Science and Religion questions (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
Not where the rules of physics don't apply.

Remember a singularity has 0 size and there was no time yet (at time 0).

So what was the speed of light? It could only travel 0 (inches, feet, whatever) distance because there was 0 size. What was the time? 0. What is the formula for speed?

distance = rate * time

0 = rate * 0

rate = 0/0 or something indeterminate.

Plug that into e=mc^2 (for c).

Get back to me.
Click to expand...

LMAO! Dude you are flipping out. How does E=MC^2 have anything to do with your statement that you can have energy without the presence of mass. They are one of the same! WTF man?!?! Call it fucking ying and yang man!
 
magnifier661 said:
Let's refresh your stubborn mind....




"Plasma isn't mass" = one statement.

"Nor was it plasma at the beginning" = another statement.

This is interpreted as "There was no plasma in the beginning and plasma isn't mass anyway"

But if you want to build some strawmen argument to recover from the ludicrous statement; then by all means, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

You said plasma. Get it? I was telling you what you think was plasma is not mass.

End of discussion. I don't want to argue for your strawman.
 
magnifier661 said:
LMAO! Dude you are flipping out. How does E=MC^2 have anything to do with your statement that you can have energy without the presence of mass. They are one of the same! WTF man?!?! Call it fucking ying and yang man!
Click to expand...

do the math and get back to me

e = mc^2 is the formula for equivalency of mass and energy, right? NOT WHEN THE RULES OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY. C = 0/0

Do the math.
 
Denny Crane said:
do the math and get back to me

e = mc^2 is the formula for equivalency of mass and energy, right? NOT WHEN THE RULES OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY. C = 0/0

Do the math.
Click to expand...


Psst. The singularity was not zero, fyi. The theoretical size was of a proton; which has a value over "0". But whatevs man... You go dancing in the moonlight and sing to zeppelin!
 
magnifier661 said:
Psst. The singularity was not zero, fyi. The theoretical size was of a proton; which has a value over "0". But whatevs man... You go dancing in the moonlight and sing to zeppelin!
Click to expand...

No, the theoretical size was ZERO.
 
magnifier661 said:
Black and white? Explain how everything is black and white to me? I know you are creating this label since I'm a christian.

If I'm so black and white; why do I believe the earth is over 3 billion years old? Why would I think the universe is over 13 billion years? Why do I adopt evolution?

Seems your label is ignorant at best
Click to expand...

At best? Nah, I just don't know you that well. Ignorant? Maybe ignorance is involved. Let's see.

I wasn't taking about your content (which is clearly quite eclectic -- and I honestly have no idea how old the universe is -- just like you) I was talking about your disposition -- your relationship to your personal orthodoxy, your beliefs. Whatever it is you believe, you seem to believe it in a black and white/matter of fact manner. And it's just an observation ... you know, from my perspective. I really thought you'd know exactly what I meant. Again, not about your content, but how you hold that content. Comes off as very black and white.

Still confused? Review your exchange with Denny concerning what actually maintained at the big bang for just one example. One would never know you were discussing something highly theoretical and ultimately dependent upon a truck load of prior human conceptualizations. i.e., all our concepts, all the mental tools we have for grasping reality are animal concepts. For all the two of you said, I was surprised it never (seemed) occur to either of you that the concepts themselves may be what breaks down at the extremes of physical reality.

But anyway, as maybe you can see, the main point of my reply was your (err, what I take to be a) grossly oversimplified, one size fits all, black and white, notion of faith. Care to respond to my claim that you can't have it both ways? Just sayin'
 
chevyrunssometimes said:
Still confused? Review your exchange with Denny concerning what actually maintained at the big bang for just one example. One would never know you were discussing something highly theoretical and ultimately dependent upon a truck load of prior human conceptualizations. i.e., all our concepts, all the mental tools we have for grasping reality are animal concepts. For all the two of you said, I was surprised it never (seemed) occur to either of you that the concepts themselves may be what breaks down at the extremes of physical reality.
Click to expand...

What did it mean when (several times now) I've posted that the laws of physics did not apply at t=0, the extreme of physical reality?
 
chevyrunssometimes said:
Great, seems my dismissive antenna is working properly.




This is bad faith. I put two questions to you in plain English, no Hyperbole at all. Instead of responding to them, you've attached yourself to two short phrases, the meaning of which you were presumably unable to determine. My questions though, are self contained.

But I do think you are right. You're personally not adequate for this conversation. You're free to go now.
Click to expand...

You put two questions in "plain English" that have nothing to do with the conversation. Take your strawman and hyperbole elsewhere.
 
chevyrunssometimes said:
At best? Nah, I just don't know you that well. Ignorant? Maybe ignorance is involved. Let's see.

I wasn't taking about your content (which is clearly quite eclectic -- and I honestly have no idea how old the universe is -- just like you) I was talking about your disposition -- your relationship to your personal orthodoxy, your beliefs. Whatever it is you believe, you seem to believe it in a black and white/matter of fact manner. And it's just an observation ... you know, from my perspective. I really thought you'd know exactly what I meant. Again, not about your content, but how you hold that content. Comes off as very black and white.

Still confused? Review your exchange with Denny concerning what actually maintained at the big bang for just one example. One would never know you were discussing something highly theoretical and ultimately dependent upon a truck load of prior human conceptualizations. i.e., all our concepts, all the mental tools we have for grasping reality are animal concepts. For all the two of you said, I was surprised it never (seemed) occur to either of you that the concepts themselves may be what breaks down at the extremes of physical reality.

But anyway, as maybe you can see, the main point of my reply was your (err, what I take to be a) grossly oversimplified, one size fits all, black and white, notion of faith. Care to respond to my claim that you can't have it both ways? Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Oh I agree you can't have it both ways; which is why I say that my religious faith is just that!

and Denny and I have a special relationship. If he was surrounded by wolves, I would fight with him to save his life. Call us the ying and yang of this thread. I poke at Denny because he is a PitBull. I can chop off his legs and he would still fight and bite until he dies. I am a lot the same way. I love to debate, maybe argue, whatever you want to label me.

But your claim of "Black and White" is just wrong. If it were the case, then I would be 100% faithful towards the age of this planet and universe, because "God did it!". Not the case and this is why you show ignorance.
 
magnifier661 said:
http://www.big-bang-theory.com

Where are you getting this size of zero?



"Small" doesn't mean zero. Stop this planet! I'm getting off!
Click to expand...

infinite density

density = mass / volume

Since you have volume = 0, density is infinite.

http://www.universaltheory.org/html/basics/singularity/singularity5.htm

Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. This means there is no spatial dimension to singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. In such a realm, the notion of distance disappears and co-existence prevails.

Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose have worked on the theory of relativity and its implications regarding the notion of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s theory of general relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.” 12
 
Denny Crane said:
What did it mean when (several times now) I've posted that the laws of physics did not apply at t=0, the extreme of physical reality?
Click to expand...

Umm ... I give up ... just what you said?

I took you to be talking laws of physics, I was thinking more of concepts (ways of thinking about things). But if it matters to you, I did get the sense You were moving in that direction. To be clear, I am talking about our human limits -- the ability of concepts derived from human interaction in a physical environment to map to the extreme circumstances at the extremes of reality. This is not the same as saying physical laws do not apply. I'm not saying that isn't what you may have meant, however.
 
Last edited:
Denny Crane said:
infinite density

density = mass / volume

Since you have volume = 0, density is infinite.

http://www.universaltheory.org/html/basics/singularity/singularity5.htm

Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. This means there is no spatial dimension to singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. In such a realm, the notion of distance disappears and co-existence prevails.

Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose have worked on the theory of relativity and its implications regarding the notion of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s theory of general relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.” 12
Click to expand...

“Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.”

Let's think about what Hawking wrote.

Time and Space had a finite beginning, but matter and energy was always present.

Knowing that matter and energy has volume, that would mean there is a measurement of volume (as infinitely small it was). The notion of "space" occured during expansion, but the singularity still had a volume.

This, again, contradicts the value of zero.
 
magnifier661 said:
“Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.”

Let's think about what Hawking wrote.

Time and Space had a finite beginning, but matter and energy was always present.

Knowing that matter and energy has volume, that would mean there is a measurement of volume (as infinitely small it was). The notion of "space" occured during expansion, but the singularity still had a volume.

This, again, contradicts the value of zero.
Click to expand...

"According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."

Thus matter and energy originated the same time as time and space. Which would be as tiny a fraction as you can come up with past t=0.

Note it says "origin of matter and energy" which is not the same thing as "matter and energy." It could have taken hundreds of millions of years for matter and energy to actually form, but the origin would have been at t=0.
 
chevyrunssometimes said:
Umm ... I give up ... just what you said?

I took you to be talking laws of physics, I was thinking more of concepts (ways of thinking about things). But if it matters to you, I did get the sense You were moving in that direction. To be clear, I am talking about our human limits -- the ability of concepts derived from human interaction in a physical environment to map to the extreme circumstances at the extremes of reality. This is not the same as saying physical laws do not apply. I'm not saying that isn't what you may have meant, however.
Click to expand...

When the laws of physics do not apply, the concepts that we're familiar with break down and we'd have a tough time visualizing things. Without space, you can't have much spatial recognition, can you?

etc.
 
Denny Crane said:
"According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."

Thus matter and energy originated the same time as time and space. Which would be as tiny a fraction as you can come up with past t=0.

Note it says "origin of matter and energy" which is not the same thing as "matter and energy." It could have taken hundreds of millions of years for matter and energy to actually form, but the origin would have been at t=0.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "at the same time". Simultaneity doesn't exist.
 
magnifier661 said:
But your claim of "Black and White" is just wrong. If it were the case, then I would be 100% faithful towards the age of this planet and universe, because "God did it!". Not the case and this is why you show ignorance.
Click to expand...

No. Again you are addressing content. Dude, I could care less what you think you believe. That's your business. I'm merely focusing on your dogmatic, unreflective style -- that which maintains no matter what content you happen to be entertaining at the moment.
 
Denny Crane said:
"According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."

Thus matter and energy originated the same time as time and space. Which would be as tiny a fraction as you can come up with past t=0.

Note it says "origin of matter and energy" which is not the same thing as "matter and energy." It could have taken hundreds of millions of years for matter and energy to actually form, but the origin would have been at t=0.
Click to expand...

I can relate to this. But it this swings me all the way to the beginning. If mass and energy was created by singularity; then this singularity could be a product if God.

Even in your link it says they don't know what created the singularity, nor do they know what was in singularity.

This is all theoretical and definitely not empirical evidence. It's just a logical bandaide.
 
I think you missed this part, sport: "You're free to go now."

My questions were very pertinent to your comment. That you can't see that becomes more apparent with each successive post. Again, more bad faith (you're either retarded or are playing dumb) neither speaks well for your position.
 
Denny can you prove that mass and energy didn't exist until the big bang?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Further
How do you think the YECreationist vs. Science debate will change over the next 25y?
Replies
21
Views
623
Eastoff
Eastoff
SlyPokerDog
Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains Why He Believes Faith & Reason Are Irreconcilable
2 3
Replies
60
Views
4K
crowTrobot
crowTrobot
SlyPokerDog
Vatican goes on huge membership drive!
Replies
4
Views
518
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
magnifier661
Give your best answer... Did the universe have a beginning or not
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
3K
BlazerCaravan
BlazerCaravan
magnifier661
Okay nerds, let's talk science fiction!
Replies
24
Views
729
magnifier661
magnifier661

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top