A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

try Wiki

and then grow up

So you get your info from the bin?

I get mine from cern, perimeter institute etc, you know, the people who know

 

[ChristineM]

try Wiki

and then grow up

So you have no explanation. Seems about par for your course

 

[ChristineM]

Come around....huh...I've been saying the same thing from the get go, time is a human concept to measure the enduring nature of existence.

You said the measurement of the length of the string was to be in time, you expressly denoted hours, minutes, and seconds, Yes, the measurement of entropy.

But i have already shown you that time exists without and before human intervention or, as i said to thief, explain the gap between the bb and humanity.

And it seems sarcasm blows right over you

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It isn't a causal relationship. Causal relationships require time also. This is a *necessary* relationship. For movement to exist, time also has to exist. As does space. For causality to exist, time also has to exist.

Have you ever considered that the observation of the existence of universal movement is merely what it is, an observation of the continuity of reality, and the abstract measurement of it is of human invention and is called time. Eventually the concept of time became conflated with universal continuity and the term became synonymous with it in general language. Universal continuity is eternal, eternity is not finite, time as a concept is, so time the concept should not be conflated with universal continuity the real.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

By clocks.

What are the sensors in a clock that detect the universe's mass and energy to measure it?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But i have already shown you that time exists without and before human intervention or, as i said to thief, explain the gap between the bb and humanity.

And it seems sarcasm blows right over you

You have done nothing of the kind, universal continuity is eternal. Eternity is timeless for obvious reasons, to answer your question, time is merely a concept to represent an abstracted finite segment of universal continuity such as theoretical bb to humanity.

I understood your intent, but you worded it such by asking for the length in hours, minutes, etc., that it could literally mean the length of a duration. If you want to be sarcastic in future, avoid any possible ambiguity in your wording..

 

[Polymath257]

Have you ever considered that the observation of the existence of universal movement is merely what it is, an observation of the continuity of reality, and the abstract measurement of it is of human invention and is called time. Eventually the concept of time became conflated with universal continuity and the term became synonymous with it in general language. Universal continuity is eternal, eternity is not finite, time as a concept is, so time the concept should not be conflated with universal continuity the real.

Have you considered that a linguistic hodge-podge does not constitute either knowledge or a testable hypothesis?

 

[Willamena]

So you get your info from the bin?

I get mine from cern, perimeter institute etc, you know, the people who know

Scientists aren't necessarily the ones who know. Scientists told us just last year that having a cat will make you happy--something people have known for 10,000 years--most people evidently except scientists.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you considered that a linguistic hodge-podge does not constitute either knowledge or a testable hypothesis?

I understand it was linguistically challenging, and I get from your talk of a testable hypothesis that you either truly did not understand or are trying to create a diversion. Anyways, we move on to your claim that mass and energy can be measured by clocks.

What are the sensors of a clock that detect the universe's mass and energy to measure it?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand it was linguistically challenging, and I get from your talk of a testable hypothesis that you either truly did not understand or are trying to create a diversion. Anyways, we move on to your claim that mass and energy can be measured by clocks.

When did I claim that?

OK, explain the phrase 'observation of the universal moment' in any coherent way.

Testable hypotheses are essential for knowledge.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When did I claim that?

OK, explain the phrase 'observation of the universal moment' in any coherent way.

Testable hypotheses are essential for knowledge.

In your post #3562 when I asked.." Are you claiming time has mass and energy, if so, explain how this is measured?", you answered..."By clocks."

Are you wearing your prescription glasses....the word was 'movement' not 'moment'. Do you find the phrase...'observation of universal movement'....difficult to understand?

I don't think what I am saying is a hypothesis, it is self evident. Time is a concept to represent the natural continuity of universal existence.

 

[ChristineM]

You have done nothing of the kind, universal continuity is eternal. Eternity is timeless for obvious reasons, to answer your question, time is merely a concept to represent an abstracted finite segment of universal continuity such as theoretical bb to humanity.

I understood your intent, but you worded it such by asking for the length in hours, minutes, etc., that it could literally mean the length of a duration. If you want to be sarcastic in future, avoid any possible ambiguity in your wording..

Your dreams are exactly that, dreams.

You can only guess (or dream) of eternity. Unless of course you have scientific evidence you can present to the scientific community for peer review? No? Such a shame, such evidence would als have made you the hero of the religious too. Just think, popes, chief rabbis and mullahs on your speed dial.

So you understood and still tried to make a mockery, damn these narrow minded religious zealots.

 

[ChristineM]

Sci nentists aren't necessarily the ones who know. Scientists told us just last year that having a cat will make you happy--something people have known for 10,000 years--most people evidently except scientists.

However when the knowledge requirement is about a precise subject you would ask the experts in that subject, after all you would not ask a car mechanic to advise on child birth would you?

Science also provided you with the ways and means to post your reply, clean drinking water, effective medication, etc.

It also seems you don't hold much faith in observation and experiment and hence bastardise the interpretation you give. They did not tell you a cat would make you happy, they advised the observations shows the contentment felt in owning a pet has valid reasons.

 

[gnostic]

You have done nothing of the kind, universal continuity is eternal. Eternity is timeless for obvious reasons, to answer your question, time is merely a concept to represent an abstracted finite segment of universal continuity such as theoretical bb to humanity.

Ok, now I understand what your issues are with regarding to "time".

Yes, I would say "time" a "human concept".

But time is real and it is measurable.

Without time, there are no change, no wear (or aging), no movement, no energy, no force, etc, and they are pretty much part of reality.

But you got it backward too.

What you don't seem to understand is that this "eternity" you are talking about, is even more so a "human construct".

So far, you have only been rationalising that "eternity" and "eternal" are reality, but not only you are unconvincing, you have no evidences that "eternity" exist.

And because you have no evidences, this eternity is nothing more than your wishful thinking.

And you are misunderstanding the word "timeless".

Timeless doesn't necessarily mean eternal or eternity. It can, but it is not necessarily so.

timeless
Adjective
not affected by the passage of time or changes in fashion:
antiques add to the atmosphere of the dining tables.

As shown in the above definition and usage in the example, none of it required "timeless" to be explicitly "eternal".

You are making assumptions that timeless means eternal, but that's not necessarily the case, just as make the faulty assumptions that "time" is a "human concept", but "eternity" isn't. They are both human concepts, except that eternity isn't real, because no one has ever presented any evidence to say it is...including you.

 

[Polymath257]

In your post #3562 when I asked.." Are you claiming time has mass and energy, if so, explain how this is measured?", you answered..."By clocks."

Are you wearing your prescription glasses....the word was 'movement' not 'moment'. Do you find the phrase...'observation of universal movement'....difficult to understand?

I don't think what I am saying is a hypothesis, it is self evident. Time is a concept to represent the natural continuity of universal existence.

Time is measured by clocks. It does not have mass or energy. I'm sorry if my reply confused you.

So, if there is universal movement, there is time. Movement implies time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your dreams are exactly that, dreams.

You can only guess (or dream) of eternity. Unless of course you have scientific evidence you can present to the scientific community for peer review? No? Such a shame, such evidence would als have made you the hero of the religious too. Just think, popes, chief rabbis and mullahs on your speed dial.

So you understood and still tried to make a mockery, damn these narrow minded religious zealots.

Sure I have evidence, in the form of irrefutable logic, the fact that there is no science, no knowledge, no logic that can show the mass and energy of the universe, or part thereof, can be turn into nothing. Nothing does not and can not exist, therefore by irrefutable logic, the essence of the universe has always been, there was never a beginning.

Just to make sure you understand, we are not talking about forms, whether they be galaxies, stars, people, etc, these come and go, but the underlying total mass and energy that constitutes them and the universe always remains the same.

So if you believe the universal mass and energy had a beginning from nothing, show us your evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

Sure I have evidence, in the form of irrefutable logic, the fact that there is no science, no knowledge, no logic that can show the mass and energy of the universe, or part thereof, can be turn into nothing. Nothing does not and can not exist, therefore by irrefutable logic, the essence of the universe has always been, there was never a beginning.

Just to make sure you understand, we are not talking about forms, whether they be galaxies, stars, people, etc, these come and go, but the underlying total mass and energy that constitutes them and the universe always remains the same.

So if you believe the universal mass and energy had a beginning from nothing, show us your evidence?

Right so you have nothing and feel the need to waffle he cause you don't have the the n**ts to admit you have nothing but nonsense.

I have never said the universe came from nothing, that is your straw man. However it is a possibility examined by scientists and cosmologists far more clued up on the subject than you

You are the one making the claims of eternity, prove it or admit your failure.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Right so you have nothing and feel the need to waffle he cause you don't have the the n**ts to admit you have nothing but nonsense.

I have never said the universe came from nothing, that is your straw man. However it is a possibility examined by scientists and cosmologists far more clued up on the subject than you

You are the one making the claims of eternity, prove it or admit your failure.

If the universe did not come from nothing, then logically it has always existed, can't you see that?

 

[ChristineM]

If the universe did not come from nothing, then logically it has always existed, can't you see that?

Nope there are several alternative's, know of 27 that are currently being disused openly by the world's leading cosmologists. From nothing (literal nothing, i.e nothing without dimensions, without quanta) through various quantum causes, colliding membranes and several multiverse models and even a take on your eternal scinario in oscillation.

They have a few things in common, they are all mathematically feasible, they are theoretical because as yet nothing is know before 10e-43 of a second of the bb event. (NOTHING , so please don't stomp your foot in incredulity over a guessed at eternity when such is UNKNOWN), and no god done it

And i know you can't see that because you don't want to. There is a saying where i come from, it goes "there are none so blind as those who won't see"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope there are several alternative's, know of 27 that are currently being disused openly by the world's leading cosmologists. From nothing (literal nothing, i.e nothing without dimensions, without quanta) through various quantum causes, colliding membranes and several multiverse models and even a take on your eternal scinario in oscillation.

They have a few things in common, they are all mathematically feasible, they are theoretical because as yet nothing is know before 10e-43 of a second of the bb event. (NOTHING , so please don't stomp your foot in incredulity over a guessed at eternity when such is UNKNOWN), and no god done it

And i know you can't see that because you don't want to. There is a saying where i come from, it goes "there are none so blind as those who won't see"

The logic has nothing to do with time, nor mathematical models, something from nothing is not physically possible, not now, not ever.

Things like 0 = +1 - 1 only apply to a relative absence of something. I had one banana (+1 but I ate it last night (-1), and now I have no bananas today....see, nothing is real.

Show me the scientific evidence of nothing, not as an idea, mathematical model, conceptualization, etc, but in reality? Nothing is nothing, nothing can come from nothing, nothing does not exist! I know of very few people here who adhere to bb theory who think the mass and energy of the universe came from nothing.