Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now for something completely different
110 views
Skip to first unread message
jillery
Oct 8, 2019, 9:15:03 PM10/8/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Here's a 15-minute SciShow video which points out that our universe
should not even exist, because anti-matter:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
should not even exist, because anti-matter:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
PhantomView
Oct 8, 2019, 9:55:03 PM10/8/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Here's a 15-minute SciShow video which points out that our universe
>should not even exist, because anti-matter:
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
It almost did NOT exist ... well, matter anyhow. Seems
there was just the tiniest surplus of our kind of matter.
But most of the stuff boiled off into photons way back
at the beginning.
In any case, it worked out OK for us. Had most of that
matter (or anti-matter) persisted the mass surely would
have caused a galaxy-sized black hole to form not too
long after the beginning.
wrote:
>Here's a 15-minute SciShow video which points out that our universe
>should not even exist, because anti-matter:
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
there was just the tiniest surplus of our kind of matter.
But most of the stuff boiled off into photons way back
at the beginning.
In any case, it worked out OK for us. Had most of that
matter (or anti-matter) persisted the mass surely would
have caused a galaxy-sized black hole to form not too
long after the beginning.
jillery
Oct 9, 2019, 9:15:03 AM10/9/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
happened. The standard model doesn't predict it. No experiments
observe it. In fact, everything we do know says it should not have
happened. But because I am here posting this, and you are reading
this, we know it did happen.
So why aren't fine tuners and IDers talking about this instead of
misrepresenting the facts about the Big Bang and physical constants?
PhantomView
Oct 9, 2019, 10:00:02 PM10/9/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 09:12:01 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
even our best models ought to be allowed THAT much
of an error margin. Clearly there were influences that
made the model behavior "jitter" just a tad.
Whomever can identify said influence(s) will decidedly
get a Nobel prize.
>So why aren't fine tuners and IDers talking about this instead of
>misrepresenting the facts about the Big Bang and physical constants?
It was a tremendous "waste" of perfectly good mass.
Does not sound like good well-planned "design" to me.
All those photons, while they do not have mass, still
represent energy in the system. Perhaps it is they
that push expansion ?
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:52:11 -0400, PhantomView
><p...@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a 15-minute SciShow video which points out that our universe
>>>should not even exist, because anti-matter:
>>>
>>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
>>
>> It almost did NOT exist ... well, matter anyhow. Seems
>> there was just the tiniest surplus of our kind of matter.
>> But most of the stuff boiled off into photons way back
>> at the beginning.
>>
>> In any case, it worked out OK for us. Had most of that
>> matter (or anti-matter) persisted the mass surely would
>> have caused a galaxy-sized black hole to form not too
>> long after the beginning.
>
>
>The point is we have no idea how that billion/billion+1 ratio
>happened. The standard model doesn't predict it. No experiments
>observe it. In fact, everything we do know says it should not have
>happened. But because I am here posting this, and you are reading
>this, we know it did happen.
That it was SUCH a tiny percentage of surplus matter ...
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:52:11 -0400, PhantomView
><p...@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a 15-minute SciShow video which points out that our universe
>>>should not even exist, because anti-matter:
>>>
>>><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4MaZKdfE0>
>>
>> It almost did NOT exist ... well, matter anyhow. Seems
>> there was just the tiniest surplus of our kind of matter.
>> But most of the stuff boiled off into photons way back
>> at the beginning.
>>
>> In any case, it worked out OK for us. Had most of that
>> matter (or anti-matter) persisted the mass surely would
>> have caused a galaxy-sized black hole to form not too
>> long after the beginning.
>
>
>The point is we have no idea how that billion/billion+1 ratio
>happened. The standard model doesn't predict it. No experiments
>observe it. In fact, everything we do know says it should not have
>happened. But because I am here posting this, and you are reading
>this, we know it did happen.
even our best models ought to be allowed THAT much
of an error margin. Clearly there were influences that
made the model behavior "jitter" just a tad.
Whomever can identify said influence(s) will decidedly
get a Nobel prize.
>So why aren't fine tuners and IDers talking about this instead of
>misrepresenting the facts about the Big Bang and physical constants?
Does not sound like good well-planned "design" to me.
All those photons, while they do not have mass, still
represent energy in the system. Perhaps it is they
that push expansion ?
jillery
Oct 10, 2019, 12:15:03 AM10/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:59:38 -0400, PhantomView
That's like saying the effects of GR can be dismissed as measurement
error. Instead, the measured ratio shows a fundamental flaw in the
standard model, as significant as Mercury's orbital eccentricity is to
Newton's Laws.
> Whomever can identify said influence(s) will decidedly
> get a Nobel prize.
You can bet on that.
>>So why aren't fine tuners and IDers talking about this instead of
>>misrepresenting the facts about the Big Bang and physical constants?
>
> It was a tremendous "waste" of perfectly good mass.
> Does not sound like good well-planned "design" to me.
Don't get me started!
> All those photons, while they do not have mass, still
> represent energy in the system. Perhaps it is they
> that push expansion ?
Only the very early universe was dominated by radiation, in the form
of photons and neutrinos. But as the universe expanded, it also
cooled, and about 47 thousand years after the initial expansion, the
energy density of radiation was surpassed by the energy density of
matter, in the form of baryons and dark matter. But as the universe
continued to expand, the energy density of matter decreased while the
energy density of spacetime remained constant, and about 9.8 billion
years after the initial expansion, the energy density of matter was
reduced to less than the energy density of spacetime, in the form of
dark energy. Since dark energy is repulsive, this caused the once
decelerating expansion of the universe to again accelerate.
Today, the expansion of spacetime has cooled its primordial radiation
to just 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, which means almost no energy
at all. It couldn't push an old lady flea off a cliff.
Some dismiss the above as a just-so story made up by cosmologists
trying to keep their jobs, but AOTA are backed up by hard-sought and
well-documented evidence.
error. Instead, the measured ratio shows a fundamental flaw in the
standard model, as significant as Mercury's orbital eccentricity is to
Newton's Laws.
> Whomever can identify said influence(s) will decidedly
> get a Nobel prize.
>>So why aren't fine tuners and IDers talking about this instead of
>>misrepresenting the facts about the Big Bang and physical constants?
>
> It was a tremendous "waste" of perfectly good mass.
> Does not sound like good well-planned "design" to me.
> All those photons, while they do not have mass, still
> represent energy in the system. Perhaps it is they
> that push expansion ?
of photons and neutrinos. But as the universe expanded, it also
cooled, and about 47 thousand years after the initial expansion, the
energy density of radiation was surpassed by the energy density of
matter, in the form of baryons and dark matter. But as the universe
continued to expand, the energy density of matter decreased while the
energy density of spacetime remained constant, and about 9.8 billion
years after the initial expansion, the energy density of matter was
reduced to less than the energy density of spacetime, in the form of
dark energy. Since dark energy is repulsive, this caused the once
decelerating expansion of the universe to again accelerate.
Today, the expansion of spacetime has cooled its primordial radiation
to just 2.7 degrees above absolute zero, which means almost no energy
at all. It couldn't push an old lady flea off a cliff.
Some dismiss the above as a just-so story made up by cosmologists
trying to keep their jobs, but AOTA are backed up by hard-sought and
well-documented evidence.
daud....@gmail.com
Oct 10, 2019, 4:30:03 AM10/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova
Oct 10, 2019, 2:00:03 PM10/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 01:29:31 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by daud....@gmail.com:
to a cyclic universe, which IIRC has been dropped due to
recent data regarding dark energy and universe expansion?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
appeared in talk.origins, posted by daud....@gmail.com:
>Big bang was a beat in a series of beats, corresponding to Fuller's jitterbug transformation en masse.
Cool! Your evidence for that claim, which I assume alludes
to a cyclic universe, which IIRC has been dropped due to
recent data regarding dark energy and universe expansion?
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
PhantomView
Oct 10, 2019, 10:05:03 PM10/10/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:58:00 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
THIS universe is not going to "cycle" ... it will just get
larger and darker and colder effectively forever. When
enough energy is lost the 3rd dimension may "curl up"
as they describe for the other dimensions lost early
after the BB. Nothing left but an infinite frozen photonic
flapjack.
We had better start planning some way to escape into
a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
wrote:
larger and darker and colder effectively forever. When
enough energy is lost the 3rd dimension may "curl up"
as they describe for the other dimensions lost early
after the BB. Nothing left but an infinite frozen photonic
flapjack.
We had better start planning some way to escape into
a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
Bob Casanova
Oct 11, 2019, 6:40:03 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:04:16 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by PhantomView
<p...@PhantomView114.net>:
Yep, that's exactly the way I read the current info, which
is why I asked where he got the evidence for his claim.
> We had better start planning some way to escape into
> a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
Oh, HELL yeah! ;-)
in talk.origins, posted by PhantomView
<p...@PhantomView114.net>:
is why I asked where he got the evidence for his claim.
> We had better start planning some way to escape into
> a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
Daud Deden
Oct 11, 2019, 8:15:04 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
Glenn
Oct 11, 2019, 8:45:03 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
> The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
>
If something always existed, it is infinite. There's a monkey wrench in that thought. An infinite something means everything has happened an infinite number of times, including this post and flying pigs, and will happen an infinite number of times.
PhantomView
Oct 11, 2019, 10:00:03 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 15:39:29 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
Hmm ... can even photons exist in a 2-D space ? The usual
diagrams show an oscillating electric field fading into a
magnetic field ... but at right angles to each other all along
the photons trajectory. No 3rd dimension, no right angle,
no mutual induction.
Maybe a "T"-shaped or "X"-shaped quasi-photon ?
Know anyone who is really good at QM and string theory ?
I am now wondering if there is ANY sort of "particle"-like
thing that can exist in 2-D. If we view protons and electrons
and such as "harmonies of the superstrings", what tunes
can still be played in 2-D ?
>> We had better start planning some way to escape into
>> a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
>
>Oh, HELL yeah! ;-)
Well, it might TAKE a few quadrillion years to figure
out how to do it, so to be safe .... :-)
diagrams show an oscillating electric field fading into a
magnetic field ... but at right angles to each other all along
the photons trajectory. No 3rd dimension, no right angle,
no mutual induction.
Maybe a "T"-shaped or "X"-shaped quasi-photon ?
Know anyone who is really good at QM and string theory ?
I am now wondering if there is ANY sort of "particle"-like
thing that can exist in 2-D. If we view protons and electrons
and such as "harmonies of the superstrings", what tunes
can still be played in 2-D ?
>> We had better start planning some way to escape into
>> a newer universe dontchathink ? :-)
>
>Oh, HELL yeah! ;-)
out how to do it, so to be safe .... :-)
jillery
Oct 11, 2019, 10:40:03 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
<daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
<daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
our universe is not cyclic.
Daud Deden
Oct 11, 2019, 11:55:03 PM10/11/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Glenn
Oct 12, 2019, 12:45:03 AM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
> >
> >
> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> > our universe is not cyclic.
> >
>
> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
> >
> >
> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> > our universe is not cyclic.
> >
>
> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
"In our view, cosmologists should heed mathematician David Hilbert's warning: although infinity is needed to complete mathematics, it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe."
https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
Mike_Duffy
Oct 12, 2019, 11:55:03 AM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 22:38:28 -0400, jillery wrote:
> AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> our universe is not cyclic.
There is also the possibility that either way (one universe or many), each
> AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> our universe is not cyclic.
universe might have an exactly matched amount of matter & anti-matter.
However, the distribution is not uniform, and we are in a zone where matter
predominates.
Talk about a 'no go' zone!
--
http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm
Bob Casanova
Oct 12, 2019, 2:40:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Daud Deden
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
https://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html
https://www.universetoday.com/129471/what-are-virtual-particles/
>Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
Those are really nice assertions, but you have nothing but
argument from incredulity (refuted by the above references,
among many others; GIYF) to support them.
--
Bob C.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Daud Deden
>Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
Does that apply to virtual particles?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
https://science.jrank.org/pages/7195/Virtual-Particles.html
https://www.universetoday.com/129471/what-are-virtual-particles/
>Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
argument from incredulity (refuted by the above references,
among many others; GIYF) to support them.
--
Bob C.
Glenn
Oct 12, 2019, 3:45:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> --
Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
jillery
Oct 12, 2019, 8:25:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
differences.
>"In our view, cosmologists should heed mathematician David Hilbert's warning: although infinity is needed to complete mathematics, it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe."
>
>https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
wrote:
>On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
>> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
>> >
>> >
>> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
>> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
>> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
>> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
>> > our universe is not cyclic.
>> >
>>
>> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
>
>There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
"created independent universes" are not individually infinite, and
>On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
>> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
>> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
>> >
>> >
>> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
>> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
>> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
>> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
>> > our universe is not cyclic.
>> >
>>
>> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
>
>There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
differences.
>"In our view, cosmologists should heed mathematician David Hilbert's warning: although infinity is needed to complete mathematics, it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe."
>
>https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535
jillery
Oct 12, 2019, 8:25:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 15:50:34 +0000, Mike_Duffy <Lo...@Website.in.sig>
wrote:
Perhaps someday it will be discovered that cosmic Inflation always
creates island universes in pairs, a matter universe and an
anti-matter universe, indentical in all respects save for their
electric charge, just as nature creates baryonic matter.
wrote:
creates island universes in pairs, a matter universe and an
anti-matter universe, indentical in all respects save for their
electric charge, just as nature creates baryonic matter.
Glenn
Oct 12, 2019, 10:05:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
> >> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
> >> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
> >> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
> >> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> >> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> >> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> >> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> >> > our universe is not cyclic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
> >
> >There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
>
>
> "created independent universes" are not individually infinite, and
> outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
> differences.
You don't have a clue as to how crazy you sound. Perhaps you think Buzz Lightyear is real. Of course they could be infinite, just make the claim. And multiple "universes" could be as easily claimed to not "outnumber" a "single cyclic universe". Just make the claim and it is so. A "lot" happens in an infinity, to say the least.
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
> >> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
> >> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
> >> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
> >> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
> >> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
> >> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
> >> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
> >> > our universe is not cyclic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
> >
> >There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
>
>
> "created independent universes" are not individually infinite, and
> outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
> differences.
jillery
Oct 12, 2019, 11:10:02 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
problem you share with your strange bedfellows.
> Perhaps you think Buzz Lightyear is real. Of course they could be infinite, just make the claim. And multiple "universes" could be as easily claimed to not "outnumber" a "single cyclic universe". Just make the claim and it is so. A "lot" happens in an infinity, to say the least.
Your comments above are incoherent. Buzz Lightyear has nothing to do
with anything under discussion. The concepts which have your knickers
in a twist are hypotheses. Each hypothesis says whether it's infinite
or not. A single cyclic universe is described as infinite. Each
created universe is described as finite. Since you have a problem
with their descriptions, take it up with their creators.
You said there is no difference, and I identified two important
differences. So you dropped your own claim and instead resorted to
asinine ad-hominems, a standard tactic among stupid trolls.
Since you're so determined to be a troll, at least show some pride and
drop the willful stupidity.
wrote:
>On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
>> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
>> >> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>> >> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>> >> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>> >> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
>> >> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
>> >> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
>> >> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
>> >> > our universe is not cyclic.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
>> >
>> >There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
>>
>>
>> "created independent universes" are not individually infinite, and
>> outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
>> differences.
>
>You don't have a clue as to how crazy you sound.
You don't have a clue how to back up your opinions. That's another
>On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 21:40:41 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 8:55:03 PM UTC-7, Daud Deden wrote:
>> >> On Friday, October 11, 2019 at 10:40:03 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:13:39 -0700 (PDT), Daud Deden
>> >> > <daud....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >Nothing to something is magic/supernatural.
>> >> > >Nature takes many forms, not necessarily detectable to human perception, even enhanced with modern appliances.
>> >> > >Something to something else is natural. There was something long before the latest big bang, there will be something after the next.
>> >> > >The beat goes on, even when nobody's listening.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > AIUI the hypothesis is, it's likely there is something from which many
>> >> > Big Bangs emerge, perhaps infinitely many. Each one of these Big
>> >> > Bangs create an independent universe like ours, which in turn has an
>> >> > independent beginning, timeline, and ending. If that is true, then
>> >> > our universe is not cyclic.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> My reasoning is that everything known is in some sort of orbit indicating cyclicity. I might be wrong on that.
>> >
>> >There is no difference; both "created independent universes" and a cyclic universe indicate an infinity, no beginning and no ending.
>>
>>
>> "created independent universes" are not individually infinite, and
>> outnumber a single cyclic universe. These are two important
>> differences.
>
>You don't have a clue as to how crazy you sound.
problem you share with your strange bedfellows.
> Perhaps you think Buzz Lightyear is real. Of course they could be infinite, just make the claim. And multiple "universes" could be as easily claimed to not "outnumber" a "single cyclic universe". Just make the claim and it is so. A "lot" happens in an infinity, to say the least.
with anything under discussion. The concepts which have your knickers
in a twist are hypotheses. Each hypothesis says whether it's infinite
or not. A single cyclic universe is described as infinite. Each
created universe is described as finite. Since you have a problem
with their descriptions, take it up with their creators.
You said there is no difference, and I identified two important
differences. So you dropped your own claim and instead resorted to
asinine ad-hominems, a standard tactic among stupid trolls.
Since you're so determined to be a troll, at least show some pride and
drop the willful stupidity.
Glenn
Oct 12, 2019, 11:55:03 PM10/12/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery
Oct 13, 2019, 8:35:03 AM10/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 20:49:53 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
You don't know how stupid you sound.
Bob Casanova
Oct 13, 2019, 2:20:03 PM10/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 12:41:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
No, he asserted that something *cannot* "come from nothing",
an assertion which is refuted by the existence of virtual
particles, which do indeed "come from nothing". Learn to
read the referenced material, idiot.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
predicts that every particle spends some time as a
combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
as if they had never been there. If that were all that
occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
structure would collapse."
See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
"something from nothing"?
>The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
Let's add some context, shall we? The full statement, from
which you quotemined the above, is:
"...at the edge of a black hole’s event horizon, one
particle falls in, while another is free to wander the
cosmos. Since you can’t create particles from nothing, the
black hole needs to sacrifice a little bit of itself to buy
this newly formed particle’s freedom."
But virtual particles appear *everywhere*, not only at black
hole event horizons, so your quotemined statement is
irrelevant to the subject, idiot.
>The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
And yet it actually happens, and is not considered
supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
Idiot.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>:
an assertion which is refuted by the existence of virtual
particles, which do indeed "come from nothing". Learn to
read the referenced material, idiot.
> --
>Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
From the first reference:
>Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
predicts that every particle spends some time as a
combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
as if they had never been there. If that were all that
occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
structure would collapse."
See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
"something from nothing"?
>The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
which you quotemined the above, is:
"...at the edge of a black hole’s event horizon, one
particle falls in, while another is free to wander the
cosmos. Since you can’t create particles from nothing, the
black hole needs to sacrifice a little bit of itself to buy
this newly formed particle’s freedom."
But virtual particles appear *everywhere*, not only at black
hole event horizons, so your quotemined statement is
irrelevant to the subject, idiot.
>The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
Idiot.
Glenn
Oct 13, 2019, 4:05:03 PM10/13/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> > --
> >Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
>
> From the first reference:
>
> "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
> predicts that every particle spends some time as a
> combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
> predictions are very well understood and tested.
>
> Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
> violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
> become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
> particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
> as if they had never been there. If that were all that
> occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
> effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
> which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
> tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
> structure would collapse."
>
> See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
> energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
> "something from nothing"?
Supporting your own strawman doesn't indicate a high level of intelligence, moron.
> >Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
>
> From the first reference:
>
> "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
> predicts that every particle spends some time as a
> combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
> predictions are very well understood and tested.
>
> Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
> violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
> become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
> particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
> as if they had never been there. If that were all that
> occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
> effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
> which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
> tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
> structure would collapse."
>
> See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
> energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
> "something from nothing"?
>
> >The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
>
> Let's add some context, shall we?
Nope. No need to. Using nothing the way Daud did is sufficient.
> >The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
>
> Let's add some context, shall we?
> The full statement, from
> which you quotemined the above, is:
>
> "...at the edge of a black hole’s event horizon, one
> particle falls in, while another is free to wander the
> cosmos. Since you can’t create particles from nothing, the
> black hole needs to sacrifice a little bit of itself to buy
> this newly formed particle’s freedom."
>
> But virtual particles appear *everywhere*, not only at black
> hole event horizons, so your quotemined statement is
> irrelevant to the subject, idiot.
>
> >The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
>
> And yet it actually happens, and is not considered
> supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
> so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
>
> Idiot.
> --
You've not shown that "virtual particles" are the absence of everything, moron.
> >The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
>
> And yet it actually happens, and is not considered
> supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
> so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
>
> Idiot.
> --
You have shown the bump on your shoulders contain almost nothing, though, if not the absence of everything.
Bob Casanova
Oct 14, 2019, 1:05:03 PM10/14/19
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 13:02:47 -0700 (PDT), the following
Ummm...I didn't say that he said anything about virtual
particles. Try reading the above again, for comprehension.
>> >Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
>>
>> From the first reference:
>>
>> "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
>> predicts that every particle spends some time as a
>> combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
>> predictions are very well understood and tested.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
>> violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
>> become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
>> particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
>> as if they had never been there. If that were all that
>> occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
>> effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
>> which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
>> tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
>> structure would collapse."
>>
>> See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
>> energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
>> "something from nothing"?
>
>Supporting your own strawman doesn't indicate a high level of intelligence, moron.
It's not a "strawman", moron. Learn to read.
>> >The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
>>
>> Let's add some context, shall we?
>
>Nope. No need to. Using nothing the way Daud did is sufficient.
Nope.
>> The full statement, from
>> which you quotemined the above, is:
>>
>> "...at the edge of a black hole’s event horizon, one
>> particle falls in, while another is free to wander the
>> cosmos. Since you can’t create particles from nothing, the
>> black hole needs to sacrifice a little bit of itself to buy
>> this newly formed particle’s freedom."
>>
>> But virtual particles appear *everywhere*, not only at black
>> hole event horizons, so your quotemined statement is
>> irrelevant to the subject, idiot.
>
>I think
Not demonstrated.
>> >The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
>>
>> And yet it actually happens, and is not considered
>> supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
>> so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
>>
>> Idiot.
commenting.
particles. Try reading the above again, for comprehension.
>> >Your first two references do not claim or speculate that something comes from nothing.
>>
>> From the first reference:
>>
>> "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory
>> predicts that every particle spends some time as a
>> combination of other particles in all possible ways. These
>> predictions are very well understood and tested.
>>
>> Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary
>> violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can
>> become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual
>> particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle
>> as if they had never been there. If that were all that
>> occurred we would still be confident that it was a real
>> effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics,
>> which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and
>> tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole
>> structure would collapse."
>>
>> See the part about "temporary violations of conservation of
>> energy"? What do you suppose that means in terms of
>> "something from nothing"?
>
>Supporting your own strawman doesn't indicate a high level of intelligence, moron.
>> >The third reference says "Since you can’t create particles from nothing..." and "A vacuum isn’t the absence of everything."
>>
>> Let's add some context, shall we?
>
>Nope. No need to. Using nothing the way Daud did is sufficient.
>> The full statement, from
>> which you quotemined the above, is:
>>
>> "...at the edge of a black hole’s event horizon, one
>> particle falls in, while another is free to wander the
>> cosmos. Since you can’t create particles from nothing, the
>> black hole needs to sacrifice a little bit of itself to buy
>> this newly formed particle’s freedom."
>>
>> But virtual particles appear *everywhere*, not only at black
>> hole event horizons, so your quotemined statement is
>> irrelevant to the subject, idiot.
>
>I think
>> >The absence of everything to something would indeed fit the description of "supernatural". But that can't be tolerated in your world of science.
>>
>> And yet it actually happens, and is not considered
>> supernatural, but an expected result of the workings of QM,
>> so your assertion is incorrect. Again.
>>
>> Idiot.
>You've not shown that "virtual particles" are the absence of everything, moron.
"You're insane", as a well-known Internet troll is fond of
commenting.
0 new messages