teacher, is a badass. Buy his iOS app, the Flow of History.)

As for the historicity of science and Christianity, I identify nothing wrong with your summary of Medieval Europe. However, since that is an elaboration on your original point:

The Real Slim Flibble, on 04 February 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

So, I hear there is a debate between Bill Nye, the Science Guy, and a dude from Kentucky...They are going to discuss creationism and evolution. I heard some of the commentary in the preshow and...I got a secret..."Christians" are allowed to do science. In fact, the entire foundation of all scientific inquiry was founded by Christians. Now, don't tell any atheist scientist this, they'll explode from the irony.

Whatever science may owe to Christianity, it was not started by Christians. In the form of natural philosophy, it dates back to ancient times. If I were you, I would argue that the work of Erasmus, Francis Bacon, and other Christians contributed significantly to the development of science (not merely preserving it among the clergy), though plenty of brilliant contributors were deists.

Regardless, this debate is irrelevant. Your assertion only serves to set up an ad hominem insult, and as such it is not worthy of further discussion.

[Yatta]

[Lunick]

[MYHOUSE.MAP]

I'm not interested in mathematics, science nor computer science. I'm a rare breed in oldschool FPS forums. I can still work my around what does what in SDKs/editors and identify certain variables based on their names, though.

[X-Vector]

Some things never change.

[Forge]

Fox, on 05 February 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

They are different cases, a particle in a black hole never stops in time indefinitely.

An analogy would be with a vehicle (particle) in a road (time). In a black hole the vehicle would simply have varying speed and possible even moving backwards. Before the Big Bang there was no road.

when i say there was no time - i'm equating it to the absence of time and motion - it doesn't exist. once there's an event that causes motion, time occurs simultaneously and comes into existence

for some reason you equate no time to a frozen stasis. apparently time exists, but it's indefinitely frozen due to lack of motion. motion can't occur because time is frozen. time is frozen because motion can't occur. if this were the case the universe would still be a singularity.

the universe expanded into a timeless void and it's still doing it today. so your thought process of how time works is flawed

as far as where it all "began"; the laws of physics in one universe don't necessarily have to be the same as the laws of physics in another/subsequent universe. maybe at one point quantum fluctuations didn't require time/space, position/momentum, and/or interaction between ordinary particles

of course my silly notion is full of holes and leaves quite a bit left open to questions that can never be answered; "where did these 'soap bubble' come from"?, "what holds these bubbles together"?, "where did all the material to make particles come from in the first place"?, etc.
pretty much the same questions we have about our current universe
it's just my personal little insignificant theory as to why the Bang banged in the first place. I believe there had to be some external influence to cause motion in the singularity or it would never has lost stability

[Radar]

How many of you have a physics degree?

[Daedolon]

Lunick, on 06 February 2014 - 01:21 AM, said:

img

At least center the image, bitch.

[Fox]

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

for some reason you equate no time to a frozen stasis.

Of course, otherwise there is time.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 05:04 AM, said:

apparently time exists, but it's indefinitely frozen due to lack of motion. motion can't occur because time is frozen. time is frozen because motion can't occur. if this were the case the universe would still be a singularity.

Time in psychics refers specifically to the dimension which events can be ordered in a chronology. It's not just that objects aren't changing, the space itself doesn't have the property that allow the change. It's similar to space, which according to psychics "exists" because it has properties of its own, even if there is no particle there.

[Forge]

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Time in psychics refers specifically to the dimension which events can be ordered in a chronology.

otherwise referred to as motion

you're still dodging the fact that the absence of time does not equate a frozen stasis.
a frozen stasis indicates that there is time, but it is unable to "move"

again - if the absence of time were a frozen stasis, the universe could never have expanded and can't expand at this very moment. since it has and is, you're circular arguments are flawed

it's been fun, but now were at the point where redundancy is prevailing and it's getting pointless to keep going back and forth

[Forge]

Pinkamena Diane Pie, on 06 February 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

How many of you have physics degrees?

i don't, but if i was ever to have a gay affair, it would have been with Carl Sagan

[Fox]

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

again - if the absence of time were a frozen stasis, the universe could never have expanded and can't expand at this very moment. since it has and is, you're circular arguments are flawed

As already mentioned, we don't know how or why the Big Bang singularity started.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

it's been fun, but now were at the point where redundancy is prevailing and it's getting pointless to keep going back and forth

Whatever.

[Fox]

[Forge]

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

As already mentioned, we don't know how or why the Big Bang singularity started.

that's fine. we can toss theories back and forth about that until it starts to get redundant as well.

we have known laws of physics within the universe's sphere of influence, but do those same laws apply outside of its boundaries?
did this material just appear out of nowhere despite the known requirements for quantum fluctuation?
did the universe arise from the energy created during the "collision" of branes or bubbles?
is the reason the universe expansion is accelerating (dark energy) is due to the "vacuum" left by said collision? (i.e. like how air collapses behind a supersonic jet to make a sonic boom, or a large ship sinking in the ocean and pulling down people swimming too close)
does the universe really have a beginning? apparently you can pick any direction in the sky and see back to the "early" universe nearly 14 billion years ago. This to me implies that there is no "center" of the universe, and it's kind of hard to have a "singularity" in all directions.
if we look one direction in the sky and see 13.8 billion year old material - if we observe an exact 180 degrees the other direction we can see 13.8 billion year old material. That means material traveled 27.6 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years time (actually more since we're not the "center" of the universe); how is that possible?
will space reach its "stretching" point and start retracting like a rubber band?
will all the black holes that the universe is bound to become decay, or is there going to be a "big crunch"?
does the conservation of energy prevent black holes from decaying?
is information "lost" when it falls into a black hole, or does it get "transferred" to a new universe out of a white hole?

[Ronin]

[Fox]

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

that's fine. we can toss theories back and forth about that until it starts to get redundant as well.

It's just that you keep asking how the Big Bang is possible without the law of physics, which harly there is a answer for. I was just pointing out that the influence of another universe doesn't provide a plausible explanation.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

we have known laws of physics within the universe's sphere of influence, but do those same laws apply outside of its boundaries?

It would be possible if we assume there are "other universes", but there is no evidence of such a thing.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

did this material just appear out of nowhere despite the known requirements for quantum fluctuation? did the universe arise from the energy created during the "collision" of branes or bubbles?

I can't answer these question.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

is the reason the universe expansion is accelerating (dark energy) is due to the "vacuum" left by said collision? (i.e. like how air collapses behind a supersonic jet to make a sonic boom, or a large ship sinking in the ocean and pulling down people swimming too close)

I don't think that's a widely accepted explanation.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

does the universe really have a beginning? apparently you can pick any direction in the sky and see back to the "early" universe nearly 14 billion years ago. This to me implies that there is no "center" of the universe, and it's kind of hard to have a "singularity" in all directions.

A popular view of the universe is similar to that of the Asteroid game, at which there is no beggining or end, but rather a loop. In that sense, there is no "center" to the universe.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

if we look one direction in the sky and see 13.8 billion year old material - if we observe an exact 180 degrees the other direction we can see 13.8 billion year old material. That means material traveled 27.6 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years time (actually more since we're not the "center" of the universe); how is that possible?

The common explanation is that, while matter cannot travel faster than light, the expansion of the universe is not limited to such. Similarly, it's assumed that the gravitional force of a black hole surpassed the speed of light.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

will space reach its "stretching" point and start retracting like a rubber band? will all the black holes that the universe is bound to become decay, or is there going to be a "big crunch"?

I can't answer these question. These are theories about the fate of universe.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

does the conservation of energy prevent black holes from decaying?

As of evidence suggests, black holes eventually disappear.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

is information "lost" when it falls into a black hole, or does it get "transferred" to a new universe out of a white hole?

Matter cannot cease to exist. According to Stephen Hawking theory (which I don't fully understand) black holes decay due to a tunneling effects.

[Ronin]

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Matter cannot cease to exist. According to Stephen Hawking theory (which I don't fully understand) black holes decay due to a tunneling effects.

I think, it's understood that energy cannot be created or destroyed and is passed from one form to another. Energy can become mass and vice versa. So if energy can't be destroyed neither can matter, I guess.

[Forge]

the theory is hawking radiation which leads to another theory of proton decay via the Higgs particle, which then leaves a universe full of pions and and positrons.

that's enough material for quantum fluctuation to start another big bang. time and space already exist.

as far as being able to see material 13.8 billion light years in every direction - meaning that visible space is at a minimum 27.6 billion light years across - and the universe only being 13.8 billion years old-'cause that's how fast light travels
we're either assuming that:
space spreads at twice the speed of light and has been doing so since the creation of the universe - this obviously has the flaw that if space travels faster than light - we'd never see any heavenly bodies that are traveling away from us (i.e. everything outside our galactic cluster)
basing the age of the universe off of the light we can see is inaccurate - probably, but you'd think that every few years new galactic bodies would "wink" in existence as their light finally reaches us.


and i watched that Hawking video when it aired. his hypothetical guessing is full of flaws. He dodges the crap we're talking about here; like where did the singularity come from in the first place, there was no time or motion - thus no heat, there were no particles, time, or space needed for quantum fluctuations to take place. I can't say one way or the other whether there was or was not a divine being responsible for the singularity and the expansion, and he can't either.

[Stabs]

and i watched that Hawking video when it aired. his hypothetical guessing is full of flaws. He dodges the crap we're talking about here; like where did the singularity come from in the first place, there was no time or motion - thus no heat, there were no particles, time, or space needed for quantum fluctuations to take place. I can't say one way or the other whether there was or was not a divine being responsible for the singularity and the expansion, and he can't either.

THANK YOU!

Thats so true, remember these people spout crap you can't prove nor disprove and people take them as the gospel, sciientists kinda shit me like that, can you actually make something useful instead of shooting you're stupid mouth using big words to feel important