I can prove God exists

[numinus]

But the fact that humans cannot see what happens to them after death causes them to invent something.

Hence the infinity analogy. You need not count to infinity to know that whatever number you come up with, you can simply add 1 to it, indefinitely.

The same reasoning is employed in every facet of life. People can discern these principles simply because the mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

I still fail to understand how this effects religion. I can look at pure mathmatics and see the logic and proof behind it. I can see the origin of the answer to the question, the way they came to the answer etc.

There is the physical world and there is the ideal world - both existing as indispensable parts of the same reality.

And if one can observe this duality in nature, then there is no reason for it not to exist within one's self.

Do you now get it?

When I'm told to trust a 2,000 year old book about some bloke from 2,000 years ago about all things eternal, I wonder where he got his ideas from, and wether or not the book is logical, and wether or not it is all fabrication. And from there, I wonder if any man made religions have any proof.

So, it is either all true or all fabrication. You do not give any room for the possibility of it being somewhere in the middle? You do not give any room for the possibility of truth existing in allegorical form - through the subjective eyes of the observer? You do not give room for the possibility of some fundamental knowledge wrapped in a tale that is meant to entertain as well as teach?

Only sometime ago, people thought that the trojan war, or king arthur's camelot was all myth. Now, there are archeaological evidence to support the notion that these tales were based on some factual person, place or event - minus the obvious garnishing that is inevitable in any oral tradition.

I do not argue the existence of duality, I think it quite likely, but also quite
unlikeley

Likely and unlikely would depend on the logic to be found in its proof.

Yes. Well, I had a vision last night from God. He said we should all eat cabbage 3 times a day. I convince my children of this nonsense, wheres the logic that this rests on?

Cabbage is good for you.

Yes, it had inheret duality, but only because it is a convinient answer.

E=mc^2 is a scientific statement of universal duality.

So is the wave-particle theory of light.

So is the interaction between the cosmological tendencies of gravity and lambda.

So is the theoretical concept of a space-time singularity.

So is the matter-anti matter creation-annihilation.

So is the relationship of determinism and chaos.

So is the conservation of matter, energy and momentum.

And so on, and on, and on.....

[numinus]

Numunus..

I refuse to read your posts until you learn to keep that itchy ass pinky of yours away from the return key. STOP USING SO MANY DAMN SPACES IT IS DRIVING ME CLEARLY OVER THE EDGE.... STOP STOP STOP...


Invest/numinus, I want replies to my previous posts...the long ones, on pages 22/23 I do think... somewhere around there...

Was it addressed to me?

[numinus]

Nice to see you being arrogant for a change. Woops, that's not a change.

Arrogant comes from the latin word which means to claim for one's self. When I claim truth in behalf of my arguments, then, you may say I am arrogant.

Science is an empirical and experimental study of data.

What are you waffling about?

One conducts scientific experiments because physical phenomena are repeatable. Physical phenomena are repeatable because of the premise that MATERIAL PHENOMENA HAVE ONLY MATERIAL CAUSES.

The last statement is the metaphysical premise of A MATERIALIST CONCEPTION. There is no logical proof that it is immutably true.

Philosophy is not.

Not necessarily. Philosophy can be used as a tool for purely rational inquiries.

Science is merely a branch of philosophy - not its anti-thesis.

If you'll allow a little personification here, metaphysics may classify or set models for science all it wants, and science won't care.

Materialism is a philosophical school of thought. Philosophy is an indispensable part of the natural sciences - which was called natural philosophy, then.

Plenty of "extreme meditation" has gone on throughout the world, and yet those people don't get their own religions.

Depends what they are meditating about.

Religion must have an element of appeal in order to stick. When it explains away humanity's natural inborn fears about death, it has appeal.

Appeal can just as easily come from a logical conception.

You never studied history, did you?

Its a required course in college. And history proves me right all the time.

I guess I must have missed them. I'm crying on the inside, really.

You did ask, didn't you?

[9sublime]

Hence the infinity analogy. You need not count to infinity to know that whatever number you come up with, you can simply add 1 to it, indefinitely.

The same reasoning is employed in every facet of life. People can discern these principles simply because the mind is pre-disposed to think abstractly.

I don't see what this has to do with wether or not duality exists. Well done, you know the ontological argument. Maximal greatness can only be given to God. Anything else can always become more great.

My original point was that organized religions are man made and are all relativley similair because as man has made the religions, he has common themes which mankind likes to see in their belief about the afterlife.

However, we seem to have diverged to proving duality in order to prove this, so let us continue.

Thinking up to infinity may prove the mind has the ability to think abstractly, but it doesn't mean that we have duality, and it certainly doesnt mean that a God created us and that the soul side of the duality goes to heaven.

There is the physical world and there is the ideal world - both existing as indispensable parts of the same reality.

And if one can observe this duality in nature, then there is no reason for it not to exist within one's self.

Do you now get it?

Platos theory of forms then?

Do I observe this in nature? When I see a beautiful sunset, do I think to myself, oh, it could be more beautiful in the ideal world. Maybe. But that doesn't guarantee the other world really exists, just because I can imagine it.

I find Kant far more appealing than Anslem and Descartes, who you obviously seem to follow.

I will believe in God when we find some proof. I believe that the mind can think abstractly because the human mind has come up with abstract thoughts all the time, which is proof enough to me.

Duality, as in a body and mind division, cannot be proved, but you can see an metaphysical divison between them which is obvious through the fact that we can think abstractly, and above our basic instincts.

But believing that this duality came from God is irrational.

Believing in God is a priori, and any argument for his existence is based on the unquestioned truth that he exists (or his existence in neccessary for duality). If you do not take it as a given truth that he exists, then you find that logic goes out of the window.
Pure maths has a posteriori, because it has logic to it, and it is clear how the mathmatician got from each step to the next, even if the maths itself is impossible. The fundamental belief in God doesn't have any proof, and the posteriori arguments for his existence can only be based on the priori that he exists in the first place.

So, it is either all true or all fabrication. You do not give any room for the possibility of it being somewhere in the middle? You do not give any room for the possibility of truth existing in allegorical form - through the subjective eyes of the observer? You do not give room for the possibility of some fundamental knowledge wrapped in a tale that is meant to entertain as well as teach?

So you are admitting that religion is simply a lie, wrapped around the truth? Well wont this truth be universal, and so all religions are similiar, but with an outer coating of bollocks?

Only sometime ago, people thought that the trojan war, or king arthur's camelot was all myth. Now, there are archeaological evidence to support the notion that these tales were based on some factual person, place or event - minus the obvious garnishing that is inevitable in any oral tradition.

Yes, but this doesnt prove that religions are all similiar because man likes to make up something which is attractive to him, and round the world, similair themes such as eternal life after death, and a loving creator, are universally attractive.

Likely and unlikely would depend on the logic to be found in its proof.

Yes, and I have yet to be convinced of a logical argument by any of the great philiosophers as to Gods existence.

Cabbage is good for you.

Indeed it is.

E=mc^2 is a scientific statement of universal duality.

So is the wave-particle theory of light.

So is the interaction between the cosmological tendencies of gravity and lambda.

So is the theoretical concept of a space-time singularity.

So is the matter-anti matter creation-annihilation.

So is the relationship of determinism and chaos.

So is the conservation of matter, energy and momentum.

And so on, and on, and on.....

I don't have a further education in maths or physics, but I do have a small amount of further education in philiosophy. As a result, you've lost me. Humour me, and tell me how science, with all its logic and proof, can prove the priori that Gods existence is a given.

[r0beph]

Was it addressed to me?

yes, stop with the newlines...it deserve bannage if it doesn't cease...It makes it a real headache to try and read your posts.

[9sublime]

Well niminus, have I beaten you at your own game of showing off with pretentious philosophy? Your silence seems like it. Please have more logic to your argument than someone who wants to havs sex with a man is not gay.

[numinus]

I don't see what this has to do with wether or not duality exists. Well done, you know the ontological argument.

Child's play.

Maximal greatness can only be given to God. Anything else can always become more great.

It has everything to do with duality.

The same mathematics (idea) that you use to explain physical reality also breaks down when applied to its limits. You cannot point to an infinite physical thing, can you? You cannot divide matter indefinitely. At one point, you are left with an indivisible something.

And if you want a more rigorous exercise in this direction, contemplate the axiom of choice (which deals with uncountably many sets) and how it results in skolem's and banach-tarski paradoxes.

My original point was that organized religions are man made and are all relativley similair because as man has made the religions, he has common themes which mankind likes to see in their belief about the afterlife.

Theology and natural philosophy (science) are THE SAME logical inquiry with completely different premises.

However, we seem to have diverged to proving duality in order to prove this, so let us continue.

Thinking up to infinity may prove the mind has the ability to think abstractly, but it doesn't mean that we have duality, and it certainly doesnt mean that a God created us and that the soul side of the duality goes to heaven.

Let us stick to the basic question of the thread - proving merely the EXISTENCE (and not the nature) of god, shall we?

The argument I am making is that causation (which is the basic premise of science) inevitably leads to a first cause. The alternative, an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress, is ILLOGICAL.

Platos theory of forms then?

That is an example of it. There are many philosophical traditions that adhere to some form of duality. You already know buddhism, no?

Do I observe this in nature? When I see a beautiful sunset, do I think to myself, oh, it could be more beautiful in the ideal world. Maybe. But that doesn't guarantee the other world really exists, just because I can imagine it.

Sigh

Ask yourself what constitutes as immutable, objective and independent reality, and you would realize that only ideas fit this.

I find Kant far more appealing than Anslem and Descartes, who you obviously seem to follow.

Then let us discuss kant. I think such a discussion would be more appropriate in the homosexuality thread. I was hoping to draw acg in a discussion of the comparative merits of hume and kant in that thread. No such luck.

I will believe in God when we find some proof. I believe that the mind can think abstractly because the human mind has come up with abstract thoughts all the time, which is proof enough to me.

Duality, as in a body and mind division, cannot be proved, but you can see an metaphysical divison between them which is obvious through the fact that we can think abstractly, and above our basic instincts.

Ask yourself what constitutes as proof, in your opinion. And lets test your standard of proof using the rigors of logic, shall we?

But believing that this duality came from God is irrational.

Believing in God is a priori, and any argument for his existence is based on the unquestioned truth that he exists (or his existence in neccessary for duality). If you do not take it as a given truth that he exists, then you find that logic goes out of the window.

Pure maths has a posteriori, because it has logic to it, and it is clear how the mathmatician got from each step to the next, even if the maths itself is impossible. The fundamental belief in God doesn't have any proof, and the posteriori arguments for his existence can only be based on the priori that he exists in the first place.

NO NO NO

A priori reasoning is as indispensible to math and science as it is in philosophy. MATHEMATICAL AXIOMS have no formal proof except its intuitive correctness. They are a priori. And if you still don't understand - would you mind giving the formal and rigorous proof of (lets make it grade school simple) the commutative, associative and identity axioms of addition and multiplication.

a+0=a; ax0=a - proof?
a+b=b+a; ab=ba - proof?
(a+b)+c = a+(b+c) - proof?

Any takers?

So you are admitting that religion is simply a lie, wrapped around the truth? Well wont this truth be universal, and so all religions are similiar, but with an outer coating of bollocks?

LOL

That the authors prefered to use allegorical tales to convey truth doesn't mean it is a lie.

And if you insist on applying scientific rigor to an allegorical tale and completely ignore its truth, as some people I know insist on doing, then you are just as dumb as they are.

Yes, but this doesnt prove that religions are all similiar because man likes to make up something which is attractive to him, and round the world, similair themes such as eternal life after death, and a loving creator, are universally attractive.

There is actually some truth in what was considered a mythical tale. Religion and these fanciful tales were transmitted to us through the SAME oral tradition. We marveled at the archeological evidence even if the original authors never meant to give archeological evidence. At the very least, that should prompt any reasonable individual to re-examine his biases.

Yes, and I have yet to be convinced of a logical argument by any of the great philiosophers as to Gods existence.

Have you read the kalam or thomasian cosmological argument, hmm?

Indeed it is.

So why do you think an imperative to eat cabbage, regardless of the imperative's source, is absurd, eh?

I don't have a further education in maths or physics, but I do have a small amount of further education in philiosophy. As a result, you've lost me. Humour me, and tell me how science, with all its logic and proof, can prove the priori that Gods existence is a given.

It is the inevitable conclusion to the premises of science.

[numinus]

Well niminus, have I beaten you at your own game of showing off with pretentious philosophy? Your silence seems like it. Please have more logic to your argument than someone who wants to havs sex with a man is not gay.

LOL

You overestimate your chances in this discussion.

[numinus]

yes, stop with the newlines...it deserve bannage if it doesn't cease...It makes it a real headache to try and read your posts.

Its about dna, isn't it?

I don't remember including dna in my arguments.

[vyo476]

Arrogant comes from the latin word which means to claim for one's self. When I claim truth in behalf of my arguments, then, you may say I am arrogant.

Good to see you're still living in ancient Rome.

What are you waffling about?

One conducts scientific experiments because physical phenomena are repeatable. Physical phenomena are repeatable because of the premise that MATERIAL PHENOMENA HAVE ONLY MATERIAL CAUSES.

The last statement is the metaphysical premise of A MATERIALIST CONCEPTION. There is no logical proof that it is immutably true.

Then please, by all means, go violate the laws of gravity for us. Make sure to get a video as proof.

Not necessarily. Philosophy can be used as a tool for purely rational inquiries.

Science is merely a branch of philosophy - not its anti-thesis.

The Scientific Revolution introduced empiricism and experimentation to the study of "natural philosophy," transforming it into modern day science and separating it from the rest of philosophy.

Materialism is a philosophical school of thought. Philosophy is an indispensable part of the natural sciences - which was called natural philosophy, then.

You're mincing things horribly. Materialism is a school of monist thought, which is a school of metaphysical thought, which is a school of philosophy. The "natural sciences" were also a school of philosophy. "Philosophy" is not a "part" of natural philosophy (which eventually became modern-day science).

Elephants are gray. You wouldn't say that Elephants are an indispensable part of the color gray, would you?

Depends what they are meditating about.

Take our very own Irishone21 for example. Go read some of his posts and tell me why he doesn't get his own religion.

Appeal can just as easily come from a logical conception.

Lacing a lie with elements of the truth can be helpful. This doesn't make it any less a lie.

Its a required course in college. And history proves me right all the time.

Perhaps you'd like to cite a few instances of history proving you right?

You did ask, didn't you?

I asked you to prove it (not mention get yourself published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal since the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God would be a big breakthrough). All you did was state that you already have. If you're not going to dredge up even a link to your actual evidence I'm not going to bother looking for it.


I have a question for you, numinus. If you were right about all this - and that the existence of God is provable - why haven't more people heard about it? Why aren't these studies educational requisites?

[9sublime]

Two questions:

1. Point to an infinite physical object, and I will decide.

2. On what grounds is belief in God logical then?

3. So you admit religion is a lie, but there is an underlying truth in them all?

[r0beph]

Two questions:

1. Point to an infinite physical object, and I will decide.

2. On what grounds is belief in God logical then?

3. So you admit religion is a lie, but there is an underlying truth in them all?

Hahahaha.... He can't. Since you simply cannot measure infinity, even objects, spatial breadths, distances, as with numbers, cannot be defined in any "physical" terms. However one can measure "infinity" abstractly by having an infinite number set, and choosing arbitrarily any number wished. Thus 0, -12, 10^10,000,000,000 and it's all falling within the bounds. Again though this is a level of abstraction that removes the necessity to define a range which does not end. The problem herein is that a range is finite, and infinity is not, yet paradoxically it is a range. Makes your head hurt to think of it. Even thinking in hypothetical physical situations, one cannot think of it well: I have a bag, inside the bag is an infinite amount of space filled with infinite number of objects. Now if you reach into this bag and pull out an orange, place it on a table. The paradox arises now in that, if you removed the orange from a bag full of infinite objects, is that orange still in the bag; if no, then infinity does not exist, as it would HAVE to contain the very orange you just removed; if yes, then where is the orange you just removed, in the bag or on the table. The main thing here is that an infinite object existing in true infinity, would consist of an infinite repetitive nature. ie, if the universe is infinite, one must conclude that there is another earth, since in infinity there must be everything, and single objects must exist elsewhere, since the very object must exist an infinite number of times. Every subsection of infinity is infinite itself due to inheritance.

The belief in a higher power is "logical" if one basis the premise of a higher power on circumstantial evidence and that which one already knows, due to the circumstance and prior assumptions, one could conclude such logical IF there is no other explanation. This is of course, the definition of logic, the analysis of inference; inference is the coming to an assumption based on circumstances and prior conclusions. If the prior conclusions are that of a higher power, one could argue that logic, by DEFINITION, could be a valid label. However, in the face of alternative conclusions and evidence, ignoring the evidence to argue with circular logic (the reference here is more of a sarcasm than intending "logic"), is NOT logic.

I can't read all his posts.

they look like this.

it's quite annoying.

so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

maybe I'll read it later.

I really just wanted to address those two points.

it's early, I should sleep.

bye

oh yeah, does this annoy you guys too?

does me.

ok.

I'm leaving now.

really.

night.

[numinus]

Two questions:

1. Point to an infinite physical object, and I will decide.

Finally! You are still within some form of redemption.

Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY.

2. On what grounds is belief in God logical then?

The cosmological argument proves that when one premises causation, its inevitable conclusion is UNIVERSAL CAUSATION FROM A FIRST CAUSE.

3. So you admit religion is a lie, but there is an underlying truth in them all?

If you are talking about the rituals that accompany religion, yes. They mean nothing except to those who take part in them. They are external manifestations of an immutable truth.

[numinus]

Hahahaha.... He can't. Since you simply cannot measure infinity, even objects, spatial breadths, distances, as with numbers, cannot be defined in any "physical" terms. However one can measure "infinity" abstractly by having an infinite number set, and choosing arbitrarily any number wished. Thus 0, -12, 10^10,000,000,000 and it's all falling within the bounds. Again though this is a level of abstraction that removes the necessity to define a range which does not end. The problem herein is that a range is finite, and infinity is not, yet paradoxically it is a range. Makes your head hurt to think of it. Even thinking in hypothetical physical situations, one cannot think of it well: I have a bag, inside the bag is an infinite amount of space filled with infinite number of objects. Now if you reach into this bag and pull out an orange, place it on a table. The paradox arises now in that, if you removed the orange from a bag full of infinite objects, is that orange still in the bag; if no, then infinity does not exist, as it would HAVE to contain the very orange you just removed; if yes, then where is the orange you just removed, in the bag or on the table. The main thing here is that an infinite object existing in true infinity, would consist of an infinite repetitive nature. ie, if the universe is infinite, one must conclude that there is another earth, since in infinity there must be everything, and single objects must exist elsewhere, since the very object must exist an infinite number of times. Every subsection of infinity is infinite itself due to inheritance.

The belief in a higher power is "logical" if one basis the premise of a higher power on circumstantial evidence and that which one already knows, due to the circumstance and prior assumptions, one could conclude such logical IF there is no other explanation. This is of course, the definition of logic, the analysis of inference; inference is the coming to an assumption based on circumstances and prior conclusions. If the prior conclusions are that of a higher power, one could argue that logic, by DEFINITION, could be a valid label. However, in the face of alternative conclusions and evidence, ignoring the evidence to argue with circular logic (the reference here is more of a sarcasm than intending "logic"), is NOT logic.

I can't read all his posts.

they look like this.

it's quite annoying.

so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

maybe I'll read it later.

I really just wanted to address those two points.

it's early, I should sleep.

bye

oh yeah, does this annoy you guys too?

does me.

ok.

I'm leaving now.

really.

night.

There is the theoretical space-time singularity from which all cosmological models ensue. It is something that has NO SPACE, NO TIME, INFINITE GRAVITY, AND INFINITE DENSITY.

There are theoretical particles called tacheon which physicists believe travel FASTER THAN LIGHT. Do I need to explain how infinity is related to faster than light speed, hmmm?

Your science have no problem postulating infinity, as long as the one's claiming them have Phd's, eh?

But if the common man employs some of his god given critical thought, and comes up with the same infinity logically, he is stupid and arrogant, eh?

You need not answer. It is enough that you are proven to be a bogus intellectual with nothing but pure excrement to say.

[numinus]

The Scientific Revolution introduced empiricism and experimentation to the study of "natural philosophy," transforming it into modern day science and separating it from the rest of philosophy.

The methodology changed. The premises remain the same.

You're mincing things horribly. Materialism is a school of monist thought, which is a school of metaphysical thought, which is a school of philosophy. The "natural sciences" were also a school of philosophy. "Philosophy" is not a "part" of natural philosophy (which eventually became modern-day science).

Go look at the taxonomical dileneation of human knowledge. You'd find philosophy, mathematics and logic at the top and the natural sciences merely a sub group of one of them.

I asked you to prove it (not mention get yourself published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal since the ability to conclusively prove the existence of God would be a big breakthrough). All you did was state that you already have. If you're not going to dredge up even a link to your actual evidence I'm not going to bother looking for it.

Everything I said are published.

I have a question for you, numinus. If you were right about all this - and that the existence of God is provable - why haven't more people heard about it? Why aren't these studies educational requisites?

You mean math, science and philosphy are not pre-requisite courses for most college degrees? I can understand the cosmological argument being by-passed (since americans go throught extreme psychological pain learning anything resembling religion) but don't tell me you have no idea of calculus, and physics?

[9sublime]

Finally! You are still within some form of redemption.

Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY.

Just because we can think up pure maths, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we can think about having a soul, seperate from our body, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we think about God, it doesn't mean he exists. You really do love Anselm and Descrates don't you.

The cosmological argument proves that when one premises causation, its inevitable conclusion is UNIVERSAL CAUSATION FROM A FIRST CAUSE.

Yes, but where is this first cause from? He is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, as Aristotle said. It doesn't have the same logic pure maths has. The belief in God, and any arguments to prove his existence requires his existence to be taken as a given.

If you are talking about the rituals that accompany religion, yes. They mean nothing except to those who take part in them. They are external manifestations of an immutable truth.

And what is this immutable truth?

Because buddishm and Christianity seem to differ somewhat. Although most monotheist religions seem to fit a selection of rules to do with their invention by human nature, polytheist and especially Eastern religions do not fit the same pattern (but are still clearly man made in an attempt to satisfy their desire for the knowledge on what happens after death).

[numinus]

Just because we can think up pure maths, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we can think about having a soul, seperate from our body, doesn't mean it exists. Just like if we think about God, it doesn't mean he exists. You really do love Anselm and Descrates don't you.

LOL

Math is one of the few concepts that is truly OBJECTIVE, IMMUTABLE AND UNIVERSAL. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of its operation can reach the SAME MATHEMATICAL CONCLUSIONS, anytime, anywhere. It doesn't matter how many fingers you have (which I imagine would determine one's predisposition to a number system), the value and properties of numbers and their operation remain the same. That means, pi, or the natural logarithmic base e, and a host of transcendental numbers are non-repeating, non-terminating, transendental numbers in base 2, 3, 10 or n number system.

And if something that is as objective, immutable and universal as math still doesn't exist, then what the hell does, eh?

Oh, and btw, aside from descarte's contribution to math (more specifically, the cartesian coordinate system), I think very little of him as a philosopher.

Yes, but where is this first cause from? He is the prime mover, the uncaused cause, as Aristotle said.

Good to see you answer your own question. If the first cause came from some other cause, then it wouldn't be the FIRST, now, would it?

It doesn't have the same logic pure maths has.

What are you talking about??? Negative logic is ALWAYS used in math.

The belief in God, and any arguments to prove his existence requires his existence to be taken as a given.
Not at all.

Either the first cause is true or its contradiction (an infinite chain of causality or an infinite regress) is true. They cannot both be true.

But, we have already postulated the operation of causality, haven't we? It is EXPLICIT when you keep asking - where is the evidence? And for every cause, it has another cause, and another, and another unitl hell freezes over. At some point, you must reach an UNCAUSED CAUSE. And such a cause is said to be NECESSARY, because it could NEVER BE OTHERWISE.

The same reasoning can be said about dividing a finite object. At some point, you get something that is INDIVISIBLE. Otherwise, you will wind up with an infinite number of pieces of nothing.

And what is this immutable truth?

That god exists.

Because buddishm and Christianity seem to differ somewhat. Although most monotheist religions seem to fit a selection of rules to do with their invention by human nature, polytheist and especially Eastern religions do not fit the same pattern (but are still clearly man made in an attempt to satisfy their desire for the knowledge on what happens after death).

Sigh.

Perception is utterly subjective. And because it is subjective, some human knowledge, naturally, are subjective as well. Add this subjectivity with a couple of thousand years of oral tradition and you have an iota of objective truth mixed in with a ton of subjective perceptions.

Now, do you throw away a ton of subjectivity, along with an ounce of objective truth, or do you painstakingly sift through the muck. Some people, just for the sake of knowing, would do the latter alternative. If you are inclined to the former, then what the hell is that gray matter between your ears for? Excess baggage?

[r0beph]

That god exists.


This is the immutable truth, derived from what? A book? What ensures that this is "the book" which contains the truth, why not the koran, why not the bagagavita, why not David Koresh's orations? You're using a book which has no more "proof" of being factual than any other religious text, as the basis of this conclusion, your conclusion is not based upon logic, its based on your upbringing, your environment (obviously a christian one). How does this make sense, even when according to your rules? One ignores the evidence of different higher powers, evidence that is AS FACTUAL as the bible, such as the koran and bagavagita (hindu), And ignore them, for the bible. HOW numunis, is this a valid line of reasoning, you have 3 very major, very concise manuals on spiritual development and belief, yet you believe only one, on what basis? It was the one you were first exposed to. Nothing more, nothing less, that is laughable.

[r0beph]

There is the theoretical space-time singularity from which all cosmological models ensue. It is something that has NO SPACE, NO TIME, INFINITE GRAVITY, AND INFINITE DENSITY.


not exactly, but i think trying to explain such things will fall on deaf ears.


There are theoretical particles called tacheon which physicists believe travel FASTER THAN LIGHT. Do I need to explain how infinity is related to faster than light speed, hmmm?
lol, and the tachyon, well, it's a theory from the 60s and has been pretty much walked away from. FTL speed of information is purely impossible, that is as it is. FTL travel, isn't really the issue, save that transmission
information isn't contained within the particle/etc (although none exist ) information, since this would violate causality. anyhow, this is niether here nor there, since most physicists don't really consider tachyons in any form.


Your science have no problem postulating infinity, as long as the one's claiming them have Phd's, eh?
Science finds no issue postulating anything, as long as their is logical reason and evidence for postulation. PhD has no basis in whether its accepted or otherwise. Infinity as you describe it is not the same as the mathmatic infinity, per se. for example,

Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate

That is full, this is full
From the full, the full is subtracted
When the full is taken from the full
The full still will remain.

The idea here is that, you cannot subtract nor add to true infinity, well, you can, but it still remains infinity, Inf. + 1 = Inf. no more, no less, as these concepts do not apply to infinity, it is as it is a special quantity (bounding), with no variance in "size" (length, range, etc) no matter how much you add or remove. Inf + Inf. = Inf. It is but a small bit of poetic mathmatic poetry from (c)400bc indian text, that adequately describes true infinity. Which gets to another point; Infinity is not always true. They use infinity to describe many "types" of infinity. a distinction can be made between the countless infinities, and innumerable and endless, unlimited infinities, as well as between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities. It all depends on the situation it describes. Infinity is an expression of mathematics. None of this really has anything to do with an argument around god, no one says infinity cannot exist, however its existence is unconfirmable. You're trying to argue something of dogmatic quantity using scientific quantifiers, this is like portioning food based on its weight on a scale that lists troy ounces, and trying to say its an ounce.

But if the common man employs some of his god given critical thought, and comes up with the same infinity logically, he is stupid and arrogant, eh?
The problem is, infinity is a well defined quantifier / bound, to use this well defined concept one must use it in applications that also follow the same rule, you're not postulating infinity, you're using a word you heard and feel it best describes something you in truth have no idea about, ie God, how do you know God, talked to him? Seen Him? Smelled Him? Felt His warm hands on your Buttocks? Heard him screaming at you for just not getting it? No, everything you "know" of god came from a book, which is a collection of "empiric" evidence collected by people who stated thing which have not been empirically reproduced at any point since. That's it, a book, that people wrote, and translated, and wrote some more, and returned to another language, just to retranslate it. This is not evidence of anything, I'll concede one thing, there are things we don't understand, I say to continue our search for knowledge, you on the otherhand postulate WE DO understand WHY, and we simply disregard anything empiric that may weaken that argument.

You need not answer. It is enough that you are proven to be a bogus intellectual with nothing but pure excrement to say.

Excrement? I see, nothing like the pseudo-science you spit out, right? I mean, my education and understanding of the sciences mean nothing I'm sure, your warping of well ingrained and standard scientific practices and observations to suit your will, shall be disregarded, since that's A-Ok.....right? lol...lame argument.

[r0beph]

Also...."Infinite density" that you described, isn't in true infinity. However to make sense of extreme densities, they use infinity because this defines the bounds of the density as being more than the current for all intents and purposes. However as the series of
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/7/4/b7431d1a81f89e0477f906301d8de2ea.png
as shown, converges to a real value X.

This is infinity, however, X shows that sum of the infinite series is a real number, which means that it is not TRUE infinity. So don't gimme that...because your derivation of the nature of infinity is flawed.

[numinus]

This is the immutable truth, derived from what? A book? What ensures that this is "the book" which contains the truth, why not the koran, why not the bagagavita, why not David Koresh's orations? You're using a book which has no more "proof" of being factual than any other religious text, as the basis of this conclusion, your conclusion is not based upon logic, its based on your upbringing, your environment (obviously a christian one). How does this make sense, even when according to your rules? One ignores the evidence of different higher powers, evidence that is AS FACTUAL as the bible, such as the koran and bagavagita (hindu), And ignore them, for the bible. HOW numunis, is this a valid line of reasoning, you have 3 very major, very concise manuals on spiritual development and belief, yet you believe only one, on what basis? It was the one you were first exposed to. Nothing more, nothing less, that is laughable.

Did I say it comes from a book? Do you even know how to read?

This truth comes from the OPERATION OF LOGIC. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and logic can arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION.

[numinus]

not exactly, but i think trying to explain such things will fall on deaf ears.

It will arrive with no effect on dull minds, more like it. And so, dull minds can only laugh out loud and pretend it is something other than what it is - dull.

lol, and the tachyon, well, it's a theory from the 60s and has been pretty much walked away from. FTL speed of information is purely impossible, that is as it is. FTL travel, isn't really the issue, save that transmission
information isn't contained within the particle/etc (although none exist ) information, since this would violate causality. anyhow, this is niether here nor there, since most physicists don't really consider tachyons in any form.

You are not aware that the leading cosmological model today, derived from alan guth's inflation, suggests precisely the VARIANCE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT???

Why am I not surprised?

Don't berate yourself too much though. The ability to understand higher math and physics is a genetic predisposition.

Science finds no issue postulating anything, as long as their is logical reason and evidence for postulation. PhD has no basis in whether its accepted or otherwise. Infinity as you describe it is not the same as the mathmatic infinity, per se. for example,

Then you have no idea whatsoever, in the field of theoretical physics. There are countless subjects of research that are accepted by DEFAULT.

[QUOTE=r0beph;25468]Pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam
pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate
pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya
pūrṇam evāvasiṣyate

That is full, this is full
From the full, the full is subtracted
When the full is taken from the full
The full still will remain.

The idea here is that, you cannot subtract nor add to true infinity, well, you can, but it still remains infinity, Inf. + 1 = Inf. no more, no less, as these concepts do not apply to infinity, it is as it is a special quantity (bounding), with no variance in "size" (length, range, etc) no matter how much you add or remove. Inf + Inf. = Inf. It is but a small bit of poetic mathmatic poetry from (c)400bc indian text, that adequately describes true infinity. Which gets to another point; Infinity is not always true. They use infinity to describe many "types" of infinity. a distinction can be made between the countless infinities, and innumerable and endless, unlimited infinities, as well as between rigidly bounded and loosely bounded infinities. It all depends on the situation it describes. Infinity is an expression of mathematics. None of this really has anything to do with an argument around god, no one says infinity cannot exist, however its existence is unconfirmable. You're trying to argue something of dogmatic quantity using scientific quantifiers, this is like portioning food based on its weight on a scale that lists troy ounces, and trying to say its an ounce.

Infinity conforms with both the cardinality and ordinality in the real number system. It is as real as the real number system itself, and your attempt to define it through poetry is nothing short of laughable. Try googling transcendental numbers to see what I mean.

The problem is, infinity is a well defined quantifier / bound, to use this well defined concept one must use it in applications that also follow the same rule, you're not postulating infinity, you're using a word you heard and feel it best describes something you in truth have no idea about, ie God, how do you know God, talked to him? Seen Him? Smelled Him? Felt His warm hands on your Buttocks? Heard him screaming at you for just not getting it? No, everything you "know" of god came from a book, which is a collection of "empiric" evidence collected by people who stated thing which have not been empirically reproduced at any point since. That's it, a book, that people wrote, and translated, and wrote some more, and returned to another language, just to retranslate it. This is not evidence of anything, I'll concede one thing, there are things we don't understand, I say to continue our search for knowledge, you on the otherhand postulate WE DO understand WHY, and we simply disregard anything empiric that may weaken that argument.

What is this??? Real is what you can percieve with your senses???? No two individuals would ever 'percieve' an external object EXACTLY THE SAME. An apple, for instance, would vary in color, smell, texture, taste, etc as there are individuals who 'percieve' the apple. And for someone, who hasn't seen an apple, any description of its sensory qualities would be entirely meaningless.

Logic and math on the other hand, would arrive at EXACTLY the same conclusions, would operate within EXACTLY the same rules, and would have EXACTLY the same properties, regardless of ANY sensory perception.

The only way that this cannot be is if one is talking to a mind that is hopelessly ignorant. Someone who pretends to debate on mathematical concepts without knowing that mathematical truths are NON-DEBATEABLE.

Excrement? I see, nothing like the pseudo-science you spit out, right? I mean, my education and understanding of the sciences mean nothing I'm sure, your warping of well ingrained and standard scientific practices and observations to suit your will, shall be disregarded, since that's A-Ok.....right? lol...lame argument.

And what have I said that you think is psuedo-science, hmmm?

[numinus]

Also...."Infinite density" that you described, isn't in true infinity. However to make sense of extreme densities, they use infinity because this defines the bounds of the density as being more than the current for all intents and purposes. However as the series of
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/7/4/b7431d1a81f89e0477f906301d8de2ea.png
as shown, converges to a real value X.

This is infinity, however, X shows that sum of the infinite series is a real number, which means that it is not TRUE infinity. So don't gimme that...because your derivation of the nature of infinity is flawed.

You need to stop this nonsense before you bust an artery or something.

The infinite density comes from cramming all the mass of the universe into a single, non-spatial point - hence the term SINGULARITY.

It comes from the relativistic phenomenon of LENGTH CONTRACTION that occur when something travels at the speed of light or in the presence of an infinite gravitational field. All mathematical equations break down when it approaches this simply because of HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY. The lower limit of all OBSERVEABLE PHENOMENON is related to planck's constant.

Now, it might be difficult for you to comprehend a space-time singularity in terms other than poetry, so you just have to take my word for it - ALL VALID PHYSICAL COSMOLOGICAL MODEL TODAY RESTS ON THIS SINGULARITY I AM REFERING TO.

[r0beph]

You need to stop this nonsense before you bust an artery or something.

it's not my nonsense, I'm versed enough in physics to understand this stuff, you however are making some serious mistakes in understanding

The infinite density comes from cramming all the mass of the universe into a single, non-spatial point - hence the term SINGULARITY.
That isn't what it is, I'm sorry, it simply is not. A singularity occurs when spacetime is infinitely curved (gravity is an effect we define as the curvature of spacetime) This has nothing to do with infinite density...lol. What you're saying is blatantly false, the density cannot become infinite because density, rather, mass is a finite variable, as per thermodynamics conservation. Let me break that one down real quick. If I have an object (Y) of infinite mass, and I remove X amount of mass, [(Y)-(X)=Inf.] For example, (Y) MUST BE Inf. (X) = 10 (it's arbitrary, you can choose any number), however it is, we have created mass, a clear violation. The singularity is due to Lorentz Contractions (or as you said, Length Contractions)this is due to the curvature of spacetime in accordance with gravity, causing acceleration, and thus speed, and thus contraction (to the external stationary observer).

A singularity isn't all that "strange" in contemplating, You have the schawzschild radius, for example, the sun, has about a 3km S.R., if the mass of the sun was reduced to >3km, we have a black hole, cool huh? The funny thing is, unlike your assumption, I have to point out that a schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to the mass of the object, again, infinite mass would result in an infinite schwarzsfield radius, which observably NOT the case.

It comes from the relativistic phenomenon of LENGTH CONTRACTION that occur when something travels at the speed of light or in the presence of an infinite gravitational field. All mathematical equations break down when it approaches this simply because of HEISENBERG'S UNCERTAINTY.
woah there tito, you're mixing quantum physics and general relativity, that's a no no, one of the biggest problems today is trying to tie the two theories into one (you've surely heard the term unified relativity, that's what that calls for, it hasn't happened..) HUP is quantum Physics, space time curvature is General Relativity. (See quantum physics doesn't need gravity, cos in particle physics, in most areas, gravity makes no difference)

The lower limit of all OBSERVEABLE PHENOMENON is related to planck's constant.
It's Planck's Constant = 6.62606896(~33) (10^-34(J·s)) the smallest? no. not really. Planck's is used to measure quanta; BUT WAIT,THERE'S MORE!
You have Dirac's Constant, which is smaller by a factor of 2(pi), I'll save you the actual equation, you can look it up. It also measures quantization, oooh, which is a phenomena...


Now, it might be difficult for you to comprehend a space-time singularity in terms other than poetry, so you just have to take my word for it - ALL VALID PHYSICAL COSMOLOGICAL MODEL TODAY RESTS ON THIS SINGULARITY I AM REFERING TO.

Not really.

[numinus]

it's not my nonsense, I'm versed enough in physics to understand this stuff, you however are making some serious mistakes in understanding

Apparently nott.

That isn't what it is, I'm sorry, it simply is not. A singularity occurs when spacetime is infinitely curved (gravity is an effect we define as the curvature of spacetime) This has nothing to do with infinite density...lol.

Nonsense.

From wiki:

"A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become INFINTE. Such quantities include the curvature of spacetime or the density of matter. More accurately, a spacetime with a singularity contains geodesics which cannot be completed in a smooth manner. The limit of such a geodesic is the singularity."

Are you still inclined to debate an EXPLICIT mathematical description? Do you have ample background on differential geometry to discuss geodesics with me?

What you're saying is blatantly false, the density cannot become infinite because density, rather, mass is a finite variable, as per thermodynamics conservation.

LMAO.

density = mass/volume

In a spatial singularity, linear measure in ALL directions are contracted to 0 - which in geometry, means a dimensionless POINT, or (if you are inclined to think in terms of differential geometry) infinitely curved space. From the equation above, DENSITY APPROACHES INFINITY AS VOLUME APPROACHES ZERO.

You don't know jack ****.

Let me break that one down real quick. If I have an object (Y) of infinite mass, and I remove X amount of mass, [(Y)-(X)=Inf.] For example, (Y) MUST BE Inf. (X) = 10 (it's arbitrary, you can choose any number), however it is, we have created mass, a clear violation.

The singularity is due to Lorentz Contractions (or as you said, Length Contractions)this is due to the curvature of spacetime in accordance with gravity, causing acceleration, and thus speed, and thus contraction (to the external stationary observer).

You are patently confused.

The lorentz factor figures in SPECIAL RELATIVITY. The lorentz factor (gamma) = 1/(1-(v^2/c^2)^1/2 where v=the velocity and c is the absolute speed of light in vacuum. In special relativity, the expression for the lorentz invariant quantities of energy, mass, length and time DOES NOT INVOLVE GRAVITY.

The curvature of space-time is expressed in einstein's field equation (efe) as a result of GENERAL RELATIVITY.

A singularity isn't all that "strange" in contemplating, You have the schawzschild radius, for example, the sun, has about a 3km S.R., if the mass of the sun was reduced to >3km, we have a black hole, cool huh? The funny thing is, unlike your assumption, I have to point out that a schwarzschild radius is directly proportional to the mass of the object, again, infinite mass would result in an infinite schwarzsfield radius, which observably NOT the case.

Correct. The geodesic is smooth for a schwarzchild singularity at the EVENT HORIZON.

However, what do you suppose happens at the CENTER of a schwarzchild singularity, hmmm?

woah there tito, you're mixing quantum physics and general relativity, that's a no no, one of the biggest problems today is trying to tie the two theories into one (you've surely heard the term unified relativity, that's what that calls for, it hasn't happened..) HUP is quantum Physics, space time curvature is General Relativity. (See quantum physics doesn't need gravity, cos in particle physics, in most areas, gravity makes no difference)

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

Matter and energy are quantized. They behave as particles with velocity - hence quantum mechanics. Any particle in an inertial reference frame is SUBJECT to length contraction. That is why the experimental confirmation of length contraction in SPECIAL RELATIVITY comes from radioactive particles from space.

Gravity, however, is not quantized. It does not have a fundamental, indivisible unit nor does it behave as a particle.

Capice?

It's Planck's Constant = 6.62606896(~33) (10^-34(J·s)) the smallest? no. not really. Planck's is used to measure quanta; BUT WAIT,THERE'S MORE!
You have Dirac's Constant, which is smaller by a factor of 2(pi), I'll save you the actual equation, you can look it up. It also measures quantization, oooh, which is a phenomena...

LMAO. You are merely cutting and pasting without understanding. Only a buffoon does that.

From wiki:

The Dirac constant or the "reduced Planck constant", , differs only from the Planck constant by a factor of 2π. The Planck constant is stated in SI units of measurement, joules per hertz, or joules per (cycle per second), while the Dirac constant is the same value stated in joules per (radian per second).

In essence, the Dirac constant is a conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrödinger equation. The Planck constant is similarly a conversion factor between phase (in cycles) and action. All other uses of Planck's constant and Dirac's constant follow from that.

Not really.

LMAO some more. Again, from wiki:

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.

Now, unless you are suggesting a cosmology that did not come from a big bang, I'd say you have thoroughly made a fool of yourself.

[r0beph]

I had replied to your last post, and accidentally closed my firefox tab... ack.


let me try again, I'll cover the basics.

First, mass never is infinite. a/0 is NOT "infinity" per se. the math behind division by zero is a kooky bit. Depending on your setting, the definition changes. In normal real numerics, a/o is meaningless, its not infinity, it's simply, nonsense. It can also be the "not a number" number, in other mathematic settings. It can appear to be infinite, such as in limits, it'd obviously try to run off your graph forever, but, alas, it doesn't really work that way. Of course you'll happily suffice with mathematic reasoning from 1500 years ago to supplement your skewed view.

You have two notes here in the beginning. First, you say a singularity has infinite mass and gravity, yet you follow up saying, density is infinite, as shown by m/v, yet, what is m/v? Inf./0? You're mixing things up and making a real mess here bud, sorry, but you're way off base.

As for Lorentz and his contraction. You say it's not related to gravity (although in your originally you DID say this O.o) But I'll bite. ---

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.


As for Planck, yeah, both mean pretty much the same thing, however, dirac's is still smaller numerically ;), which is about as important to this conversation as you even bringing up planck, which was totally misplaced in your original post anyhow.


as for the cosmological singularity of the big bang, yeah we can't go back beyond the point where matter is compressed within planck's length, simply because it's surmised at this point, relativity fails and quantum physics comes into full effect, and since relativity and quantum physics is NOT unified (as I stated) Relativity fails :-D...

I'm not sure why you continue the attacks, calling me stupid doesn't make you anymore right, and you simply aren't right. I've not cut and pasted anything to be honest, search for any bit of any of my posts and you'll find that rarely will any of it pop up anywhere in google, You try to make things fuzzy with incomplete knowledge of how things work, your physics suck, plain and simple, horribly, stop trying.

[numinus]

I had replied to your last post, and accidentally closed my firefox tab... ack.


let me try again, I'll cover the basics.

First, mass never is infinite. a/0 is NOT "infinity" per se. the math behind division by zero is a kooky bit. Depending on your setting, the definition changes. In normal real numerics, a/o is meaningless, its not infinity, it's simply, nonsense. It can also be the "not a number" number, in other mathematic settings. It can appear to be infinite, such as in limits, it'd obviously try to run off your graph forever, but, alas, it doesn't really work that way. Of course you'll happily suffice with mathematic reasoning from 1500 years ago to supplement your skewed view.

You have two notes here in the beginning. First, you say a singularity has infinite mass and gravity, yet you follow up saying, density is infinite, as shown by m/v, yet, what is m/v? Inf./0? You're mixing things up and making a real mess here bud, sorry, but you're way off base.

Nonsense.

First, you must understand the relationship between a mathematical concept and the physical phenomenon it is supposed to portray. For instance, a negative quantity in a mathematical equation corresponds to a particular direction of say, a vector quantity. Changing mathematical sign conventions do not change the scientific law in any fundamental way. Are you with me so far?

The physical interpretation of a singularity - the situation when mathematical equations for the gravitational field becomes infinite - is a phenomenon where ALL RATIONAL PHYSICAL LAWS BREAK DOWN. And when the laws of physics no longer applies (having no physically measureable quantity) only means that such a PHENOMENON IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF INQUIRY.

Now, if the PHYSICAL LAWS NO LONGER APPLY, how in hell can you assert that the conservation of mass and energy is being followed, eh? And is not that the jist of all this argument - THAT FROM A PHYSICALLY IRRATIONAL SINGULARITY TO A PHYSICALLY RATIONAL UNIVERSE NECESSARILY DESCRIBES AN ACT OF CREATION.

As for Lorentz and his contraction. You say it's not related to gravity (although in your originally you DID say this O.o) But I'll bite. ---

I did no such thing. You were the one who equated lorentz contraction to length contraction - which is obviously false to anyone who is familiar with the mathematical derivation of the lorentz factor.

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.

LMAO.

Such verbosity to cover an obvious lapse in facts. The lorentz factor describes the length contraction in SPECIAL RELATIVITY. If you are talking about gravity and the curvature of space, then that is clearly about GENERAL RELATIVITY, hence does not involve LORENTZ ANYTHING.

However, the phenomenon of length contraction occurs in both special and general relativity (using DIFFERENT derivations and mathematical expression) according to the equivalence principle.

As for Planck, yeah, both mean pretty much the same thing, however, dirac's is still smaller numerically ;), which is about as important to this conversation as you even bringing up planck, which was totally misplaced in your original post anyhow.

Good god, you are ignorant!

2.54 cm = 1 inch - refers to the SAME PHYSICAL LENGTH even if they are 'numerically' different. That is the essence of conversion factors, isn't it? That no matter what unit measure you are inclined to use, you will arrive at something that is EXACTLY THE SAME.

LMAO till I pee in my pants.

as for the cosmological singularity of the big bang, yeah we can't go back beyond the point where matter is compressed within planck's length, simply because it's surmised at this point, relativity fails and quantum physics comes into full effect, and since relativity and quantum physics is NOT unified (as I stated) Relativity fails :-D...

What ignorant nonsense.

Particles, whether quanta of energy or matter behaves according to relativity. What the absence of a unifying theory simply means is that gravity does not exist as quanta. Something that does not exist as quanta couldn't possibly follow quantum mechanical laws, could it? That does not mean that PARTICLES are NOT subject to the laws described in general relativity.

I'm not sure why you continue the attacks, calling me stupid doesn't make you anymore right, and you simply aren't right. I've not cut and pasted anything to be honest, search for any bit of any of my posts and you'll find that rarely will any of it pop up anywhere in google, You try to make things fuzzy with incomplete knowledge of how things work, your physics suck, plain and simple, horribly, stop trying.

I do not presume to call you anything other than what your posts logically suggests. Quite frankly, it suggests an utter ignorance on the present subject matter.

[numinus]

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, Gravity can be defined as velocity over time also known as acceleration. Here on earth? about 10m/s is our the gravity. Now what do you suppose is needed for acceleration? Distance? We're falling through curved space towards that which we're attracted to. Now with a singularity, chances while your buddy on earth saw you smash into the singularity years ago, due to spacetime being rather curvy due to the gravity you'd have plenty of spacetime to accelerate towards light speed, either way lorentz is happy with gravity as the proponent of velocity.

It pains me to point out the ignorance in your post, but I'm compelled, lest anyone is dumb enough to believe it.

Gravity can NEVER be defined as acceleration, whether you are talking of newtonian or einsteinian mechanics. From newton's laws :

FG = -GMm/r^2 = ma.

Notice that in the absence of a mass affected by gravity, the expression becomes undefined:

a = (-GMm/r^2)/m = (-GMm/r^2)x(1/m), undefined for m=0.

But we know gravity is there even in the absence of a mass accelerating under its influence, no? And so, there is an inherent limitation in thinking gravity as a form of acceleration. Rather, einstein viewed it as a tendency to curve spacetime, which in no way, is fatal to newton's assertions.

And so, a clear distinction is made between gravity and the force or acceleration due to gravity.

[r0beph]

.....Of course there is a distinction, however, for my argument it suffices. I said CAN be, not that it "IS." You're a real piece of work, and I giggle when I read your posts...then I feel bad.

[numinus]

.....Of course there is a distinction, however, for my argument it suffices. I said CAN be, not that it "IS." You're a real piece of work, and I giggle when I read your posts...then I feel bad.

Unfortunately, it does not suffice.

Thinking of gravity as an acceleration DOES NOT demonstrate curvature of spacetime - which you state in the first 2 sentences of that particular paragraph. What you demonstrated is an apparent contradiction. Newton's laws occur in EUCLIDEAN SPACE. Einstein's relativity - in NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE.

Please stop saving face and own up to your errors.

[invest07]

rObeph

I have done some research on your concept that mutations are not really random. You seem to be referring to the hypothesis of “Directed Mutation”. I found a very succinct definition of directed mutation and it’s implications (the underlines are mine):

"The phenomenon of directed (adaptive) mutations has kept the attention of biologists for several years. It contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology. According to the phenomena, directed mutations arise not as a result of a blind variation on the genetical level and consequent selection (as the paradigm insists), but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole. However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified." --Vasily V. Ogryzko, NIH Bethesda Maryland

It (Directed mutation) “contradicts the darwinian theory of evolution and the central dogma of molecular biology, which are the two corner-stones of the current paradigm in biology.”

Are you and coyote really prepared to go here? Directed mutation, which is still unproven and rejected by most Macroegans, has the potential to upset the entire apple cart upon which the hypothesis of Macroevolution so precariously rests.

“but by some sort of purposeful behavior of the cell as a whole“ I warn you that you don’t yet know what lies down the DM road and this statement sounds a lot like ID to me.

“However, no mechanisms for this behavior has yet been identified.". Are you really prepared to throw most of accepted Macroevolutionary theory out the door when the mechanism for DM is still unknown? And what is your plan if the only plausible explanation of DM should turn out to be ID? At this point in time, you really don't know what is ahead on this road.

One of the papers of J Cairns introduced DM to the world of Darwininian biology. And even he has serious doubts. "Mutations arise continuously and without any consideration for their utility" -- J. Cairns.

“There exists no acceptable mechanism by which a life form can steer its own evolutionary way; that is, shape its own genome. What besides natural selection can do this?”
From Science Frontiers #75, MAY-JUN 1991. © 1991-2000 William R. Corliss

"The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."
A.S. Moffat in American Scientist.

DM, which is unproven, has no mechanism and is flat out rejected by most in the MacroE world, has the potential to destroy the precious “Tree of Life” you Darwinistas love so much. It may mean that I have more in common with alligators or brown pelicans than humans from Canada or Europe. I mean we have all been exposed to the same Florida heat, climate and disease for several generations. And, if this is true, who is the parent? Did one of my ancestors give birth to the first gator or was it the other way around?

Are you really prepared to tear down the "Tree of Life"? Are you really prepared to stuff most of Macroevolutionary theory into the trash can?

I ask you again, are you really prepared to go there?

I have a name for coyote's unnamed force. Why don't we call it the Tinkerbell force? When we can't explain something with science we can always use pixie dust.

Even if DM should prove to be true, it still doesn't answer the question of "How did all those 6 billion complex chemicals get into the right order and right slot?"

I'm sticking with my version. The possible combinations of all those 6 billion complex chemicals is such an astronomically huge number (4 raised to the 6 billionth power) that even with a boost from DM, it still is unrealistic. There has not been enough time. No where near enough time. Not enough time by a factor of billions and trillions of years.

And do you have an answer for my original premise? Can you point out even one code or language that you can positively demonstrate arose without intelligence?

[invest07]

9sublime

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

[invest07]

coyote
"Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order."
I explained these in my first post. These are examples of patterns are not designs or codes/languages.

""No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.".
The entropy of a closed system does decrease and that is the point of the 2cd law of thermodynamics. The total amount of energy remains constant but the amount of energy which is availably to perform useful work diminishes. That is one definition of entropy. The 2cd law of thermodynamics has been mistated in your statement form Talk Origins.

Life is a net consumer of energy because life increases entropy. Life consumes useful energy and returns less useful energy than it consumes to the universe. The total energy does not change, only the useful energy dimishes and unuseful energy slowly increases.

The overall direction of the universe is winding down. And increasing entropy is the reason. As stars burn out, they are moving from a higher order of complexity to a lower. If you believe the Big Bang, then entropy was at it's lowest level 1 second after the singularity exploded and has been increasing ever since.

Regardless of how you Darwinistas spin entropy, increasing complexity over time violates the law of entropy. The entire universe is going the other way.

[invest07]

questerr
"I have a question about you assessment of evolution violating thermodynamics (if it really did, don't you think all physicists would reject evolution?) and life being asystem that is always in a state of declining energy: It what you say is the case, wouldn't the birth of new life violate thermodynamics? Wouldn't growth violate thermodynamics?"

Many physicists do reject evolution.
dissentfromdarwi.orgn and doctorsdissentingdarwin have seceral hundred people of science who reject Macroevolution.
And if you ever get the chance to ask a physicist about this, they will say there are no known exceptions to the 2cd Law.

A new life being born does not violate the 2cd Law. The 2cd law requires decreasing complexity, over time. Macroe evolution re

[invest07]

coyote
Here is the actual wording of the 2cd Law. It is quite different than the wording used by Talk Origins.
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

Notice that the starting energy is ALWAYS the highest and that entropy is a measure of disorder.

[Coyote]

coyote
Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

This is an interesting point. Disorder - entropy - begins at the moment of birth for every cell and organism. Systems decay, breakdown, malfunction within the cells...

[9sublime]

9sublime

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

That wasn't my statement, it was numinius's.

[r0beph]

This is an interesting point. Disorder - entropy - begins at the moment of birth for every cell and organism. Systems decay, breakdown, malfunction within the cells...

Ehhhh sort of. As for entropy it happens, however entropy can be modified by the incept of energy, that's not a problem. We consume energy, we create heat (which counters the cooling effect of entropy in a system in which the temperature is lower than our core temp, etc. etc.) We make new cells as old ones reach there end, nothing magic there. As for invest's idea that dna is some mystical language, I think I explained why that was wrong in an earlier post he, as usual, decided to ignore... I wasted too much time typing way too many words to try again,

[r0beph]

Unfortunately, it does not suffice.

Thinking of gravity as an acceleration DOES NOT demonstrate curvature of spacetime - which you state in the first 2 sentences of that particular paragraph. What you demonstrated is an apparent contradiction. Newton's laws occur in EUCLIDEAN SPACE. Einstein's relativity - in NON-EUCLIDEAN SPACE.

Please stop saving face and own up to your errors.

Uhm gravity is causative of acceleration, if this weren't a fact we'd all float away from the earth...Newton's Gravity clearly accounts for acceleration. And regardless, I don't think of gravity as acceleration, but the fact remains gravity (well that gravitation)accelerates matter towards other matter. To deny this means to deny gravity. For what it's worth, that whether it's spacetime curvature or newtonian, you gain speed in a gravitational field. I didn't say it demonstrates a curvature.

I remember once in college a professor showed me a funny site, it had to do with crackpots, it was like 10pts to the crackpot scale per use of all capped words... in your case... I count 7 in this post alone..

See the problem is here you don't seem to realize, I don't care whether you understand physics or not, I've a pretty good grasp on things, you don't. Your acceptance and willingness to climb outside of your little box and try to understand things a bit better would do you some good, if not, oh well. The thing is you say that singularities somehow are granted the ability to "create" and this is a strange thing to say and doesn't make sense, when you decide to go off explaining it, you don't use the math, you use some sort of weird form of misdefinition and crackpot assumption to "prove" your incorrect point. I vote you a failure in this, thank you, come again.

[numinus]

Uhm gravity is causative of acceleration, if this weren't a fact we'd all float away from the earth...Newton's Gravity clearly accounts for acceleration. And regardless, I don't think of gravity as acceleration, but the fact remains gravity (well that gravitation)accelerates matter towards other matter. To deny this means to deny gravity. For what it's worth, that whether it's spacetime curvature or newtonian, you gain speed in a gravitational field. I didn't say it demonstrates a curvature.
Please stop saving face because your errors are clear for everyone to see.

You are looking at the same phenomenon from two TOTALLY DIFFERENT poinst of view.

Newtonian mechanics view gravity as FLUX, or an inverse square relation - no different from elastic, or electrical or magnetic potential. Do you remember maxwell's equations? From such a viewpoint, gravitational force and acceleration - vectors existing in EUCLIDEAN SPACE - are essential to a basic understanding.

Relativity, on the other hand, views gravity as a tendency to curve space. A curved space, by the way, is a EUCLIDEAN SPACE with a TIME-DEPENDENT SCALE FACTOR (lest you imagine it as a warped plane or something) - hence, NON-EUCLIDEAN. From this viewpoint, a mass is at inertia, and the phenomenon we percieve as acceleration, is actually the curvature of space or the time-dependent scale factor.

Take uniform circular motion, for instance. In newtonian mechanics, a mass in ucm has an acceleration that does not diminish the tangential speed, only its direction. Therefore, it is accelerating when viewed from euclidean space.

In relativity, the same mass in ucm is at INERTIA (constant speed travelling in a straight line). However, the straight line isn't actually straight since it is within a curved space - or more accurately, a constant velocity with a scale factor that is changing by time.

They are two very distinct theories. They are almost the same in weak gravity because the relativistic component is negligible. The difference becomes obvious when gravity is so strong that the newtonian mechanical model simply fails.

I remember once in college a professor showed me a funny site, it had to do with crackpots, it was like 10pts to the crackpot scale per use of all capped words... in your case... I count 7 in this post alone..

And there is this hilarious website for dummies. It was like 10 points on the dumb scale for every all capped word that the poor fool still couldn't understand.

See the problem is here you don't seem to realize, I don't care whether you understand physics or not, I've a pretty good grasp on things, you don't. Your acceptance and willingness to climb outside of your little box and try to understand things a bit better would do you some good, if not, oh well.

Apparently, your grasp of physics leaves much to be desired. So much so that pounding it into submission and ridicule could not expel its fundamental absurdity.

There is an obvious reason why the gravitational constant isn't included in the lorentz factor - it was not considered in its derivation. And so einstein felt necessitated to add general relativity.

And you had the temerity to correct me when I said 'length contraction' and not 'lorentz contraction'! Your gambit to sound intelligent simply blew up in your face. And now, you are trying to save what little remains of it.

The thing is you say that singularities somehow are granted the ability to "create" and this is a strange thing to say and doesn't make sense, when you decide to go off explaining it, you don't use the math, you use some sort of weird form of misdefinition and crackpot assumption to "prove" your incorrect point. I vote you a failure in this, thank you, come again.

LOL.

The lorentz invariant quantities in physics, (and they include about almost all quantities), rests on einstein's postulate that the speed of light is ABSOLUTE - a universal speed limit (if you are inclined to thing in that term). Notice that in the lorentz factor, c is considered a constant, correct?

But suppose c is not constant. Suppose c(x) varies according to some unknown parameter. What do you suppose happens to the lorentz factor, hmmm? It would then vary according to 2 parameters - v and c, correct? The lorentz invariant quantities of mass and energy also varies - hence NOT CONSERVED.

And why do you suppose anyone would be inclined to propose a varying speed of light?

Because there are ENDURING RIDDLES in our present understanding of cosmology - riddles that are FATAL to it. To enumerate - flatness problem, horizon problem, homogeniety problem, lambda problem.

And so a very ingenius american particle physicists, alan guth, invented 'super cooling', (not related to paris hilton's common use of the words). In it, it was possible to expand the space of the baby universe a couple of thousand times the speed of light - hence defeating 3 of the 4 riddles mentioned above. But of course, like a multi-headed monster hydra, more problems sprung - so much so that cosmologists today are seriously considering a radical reconstitution of our basic understanding of all physics.

And so, we go back to einstein, and question the basic postulate he asserted - the invariance of c. Ironically enough, the first and most important to go is the conservation of mass and energy - which has led our inquiry from the physical sciences to metaphysics.

[numinus]

"Mathematics is in the realm of ideas. Matter is in the physical world. Reality is a union of ideas and the physical - HENCE DUALITY."

You a truly a poet and may not know it.

Let me make a couple of subtle but necessary revisions to your statement

1. PERCEPTION of reality is a union of ideas and the physical.
Should your perception of reality prove false, the reality itself does not change.

Disagree. Duality itself is a reality - not a function of perception.

A piece of matter behaves both deterministically (according to physical laws) and non-deterministically (viewed within its fundamental component of quanta).

2. Mathematics is in the realm of ideas and provides a demonstrable check on our perception of reality. If the numbers don't work, it ain't possible. There are no known exceptions to this, so far.

Which is one of the things I wanted to expound on, but wasn't able to (thanks to the absurd needling of rObeph - which only proves the infinity he is so desperately disproving).

There is absolutely no reason for the physical world to behave according to mathematical concepts. And yet, it does - without fail. And so, one is compelled to ask - what exactly is the relationship between science and mathematics, and how does this relationship pertain to the objective truth we are seeking?

[Coyote]

Ehhhh sort of. As for entropy it happens, however entropy can be modified by the incept of energy, that's not a problem. We consume energy, we create heat (which counters the cooling effect of entropy in a system in which the temperature is lower than our core temp, etc. etc.) We make new cells as old ones reach there end, nothing magic there. As for invest's idea that dna is some mystical language, I think I explained why that was wrong in an earlier post he, as usual, decided to ignore... I wasted too much time typing way too many words to try again,

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge :confused: )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

[r0beph]

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge :confused: )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

Nah, entropy is entropy. dolly actually died of a viral ailment. But I'd say ya, we can only reproduce cells so many times before it gets a bit rough, I'm not sure if this is due to any form of entropy or just that cells have a finite replication limit.

[r0beph]

(thanks to the absurd needling of rObeph - which only proves the infinity he is so desperately disproving).
I've no problem with infinity as long is it's a valid infinity and not some mistaken ideology such as you have.


There is absolutely no reason for the physical world to behave according to mathematical concepts. And yet, it does - without fail. And so, one is compelled to ask - what exactly is the relationship between science and mathematics, and how does this relationship pertain to the objective truth we are seeking?

lol.... the physical world DOES have to behave according to those concepts, do you know why? Because those concepts were created to describe the physical world, not vice versa. If the physical universe behaved differently, the math would be different. This means nothing at all...

[numinus]

I've no problem with infinity as long is it's a valid infinity and not some mistaken ideology such as you have.

Nope. You have a serious problem interpreting the meaning of infinity as regards to physical phenomena. But you have no problem whatsoever, replying indefinitely after being squarely disproven.

lol.... the physical world DOES have to behave according to those concepts, do you know why? Because those concepts were created to describe the physical world, not vice versa. If the physical universe behaved differently, the math would be different. This means nothing at all...

LOL at yourself. You obviously failed (as always) to appreciate the conundrum I am presenting here.

For example - calculus has its roots as early as 1800 BC. Its principles were used extensively by the ancient greeks, chinese and indians. Einstein's relativity or newton's mechanics were never even dreamed of at its conception. But the laws formulated by these two couldn't have been explained without calculus, no?

The most glaring I can think of relates to maxwell's equations of elastic, electrical, magnetic and gravitational force. Prior to maxwell, nobody thought that there was a fundamental relationship between these forces. And yet, a mere glance at the equations would tell you that there is a distinct and unmistakable symmetry that makes these forces fundamentally the same.

As of today, THERE ARE NO THEORETICAL OR APPLIED BRANCH OF PHYSICS THAT DOES NOT USE CALCULUS. And that is just one branch of mathematics applying in only one branch of the natural sciences. In all cases, the validity of any proposed scientific law depends on its conformity with a mathematical model. The uncanny way by which mathematics predicts the behavior of physical phenomena we are only beginning to understand today - what accounts for it, hmmm?

Now, unless you are suggesting that ancient egyptians developed calculus for scientific purposes today, I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. So why don't you run along and let the intellectuals do a bit of discussion in peace, hmmm?

[numinus]

I will trust in your explanation of entropy - I truely don't have the background to understand it well.

However...each cell has a designated life span, after which it starts to fall apart, make replication errors etc. Wasn't this demonstrated with cloning Dolly? Her cells were the cells of a mature sheep - she lived an abreviated life, and died of old age related disease at a young age?

But the entire organism also has a finite span after which it begins to fail. Is that not entropy or is entropy only related to energy?

(sorry if I sound stupid but this is not my area of knowledge :confused: )

The DNA code stuff - that seems more like a logical fallacy.

It is not always adviceable to think of entropy as disorder. More accurately, it is a state or tendency towards thermal homegeneity. In an isothermic, isotropic system, (closed) system, entropy acts to distribute heat homogeneously everywhere. Consequently, it is irreversible. Within such a system, complex molecules such as dna cannot hope to form.

However, an ideally closed thermodynamic system is very hard to come by. Even in a laboratory setting, it is impossible to isolate a system from the environment. Heat will eventually seep in or dissipate. Living orgnasims therefore, are considered as open thermodynamic system. It is precisely this that living organisms take in free energy from the environment and use it to form complexity within itself. This free energy comes from the sun, to plants (by photosynthesis) to animals of ever growing complexity.

But, when one considers the genesis of the solar system, and how thermally inhomogenuous it is, an entropic model would suggest that the heat energy came from somewhere else. The thing is, it did not. It came from the compressive action of gravity. Which is why I somewhat agree with invest in this regard. Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

[Coyote]

It is not always adviceable to think of entropy as disorder. More accurately, it is a state or tendency towards thermal homegeneity. In an isothermic, isotropic system, (closed) system, entropy acts to distribute heat homogeneously everywhere. Consequently, it is irreversible. Within such a system, complex molecules such as dna cannot hope to form.

However, an ideally closed thermodynamic system is very hard to come by. Even in a laboratory setting, it is impossible to isolate a system from the environment. Heat will eventually seep in or dissipate. Living orgnasims therefore, are considered as open thermodynamic system. It is precisely this that living organisms take in free energy from the environment and use it to form complexity within itself. This free energy comes from the sun, to plants (by photosynthesis) to animals of ever growing complexity.

But, when one considers the genesis of the solar system, and how thermally inhomogenuous it is, an entropic model would suggest that the heat energy came from somewhere else. The thing is, it did not. It came from the compressive action of gravity. Which is why I somewhat agree with invest in this regard. Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

Your description reminded me of some of what I learned in chemistry years ago....but wow it's been a long time:D

Let me jump to your last statement: Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

How the fact that life on this planet striving for increasing complexity agree with Invest?

Second - we have explored/observed such a miniscule fraction of the galaxy, universe etc. there is no way we can make a statement that in any way says life is apparently isolated to this planet in order to support any sort of argument. There is just too little data to go on.

[numinus]

Your description reminded me of some of what I learned in chemistry years ago....but wow it's been a long time:D

Let me jump to your last statement: Not only does the variety of life on the planet thrive to ever greater complexity, it is apparently isolated on this planet.

How the fact that life on this planet striving for increasing complexity agree with Invest?

It has something to do with heat energy. It is defined as the kinetic energy of particles, no? Something that is hot would have molecules moving around vigorously. Consequently, something that is cold would have molecules that are barely moving. Entropy approaches its perfect state at the theoretical absolute freezing, 0 degrees kelvin, where molecules does not have any kinetic energy.

So, statistically speaking, the more kinetic energy, the more likely to create complex molecules, no?

Second - we have explored/observed such a miniscule fraction of the galaxy, universe etc. there is no way we can make a statement that in any way says life is apparently isolated to this planet in order to support any sort of argument. There is just too little data to go on.

Ah, but we have more or less comprehensive data on this solar system, no? The closest star system to us is alpha centauri, about 4 light years away. So for all intents and purposes, the solar system can be considered a somewhat closed thermodynamic system. But apparently, it does not behave like one. Not only that, it behaves completely opposite of what a closed thermodynamic system is supposed to.

[USMC the Almighty]

What are y'all even talking about anymore? What does this have to do with God? Way too intellectual for me.

[Mare Tranquillity]

It has something to do with heat energy. It is defined as the kinetic energy of particles, no? Something that is hot would have molecules moving around vigorously. Consequently, something that is cold would have molecules that are barely moving. Entropy approaches its perfect state at the theoretical absolute freezing, 0 degrees kelvin, where molecules does not have any kinetic energy.

So, statistically speaking, the more kinetic energy, the more likely to create complex molecules, no?



Ah, but we have more or less comprehensive data on this solar system, no? The closest star system to us is alpha centauri, about 4 light years away. So for all intents and purposes, the solar system can be considered a somewhat closed thermodynamic system. But apparently, it does not behave like one. Not only that, it behaves completely opposite of what a closed thermodynamic system is supposed to.

There is nothing closed about the solar system thermodynamically is there? If one looks at the massive amounts of energy contained in the quantum foam and that foam permeates the whole Universe (as far as we know) how can any system be considered closed or "somewhat closed"?

[numinus]

There is nothing closed about the solar system thermodynamically is there? If one looks at the massive amounts of energy contained in the quantum foam and that foam permeates the whole Universe (as far as we know) how can any system be considered closed or "somewhat closed"?
Are you talking about this?

"Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is a qualitative description of the turbulence that the phenomenon creates at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws."

Are you pretending this has anything to do with thermodynamic systems?

If you are talking about the background radiation, or the energy density of vacuum, the temperature change attributable to it is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the heat generated by the sun.

So yes, one can very well consider the solar system as a closed thermodynamic system.

[numinus]

What are y'all even talking about anymore? What does this have to do with God? Way too intellectual for me.

Its actually quite simple. If you can accept scientific models that allow for the creation and annihilation of mass and energy, whether in the quantum level or cosmological level, then you are implicitly accepting a process of creation.

Is that simple enough for you?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you talking about this?

"Quantum foam, also referred to as spacetime foam, is a concept in quantum mechanics, devised by John Wheeler in 1955. The foam is a qualitative description of the turbulence that the phenomenon creates at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws."

Are you pretending this has anything to do with thermodynamic systems?

So yes, one can very well consider the solar system as a closed thermodynamic system.

Yes, zero point energy, like the machine that Tom Beardon got the patent for, which allows large quantities of energy to be extracted from the quantum foam (for want of a better name). There are a number of over-unity devices that have been produced that seem to violate some of the commonly held laws of physics. Someone once explained a very simple experiment to demonstrate how power can extracted from this quantum level: take a simple bar magnet and place a capacitor crosswise on top of it, if you connect a very sensitive electrical meter to the the capacitor you will discover a small electrical flow. Where does it come from? There is no energy going into the system and as long as the unit remains in place it will produce electrical energy. Magnets do work, where does there energy come from?

Below is a reference site with an abundance of information:
http://www.cheniere.org/mission.html

[numinus]

Yes, zero point energy, like the machine that Tom Beardon got the patent for, which allows large quantities of energy to be extracted from the quantum foam (for want of a better name). There are a number of over-unity devices that have been produced that seem to violate some of the commonly held laws of physics.

Nothing to do with thermodynamics because creation and annihilation of matter and energy occurs within the limits of quantum uncertainty.

But yes, that is what I'm talking about. Within the infinitessimal scale of quanta, the deterministic laws of science simply break down. And as you go progressively smaller, the uncertainty increases. To my mind, there is simply nothing that could defy the operation of immutable natural laws EXCEPT the manifestation of WILL. And such a manifestation exists beyond the limits of the very small to beyond the limits of the very large, and everything else in between.

Someone once explained a very simple experiment to demonstrate how power can extracted from this quantum level: take a simple bar magnet and place a capacitor crosswise on top of it, if you connect a very sensitive electrical meter to the the capacitor you will discover a small electrical flow. Where does it come from? There is no energy going into the system and as long as the unit remains in place it will produce electrical energy. Magnets do work, where does there energy come from?

Below is a reference site with an abundance of information:
http://www.cheniere.org/mission.html

Sorry, but this is related to maxwells electromagnetic wave equation. A time-varying magnetic field would produce electric field and force - and vice versa. This is the basis of alternators, maglev trains, etc. In such cases, energy is conserved.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nothing to do with thermodynamics because creation and annihilation of matter and energy occurs within the limits of quantum uncertainty.

But yes, that is what I'm talking about. Within the infinitessimal scale of quanta, the deterministic laws of science simply break down. And as you go progressively smaller, the uncertainty increases. To my mind, there is simply nothing that could defy the operation of immutable natural laws EXCEPT the manifestation of WILL. And such a manifestation exists beyond the limits of the very small to beyond the limits of the very large, and everything else in between.
Could you demonstrate the validity of this statement, please.


Sorry, but this is related to maxwells electromagnetic wave equation. A time-varying magnetic field would produce electric field and force - and vice versa. This is the basis of alternators, maglev trains, etc. In such cases, energy is conserved.
You didn't read the site. If one can draw enough energy from this "foam" to heat your house, then it is having a direct effect on the energy balance of the planet. According to the articles I have read, the amount of energy available from this source is virtually unlimited--that means that this is not a closed system on the macroscopic level as you are maintaining, doesn't it?

[numinus]

Could you demonstrate the validity of this statement, please.

Anything that does not behave in a deterministic manner is a manifestation of will - from the absolute randomness found in sub-atomic particles to the absolute randomness inherent in a singularity. Look at your own free will if you are still not convinced.

You didn't read the site. If one can draw enough energy from this "foam" to heat your house, then it is having a direct effect on the energy balance of the planet. According to the articles I have read, the amount of energy available from this source is virtually unlimited--that means that this is not a closed system on the macroscopic level as you are maintaining, doesn't it?

What is the temperature change due to this 'foam' in the entire solar system? Compare that with the temperature change due to the sun's radiation, and you would see what I mean.

As for electromagnetism, maxwell's equations require a time-varying electrical or magnetic field to produce force. To vary electrical or magnetic field requires energy - hence there is conservation.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Anything that does not behave in a deterministic manner is a manifestation of will - from the absolute randomness found in sub-atomic particles to the absolute randomness inherent in a singularity. Look at your own free will if you are still not convinced.
One of the difficulties I have with you is that you post these statements with little definition and no proof. Your first sentence is perfect example of this. Are we just supposed to accept your word because you think you have some kind of intellectual superiority? The whole issue randomness is still fairly murky, chaos studies have found patterns in things previously thought to be random. The jury is still out on what is really random and what has patterns that we have not yet discovered.

What is the temperature change due to this 'foam' in the entire solar system? Compare that with the temperature change due to the sun's radiation, and you would see what I mean.
How much does the oil in your storage barrel increase the temperature in your house before you burn it? It's potential heat, in much the same way that the power in the quantum foam is potential until we find a way to metaphorically "burn" it to produce actual heat. The potential energy in the foam is far greater than the output of the Sun.

As for electromagnetism, maxwell's equations require a time-varying electrical or magnetic field to produce force. To vary electrical or magnetic field requires energy - hence there is conservation.
You didn't read the site.

[numinus]

One of the difficulties I have with you is that you post these statements with little definition and no proof. Your first sentence is perfect example of this. Are we just supposed to accept your word because you think you have some kind of intellectual superiority? The whole issue randomness is still fairly murky, chaos studies have found patterns in things previously thought to be random. The jury is still out on what is really random and what has patterns that we have not yet discovered.

I'm sorry but I'm using the words here in the way it is supposed to be used in an academic setting.

A deterministic phenomenon is something that is governed EXCLUSIVELY by natural or scientific laws, no? It couldn't behave otherwise. What all the discussion in physics has proven is that this couldn't possibly be the case in whatever field of the natural sciences.

Even in what we consider as random occurences - they still follow some statistical or mathematical law that makes it predictable to a certain extent. But within a certain domain where all external factors are equal, all phenomena approaches absolute randomness.

Tell me, what are you inclined to call this absolute randomness, where ALL deterministic conceptions simply do not exist? Is that not the exact definition of FREE WILL.

How much does the oil in your storage barrel increase the temperature in your house before you burn it? It's potential heat, in much the same way that the power in the quantum foam is potential until we find a way to metaphorically "burn" it to produce actual heat. The potential energy in the foam is far greater than the output of the Sun.

I'm sorry but this simply is not the way to view thermodynamic models. Thermodynamics deals with heat energy and how it translates to a temperature change in the system. We know from einstein that mass can be theoritically converted to energy and vice versa. However, until that energy is released, it has NO WAY of entering into the equations of thermodynamics.

You didn't read the site.

The electromagnetic wave equation was a response to your post. There is nothing in the article to suggest a thermodynamic model.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I'm sorry but I'm using the words here in the way it is supposed to be used in an academic setting.

A deterministic phenomenon is something that is governed EXCLUSIVELY by natural or scientific laws, no? It couldn't behave otherwise. What all the discussion in physics has proven is that this couldn't possibly be the case in whatever field of the natural sciences.

Even in what we consider as random occurences - they still follow some statistical or mathematical law that makes it predictable to a certain extent. But within a certain domain where all external factors are equal, all phenomena approaches absolute randomness.

Tell me, what are you inclined to call this absolute randomness, where ALL deterministic conceptions simply do not exist? Is that not the exact definition of FREE WILL.
Well, that chaos isn't what I would call free will, but you have your own very singular set of definitions. My free will is a product of my life experience, knowledge, physical make-up, and my consciousness--none of which are absolutely random.


I'm sorry but this simply is not the way to view thermodynamic models. Thermodynamics deals with heat energy and how it translates to a temperature change in the system. We know from einstein that mass can be theoritically converted to energy and vice versa. However, until that energy is released, it has NO WAY of entering into the equations of thermodynamics.
Perfect! Until it is released by a zero point energy machine like the one that Tom Bearden and his associates got a patent for from the US Patent Office. Part of the problem is that our view of thermodynamics is incorrect or incomplete--as evidenced by a machine which produces electric power endlessly with no fuel or moving parts.

The electromagnetic wave equation was a response to your post. There is nothing in the article to suggest a thermodynamic model.
You didn't read the site.

[numinus]

Well, that chaos isn't what I would call free will, but you have your own very singular set of definitions.

And what exactly does the chaos principle say, hmmm?

That an infinitessimal difference in initial conditions of two systems would increase exponentially over time, no? And so, an uncertainty in say, quantum phenomenon may very well manifest in a macroscopic level.

My free will is a product of my life experience, knowledge, physical make-up, and my consciousness--none of which are absolutely random.

These are deterministic factors. If one were to chart the life of an individual meticulously, in say, a laboratory setting, does that make EACH AND EVERY decision of this individual henceforth utterly predictable, hmmm?

Your mechanistic view of reality simply won't fly.

Perfect! Until it is released by a zero point energy machine like the one that Tom Bearden and his associates got a patent for from the US Patent Office. Part of the problem is that our view of thermodynamics is incorrect or incomplete--as evidenced by a machine which produces electric power endlessly with no fuel