|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 12:19:45 GMT 1
What a daft statement! you can't use a supposed straight-jacket on ideas as an objection to a scientific theory. And actually, if you look at cirrent cosmology, there are various suggestions, some without anything before the big bang (the instanton stuff), and other stuff with (loop quantum gravity for one, with a big bounce).
Not really. Your language is misleading, because arising out of nothing assumes the very causality that wasn't around then, there was no THEN, no arising.............You keep trying to applying the language of causality that works inside this universe to the existence of this universe, which just doesn't work.
Argument from incredulity, not respectable really.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 12:39:24 GMT 1
Grow up STA and start behaving like a real scientist.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 14, 2010 12:42:31 GMT 1
I think that you should admit STA, that time t=0 is a massive unknown (even as to whether there was such a time)
We leave the realm of science at that point and enteer metaphysics where ideas become a matter of faith (propounded with just as much passion as any religious faith)
The science of time t=0 (if there was such a time) is inaccessible in principle.
Le me explain why it is inaccessible in principle
In order to do meausremts or make observations of such a time, the experiment must be conducted in zero space time in infinte densities within an environmnet that consited of nothing at all - no space, no time!
So stop blathering. The speculations are interesting but as far from the 'truth' as is God so far from the 'truth'. All a question of belief.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 12:48:31 GMT 1
Nonsense. What happened in the early universe has consequences for the universe we see now, hence the Cambridge comment about different instantons giving rise to different predictions of aspects of the CMB.
Just blathering on that it cannot be done, hence cosmologists should give up and go home, is just daft, and about at the level that I have come to expect from you.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 14, 2010 13:01:28 GMT 1
Nonsense. What happened in the early universe has consequences for the universe we see now, hence the Cambridge comment about different instantons giving rise to different predictions of aspects of the CMB. Just blathering on that it cannot be done, hence cosmologists should give up and go home, is just daft, and about at the level that I have come to expect from you. Odd then, that I am repeating what many cosmologists have said. They too must be daft Try repudiating any of the statements I have made in the posting above rather than just scattering your usual abuse And let me remind you my dear. I remember, a short while ago, when you poured scorn on the concept that time dilation depends upon the strength of the gravitational field, going so far as to rubbish Toronto University for saying so and to dismiss a learned paper on GPS that siad so. Then after many postings, shouting and abuse, you quietly admitted that time dilation depends upon the strength of the gravity field In other words, you are ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 15:20:34 GMT 1
References please...........
It is of course easy to cherry-pick quotations, and take sentences that on their own and out of context, can be read as meaning that time dilation depends on field strength. This doesn't mean that the people writing them don't know the true equation, or that such doesn't become clear if you read and understand the whole thing.
Dearie me, do you think it is some sort of heresy to question a paper written by someone else at another university (even if that is what I have been doing, which I haven't!)? Except that is what we all do practically every time we publish a paper -- except not on kiddie-level stuff like gravitational time dilation..........
I did NOT. Time dilation depends on differences in gravitational potential, which is NOT the strength of the gravitational field (that being the gradient of the potential). Hence we have the case of a constant gravitational field (constant strength), yet varying potential, hence time dilation.
Why do you lie? Or are you still trying to claim that potential equals strength?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 14, 2010 15:27:03 GMT 1
I did NOT. Time dilation depends on differences in gravitational potential, which is NOT the strength of the gravitational field (that being the gradient of the potential). Hence we have the case of a constant gravitational field (constant strength), yet varying potential, hence time dilation. In fact you did. If a clock is moved into a stronger gravitational field the time dilation will be more pronounced. Why do you insight? Or are you still trying to claim that potential equals strength? Yes indeed, but it a different measure of the strength of a gravitational field from the Acceleration measure
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 15:35:06 GMT 1
Not necessarily. For single-body fields, stronger means closer means downhill. But this is NOT the case for more complicated, multiple-body fields, where it is quite easy to imagine a case where higher means a stronger field, yet LESS time dilation. Because time dilation depends on (difference in) potential, not the (difference in) gradient of potential.............
Doesn't matter how many times you claim that black is white, or claim that I have said other than I did, you're still talking nonsense.
No, it not a measure of strength. Doesn't matter how many times you claim it is.................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 16:19:48 GMT 1
Indeed, naymissus, because it's an absurdity to suggest that time just 'happened' - that there were no pre-existing conditions that led to the universe as we know it today. You might as well use religious 'explanations' to account for reality because at least these do attempt to attribute a cause to some kind of 'creator, but with the kind of mumbo-jumbo that some scientists try to palm off on people we might as well just abandon science and reason and resort to voodoo!
I think the problem is, some people take scientific models far too literally and base far too much on the (probably) limited knowledge science currently has so that you can end up with paradoxical ideas that simply lead to a dead end. We must always remember that scientific models are just that - frameworks of ideas that are far from finalised and apt to be modified in time when more information comes to light. I find it slightly amazing when some scientists criticise simple analogies that people often use to explain complex ideas as wrong or misleading when those same scientists are really doing the same thing with their analogies - for analogies are all science can offer in the final analysis.
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Oct 14, 2010 17:31:05 GMT 1
Why is it absurd to suggest that time just happened?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 18:19:24 GMT 1
Well, because it is an unscientific suggestion. It can never be tested because even if, let's say, you could somehow recreate the conditions that gave rise to the BB, well, that wouldn't be valid since you would be acting as a causal agent in the process. It's pure speculation based on a lack of better ideas.
I mean, really, how do you get from a position of non-time to time? It's absurd, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 14, 2010 18:20:34 GMT 1
Why is it absurd to suggest that time just happened? Not any more absurd than God, of course, ( if they are both absurd), but absurd from a scientific stance, indicating, as it does, an abandonment of any further scientific investigation. True science would not say such a thing. True science would say 'at this stage we still do not understand the creatioin of the universe - in fact the creation of the universe at this time is beyond our understanding i n principle and that is where science stops and metaphysic and religion comences -now whre'd I put me bloody bunsen burner?'
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 14, 2010 18:22:52 GMT 1
Why is it absurd to suggest that time just happened? Not any more absurd than God, of course, ( if they are both absurd), but absurd from a scientific stance, indicating, as it does, an abandonment of any further scientific investigation. True science would not say such a thing. True science would say 'at this stage we still do not understand the creatioin of the universe - in fact the creation of the universe at this time is beyond our understanding i n principle and that is where science stops and metaphysic and religion comences -now whre'd I put me bloody bunsen burner?' Very well argued naymissus. I can't see any reasonable objections it.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 14, 2010 18:38:23 GMT 1
No, you are the one making the silly errors, in assuming that what applies within our universe (causality, and pre-existing conditions effect later events) also applies to the origin of the universe itself. It's just the ole all effects have causes, therefore god argument , wrapped up to look as if it is solid science.
It isn't. What is solid science is that:
events happen uncaused.
We can't assume that what applies inside the universe applies to the whole.
Believe the converse if you like, if it makes you happy, but you'll won't get any serious scientist to accept your supposed absurdity.
After all, just labeling things are OBVIOUSLY absurd is so easy, takes no thought or intellectual effort. But unfortunately, I think you'll find the universe doesn't usually give a tinkers cuss about our concepts of absurdity, and turns out to have very different ideas, as anyone who has ever studied quantum theory knows. Stuff just happens, and causality is a slippery beast, however 'absurd' some would like to think it is...............................
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 14, 2010 20:00:12 GMT 1
No, you are the one making the silly errors, in assuming that what applies within our universe (causality, and pre-existing conditions effect later events) also applies to the origin of the universe itself. It's just the ole all effects have causes, therefore god argument , wrapped up to look as if it is solid science. It isn't. What is solid science is that: events happen uncaused. We can't assume that what applies inside the universe applies to the whole. Believe the converse if you like, if it makes you happy, but you'll won't get any serious scientist to accept your supposed absurdity. After all, just labeling things are OBVIOUSLY absurd is so easy, takes no thought or intellectual effort. But unfortunately, I think you'll find the universe doesn't usually give a tinkers cuss about our concepts of absurdity, and turns out to have very different ideas, as anyone who has ever studied quantum theory knows. Stuff just happens, and causality is a slippery beast, however 'absurd' some would like to think it is............................... The only absurdity lays in the fact of you (or anyone else) making the 'scientific' claim that it was all created out of nothing. Sure that can be forwarded as a very tentative hypothesis in the full knowledge that it cannot be tested , but it follows that hence sceince has ended.
|
|