Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, of course it is possible. I even made a similar claim to that of @Polymath257 . But you insist on misinterpreting posts at times. I used the all important qualifier "may". And you keep demonstrating that you are extremely dualistic. It appears you read a phrase the you like without understanding its full implications.

If you want to claim that someone said something perhaps you should quote them instead of doing such a botched job of interpreting what they said.

You make a mountain out of a molehill, the fact is you implied what I said you did, that a universe without time may exist.

And I did quote you verbatim, are you blind or perhaps just not living up to the standard of a religious person wrt ten commandments.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You blew your cover. This claim of yours no longer flies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You make a mountain out of a molehill, the fact is you implied what I said you did, that a universe without time may exist.

And I did quote you verbatim, are you blind or perhaps just not living up to the standard of a religious person wrt ten commandments.

You only quoted me verbatim after I pointed out your error. That does not count.

And no, since you will not argue properly you simply do not get away with such errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too bad that you do not understand how your inability to embrace no "Before the Big Bang" tells us that you are extremely dualistic.

 

[ratiocinator]

more to follow . . .

Why?

I've already agreed that quantised space-time is a hypothesis. You are quoting from a page about a hypothesis. Your claim was that it was current science. You do understand that hypotheses are proposals, and not current science, yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You only quoted me verbatim after I pointed out your error. That does not count.

And no, since you will not argue properly you simply do not get away with such errors.

When you lose the argument, that constitutes not arguing properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you lose the argument, that constitutes not arguing properly.

No, you lost the argument. That is why you have to try to use poor debating techniques. If you were more honest then people would cut you some slack now and then.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Too bad that you do not understand how your inability to embrace no "Before the Big Bang" tells us that you are extremely dualistic.

The universe is eternal, wait and see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe is eternal, wait and see.

You will never know. You will only have an irrational belief. Even if scientists discover that the universe is eternal your poor reasoning guarantees that your version will be incorrect.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why?

I've already agreed that quantised space-time is a hypothesis. You are quoting from a page about a hypothesis. Your claim was that it was current science. You do understand that hypotheses are proposals, and not current science, yes?

You keep repeating yourself like a broken record and offering absolutely nothing. I also cited the research that supports the hypothesis, Your obviously clueless as t what the relationship between theories, hypothesis, theorems, evidence and research,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you lose the argument, that constitutes not arguing properly.

Yeah, and thus I am not a part of the One, because the One is the proper argument and people doing non proper arguments are not a part of the One. They are in fact a case of non-existence, because the One is the only existence.

As long as you take your duality of proper and non-proper both as One, you are doing dualism and non-dualism in effect. Go figure.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep repeating yourself like a broken record and offering absolutely nothing. I also cited the research that supports the hypothesis,

Yeah, but it is theoretical science and not the other kind of theories. You do understand the difference, don't you?

 

[ratiocinator]

You keep repeating yourself like a broken record...

In response to you doing the same....

I also cited the research that supports the hypothesis,

This is actually really, really, really simple: either this hypothesis (as the Wiki article you quoted described it) has since been tested against actual experimental or observational evidence, and hence been prompted to a theory, or it hasn't.

If it has, please point me to the relevant confirmation, and I will happily concede (and will have learnt something).

If not, then you are wrong to refer to it as current science and to tell people that time is not continuous at the "quantum scale" as if it was established science.

FWIW, if I was forced to take a position on this, I would guess that space-time is quantised, but we should be clear when we post about where current, established science (theory) ends and when we are talking about speculative hypotheses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In response to you doing the same....


This is actually really, really, really simple: either this hypothesis (as the Wiki article you quoted described it) has since been tested against actual experimental or observational evidence, and hence been prompted to a theory, or it hasn't.

If it has, please point me to the relevant confirmation, and I will happily concede (and will have learnt something)

If not, then you are wrong to refer to it as current science and to tell people that time is not continuous at the "quantum scale" as if it was established science.

FWIW, if I was forced to take a position on this, I would guess that space-time is quantised, but we should be clear when we post about where current, established science (theory) ends and when we are talking about speculative hypotheses.

:Winner:

 

[shunyadragon]

An atheist talking about honesty, you are not even honest with your own soul, not alone your fellow man.

Atheist, Theist, Deist and all other variations of conflicting beliefs are neither honest nor dishonest They are subjective beliefs. No simply making aggressive accusations of dishonesty of others beliefs is indeed problematic, In reality there is absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of God(s).

 

[shunyadragon]

In response to you doing the same....


This is actually really, really, really simple: either this hypothesis (as the Wiki article you quoted described it) has since been tested against actual experimental or observational evidence, and hence been prompted to a theory, or it hasn't.

If it has, please point me to the relevant confirmation, and I will happily concede (and will have learnt something).

If not, then you are wrong to refer to it as current science and to tell people that time is not continuous at the "quantum scale" as if it was established science.

FWIW, if I was forced to take a position on this, I would guess that space-time is quantised, but we should be clear when we post about where current, established science (theory) ends and when we are talking about speculative hypotheses.

Ignorance of the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics par excellence. Nothing meaningful in your Newtonian responses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ignorance of the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics par excellence. Nothing meaningful in your Newtonian responses.

Yeah, you don't seem to understand what theoretical physics is.

 

[shunyadragon]

In response to you doing the same....


This is actually really, really, really simple: either this hypothesis (as the Wiki article you quoted described it) has since been tested against actual experimental or observational evidence, and hence been prompted to a theory, or it hasn't.

If it has, please point me to the relevant confirmation, and I will happily concede (and will have learnt something).

If not, then you are wrong to refer to it as current science and to tell people that time is not continuous at the "quantum scale" as if it was established science.

FWIW, if I was forced to take a position on this, I would guess that space-time is quantised, but we should be clear when we post about where current, established science (theory) ends and when we are talking about speculative hypotheses.

More Newtonian ancient view of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

More Newtonian ancient view of science.

Yeah, science as physics versus theoretical physics is not really your thing. We do get it.

 

[Polymath257]

Ignorance of the science of Physics and Quantum Mechanics par excellence. Nothing meaningful in your Newtonian responses.

A quantum matrix is certainly NOT the mainstream current view of physicists.

Quantization of space and time at the Planck scales is likely, but very far from being demonstrated. We are nowhere close to testing the energy levels involved for that.

The current consensus theory is the 'Standard model', which unifies the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces, but has a curved spacetime as background for gravity.

We have no tested version of quantum gravity and it is in quantum gravity that you find such things as quantized time.