Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Polymath257]

You made a claim of continuous time at the smallest scale back it up. It is a main issue concerning the nature of the Quantum smallest scale.
Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.

Once again, nothing at the 'smallest quantum scale' (meaning the Planck scale) is 'accepted science'. It is speculation at best. Also, the idea that even at the Planck scale, things are discrete is false.

On the other hand, every single textbook on QM works with a continuous spacetime background. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Yes, energies are quantized. Momentum is quantize. Many variables associated with particles are quantized. But space and time are not.

It is pretty much accepted by current science that Quantum smallest scale does not have continuous time/space and gravity, and it is made up of Quantum particles.

No, this is NOT accepted science. It is a consequence of *some* versions of quantum gravity, but NONE of the QG proposals are accepted science as yet.

The research at the Hadron collider pretty much confirms this.

Not even close. The energies of the LHC are nowhere close to the *proposed* energies of quantum gravity. They are off by many orders of magnitude. The LHC is currently able to test aspects of the standard model and some extensions, such as supersymmetry. It is not able to test anything close to spacetime quantization.

Time/space and gravity are considered emergent properties in the larger scale of our universe.

Nope. That is *one* proposal. But NO proposal at this level has any observational backing. So NONE are accepted science.

Once again, give *any* reference (other than a popular account) that says anything like this is accepted science as opposed to a hypothesis that is being investigated. Give *any* reference that shows this to have any experimental backing (as opposed to proposals to unify QM and GR).

 

[shunyadragon]

You said in a previous post time is equivalent to movement/measurement.(something like that)
If there is no movement/measurement how could anything exist?
With no time nothing could evolve or decay.

At the Quantum smallest scall there is momentary Quantum time and appearance and decay of individual Quantum events involving particles. There is no continuous time/space or gravity at the Quantum scale. This has been confirmed by the research at the Hadron collider. Continuous time/space and gravity are considered emergent properties from the Quantum scale.

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, nothing at the 'smallest quantum scale' (meaning the Planck scale) is 'accepted science'. It is speculation at best. Also, the idea that even at the Planck scale, things are discrete is false.

On the other hand, every single textbook on QM works with a continuous spacetime background. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Yes, energies are quantized. Momentum is quantize. Many variables associated with particles are quantized. But space and time are not.

No, this is NOT accepted science. It is a consequence of *some* versions of quantum gravity, but NONE of the QG proposals are accepted science as yet.

Not even close. The energies of the LHC are nowhere close to the *proposed* energies of quantum gravity. They are off by many orders of magnitude. The LHC is currently able to test aspects of the standard model and some extensions, such as supersymmetry. It is not able to test anything close to spacetime quantization.


Nope. That is *one* proposal. But NO proposal at this level has any observational backing. So NONE are accepted science.

Once again, give *any* reference (other than a popular account) that says anything like this is accepted science as opposed to a hypothesis that is being investigated. Give *any* reference that shows this to have any experimental backing (as opposed to proposals to unify QM and GR).

ou made a claim of continuous time at the smallest scale back it up. It is a main issue concerning the nature of the Quantum smallest scale.
Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.

At the present level of research by the Hydron collider they have not observed continuous time/space nor gravity in the behavior of the Quantum particles.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

I really don't know what you think the empty rants are doing for your cause. I answered your questions directly.

No you did not. You offered no references that showed the behavior of Quantum particles at the smallest scale.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not hanging. It's moving in a geodesic because of gravity but things don't hang in space. They are at rest or in motion. You hang something in your closet because gravity is pulling it down. When in space there are no forces acting on it to "hang".
There is also no firmament or cosmic water above heaven. Or doors that open to allow the cosmic water to fall to Earth for rain or floods. The firmament divided the cosmic waters from Earth and all the stars and planets are under it. None of that exists. Except in Genesis.

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If can be spoken of as hanging on nothing. If a person doesn't see anything of interest when looking for something, it can be aptly said he didn't see anything. Or, "there was nothing there."

 

[YoursTrue]

Like I said, every single textbook in QM. I gave references. Every single text uses a continuous spacetime background.

And, if you really want to go to the 'smallest quantum scale', there is no *accepted* model. It is ALL speculative.

And no, it is NOT word salad. I suspect you don't know what the term means.

Look, you are saying that two people who have actually studied the subject in depth are wrong. Have you actually *ever* solved a differential equation? Have you *ever& computed the energies for a quantum system?

If not, then please take the word of a couple of people that have, including at least one that took PhD qualifying exams in the subject.

Textbooks change as "science" changes. Here's something more for you to object to: "As the Apollo 17 crew headed to the Moon for the final time in 1972, they were instructed to take a picture looking back at the Earth. The image – known as the Blue Marble – gives a unique perspective of the whole Earth hanging in the blackness of space." Fabulous picture of the earth taken by the astronauts, description by bbc. The iconic photo that summed up our place in the Universe
Wonderful description of the unique beauty of the earth and the thrill of the astronauts when they saw the earth. From the moon.

 

[ratiocinator]

No you did not. You offered no references that showed the behavior of Quantum particles at the smallest scale.

I did, actually. Both the references I gave were about analysing the behaviour of particles using QM at all scales. What's more, the behaviour of particles is not the point, you are making claims about the nature of space-time, for which you have offered no references that aren't about hypothetical proposals and not current science.

Everybody here can look and see who has provided the references and who hasn't, so I really don't see what you the point of these silly denials is.

Particle in a box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hydrogen atom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And, of course, every single textbook and introduction to the subject will confirm the same thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your fight with evolution isn't helping a fictional character be real.

Especially the god of Abraham, that honest, benevolent, tri-omni creator of all of the kinds over six days, which has been ruled out by the evidence for evolution, even if the theory were ever falsified. What would be the default paradigm if we knew that the theory was wrong? A deceptive, superhuman intelligent designer that arranged that evidence fraudulently to make it appear that naturalistic evolution had occurred on earth, but the hoax was discovered. This needn't be a supernatural entity - extraterrestrials that arose naturalistically within a godless universe would still be more likely, but even if it were the universe's creator, it couldn't be the god of the Abraham.

So, for Abrahamics to argue against evolution is pointless if their purpose is to reinstate their god to its former status as creator.

You are misunderstanding the use of the word hang.

You're redefining it to conform with scientific knowledge, a good example of motivated reasoning, the motive being to bring scripture more into conformity with science. Christmas ornaments hang from the tree. Apples hang from stems. Planets orbit stars.

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

Here's a nice example of the atheophobia we see so frequently, although I only see it in some Abrahamics. Atheists are dishonest to you, and you are comfortable posting it. How dare they discuss honesty. They're atheists, right?

The Christian Bible has multiple scriptures that define unbelievers as fools and morally corrupt, which many believers imbibe uncritically. It's bigotry. Those scriptures are hate speech:

[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8
[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

Altogether, these scriptures call unbelievers corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. Is it any wonder people that read those words or hear sermons from others that do are filled with hatred for atheists? Imagine the furor if the same things were said about blacks, Jews or gays - "there is no one who does good." When I was born, atheists were considered too immoral to teach, coach, adopt, serve on juries, or give expert testimony. And if you don't think that that still affects atheists adversely today, notice that there is virtually no objection to such words appearing in the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did, actually. Both the references I gave were about analysing the behaviour of particles using QM at all scales. What's more, the behaviour of particles is not the point, you are making claims about the nature of space-time, for which you have offered no references that aren't about hypothetical proposals and not current science.

Everybody here can look and see who has provided the references and who hasn't, so I really don't see what you the point of these silly denials is.

Particle in a box - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hydrogen atom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And, of course, every single textbook and introduction to the subject will confirm the same thing.

Yes, I ignored your references, because they were meaningless concerning whether there is continuous time/space at the smallest scale of the behavior of Quantum particles.

Of course there is movement of Quantum particles, but NO continuous time/space nor gravity.

Reference to the Hydrogen atom IS NOT at the Quantum level of particles.

 

[shunyadragon]

Textbooks change as "science" changes. Here's something more for you to object to: "As the Apollo 17 crew headed to the Moon for the final time in 1972, they were instructed to take a picture looking back at the Earth. The image – known as the Blue Marble – gives a unique perspective of the whole Earth hanging in the blackness of space." Fabulous picture of the earth taken by the astronauts, description by bbc. The iconic photo that summed up our place in the Universe
Wonderful description of the unique beauty of the earth and the thrill of the astronauts when they saw the earth. From the moon.

This is vague and no reference to science of any sort. Hanging in Space? By what? A string?

 

[shunyadragon]

Name one source that says that ANY model at the smallest scale is accepted science.

Still not addressing the issue here. Duck Bob and Weasel You made aclaim back it up Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.

Your ignorance is appalling. I cited references and they were ignored. I may cite more.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course there is movement of Quantum particles, but NO continuous time/spance not gravity.

Another evidence-free assertion. The entire analysis uses continuous space and time. Every single analysis in standard QM does the same. There is no quantisation of space and time in the theory of quantum mechanics. That is a simple fact. Go check. If you find something that claims otherwise, then stop with the empty assertions and post it.

Reference to the Hydrogen atom IS NOT at the Quantum level of particles.

This doesn't make any sense. The quantum nature of particles is exactly what allows us to understand and analyse atoms. The hydrogen atom being the simplest.

You have never actually studied this, have you?

Still not addressing the issue here.

Patently false. It is you who is doing anything but address the issue. You have not cited a single reference that backs up your claim about current accepted science having anything other than continuous space-time. Not one solitary reference. Your continued demands that other people cite evidence both ignores what has already been done, and is a clear case of trying to shift the burden of proof.

ETA:

I cited references and they were ignored.

And this is patently false, as well. The references you did supply were not ignored, it was pointed out that they were about hypotheses, and not current science. We are still waiting for the any reference at all that backs up your claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some science is modified. New science can sometimes be wrong, established principles will only be refined. Evoution is probably in that camp.
Relativity didn't overturn Newtonian gravity, it enhanced it. New discoveries about evolution will close the gaps.

Why are you worried about things posited, conjectured and made up? You believe in a book that is entirely made up from older made up books.
The original Israelites worshipped Yahweh and a goddess (likely Ashera) and were from Canaan.
Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myth.
Late OT is using Persian theology.
The NT is all Persian and Greek Hellenism, a Jewish version.
There is evidence for all of this.

Even if evolution was all a hoax, this doesn't provide one shred of evidence for Lord Krishna being real does it. But he created humans? So if evolution isn't real won't billions of Hindu be correct?
Or will it still just be a story, probably based on older stories now gone from our access. Yes, probably that. Same with Greek influenced mystery religions with dying/rising savior demigods who rise in 3 days and get followers into an afterlife. Those are still myths as well.

So your fight with evolution isn't helping a fictional character be real.

I don't know that much about "Lord Krishna" except for the name. I guess there are lots of people that believe it.
I didn't say that evolution is a hoax, I may say that certain positions are ridiculous, but I don't believe I said that evolution is a hoax, even though I don't believe the theory in overall respect. I am saying now that it seems to me there are real gaps in the theory. I mean scientists can project what they think happened in between fossil remnants, but that doesn't mean their assumptions are correct.
Note: but now that you mention it, it certainly could be a hoax. but I am sure there are many sincere people who really believe the entire theory as truth. (I do not any longer.)

 

[YoursTrue]

This is vague and no reference to science of any sort. Hanging in Space? By what? A string?

Nope. But that is how it appears. And -- the article from BBC quoted above also states it appears to be hanging. Moses did not have telescopes or space ships, but the earth, like the moon, appears to be hanging in space -- they didn't have x-rays then either. So if you want to argue, go ahead. I'm saying the Bible description is apt and if someone wants to say "there's nothing there," well naturally someone like from here is going to say, "Oh, no, that's not true. Space is something." Or a collapsed apartment building is something, even though someone may say "nothing was left." Have a good day.

 

[ratiocinator]

Bible description is...

...pretty much irrelevant, frankly. It's not at all impressive because it could, if it was genuinely inspired by a god, have been a whole lot more accurate. This retrofitting of the bible to what we know now is pathetic and ignores all the ways in which it is obviously wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is vague and no reference to science of any sort. Hanging in Space? By what? A string?

It appeared to be as nothing. Moses did not know "quantum physics," but his description was apt. Not good for nothing. It's just like the description of the earth before God started to make it habitable for men. Barren. Void. But it WAS filled with rocks, kind of like the moon, there WAS a sphere with something. So if you want to quibble over words, go for it. I'm not going to play too much in that game because it seems very clear to me (even though I wear glasses) that what Moses wrote about the earth hanging on nothing is a very good description. You want to fight about it? Not me, count me out if there are numbers for that. God was always there. Before anything.

 

[gnostic]

It appeared to be as nothing. Moses did not know "quantum physics," but his description was apt. Not good for nothing. It's just like the description of the earth before God started to make it habitable for men. Barren. Void. But it WAS filled with rocks, kind of like the moon, there WAS a sphere with something. So if you want to quibble over words, go for it.

First, although the books were traditionally ascribed to Moses, he wrote none of them. None of the books exist in the Late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1100 BCE),

The earliest inscriptions is the Silver Scrolls found in the cave at Ketef Hinnom, dated to somewhere between 630 and 590 BCE, before the final destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, by Nebuchadnezzar’s forces. The inscriptions is of the priestly blessings passage in Numbers 6. There are no mention of Moses or Aaron in these inscriptions.

But no Genesis (as well as the Exodus) exist before the 6th century BCE. Moses was likely invented hero by the priesthood during the Exile, as were Adam to Jacob in Genesis.

Second.

Genesis 1:1-2 described the Earth being void covered in water. There are no mention of rocks anywhere in these 2 verses. It never described rocky planet, just a primeval watery beginning, just like the Egyptian myths of Atum and Ra, where the primeval water or abyss is called Nu, and like the like the two primeval waters Engur (Nammu, Akkadian Tiamat) and Abzu (Akkadian Apsu) in Sumerian and Akkadian myths.

Nothing in the verses mentioned there being sun or stars.

And void means “empty space”, which contradicted verse that say the Earth was nothing but water. Water isn’t a void.

Clearly, you don’t know how to read, don’t know how interpret & understand your own scriptures.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. But that is how it appears. And -- the article from BBC quoted above also states it appears to be hanging. Moses did not have telescopes or space ships, but the earth, like the moon, appears to be hanging in space -- they didn't have x-rays then either. So if you want to argue, go ahead. I'm saying the Bible description is apt and if someone wants to say "there's nothing there," well naturally someone like from here is going to say, "Oh, no, that's not true. Space is something." Or a collapsed apartment building is something, even though someone may say "nothing was left." Have a good day.

Once again, there is no hint in the Bible anywhere that the Earth moves. In fact, for the battle of Jericho to make sense, it would have to be at rest and the sun moving most of the time.

That said, educated people knew long before there were telescopes that the Earth was round. But they believed it was fixed (i.e, hanging). They did not know it is moving.

 

[Polymath257]

Still not addressing the issue here. Duck Bob and Weasel You made aclaim back it up Cite one source that proposes that continuous space/time and gravity as in the universe exists at the quantum smallest scale.

Your ignorance is appalling. I cited references and they were ignored. I may cite more.

Once again, no theory concerning 'the quantum smallest scale', meaning the planck scale, is accepted science. It is literally ALL speculation.

Your references concerned *hypotheses* that are being investigated, NOT established science.

ALL quantum textbooks have a continuous background spacetime. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I ga ve references: Peskin& Schroder's book on Quantum Field Theory, for example, or Weinberg's books on Quantum theory. None of these have a discontinuous spacetime. None even mention quantization of time.

Why not? Because it is speculative through and through.

 

[Polymath257]

It appeared to be as nothing. Moses did not know "quantum physics," but his description was apt.

1. quantum physics is irrelevant to whether the Earth hangs or not.
2. The description was not due to Moses.
3. The description is not apt. If fails to point out the very relevant fact that the Earth moves.

Not good for nothing. It's just like the description of the earth before God started to make it habitable for men. Barren. Void. But it WAS filled with rocks, kind of like the moon, there WAS a sphere with something. So if you want to quibble over words, go for it. I'm not going to play too much in that game because it seems very clear to me (even though I wear glasses) that what Moses wrote about the earth hanging on nothing is a very good description. You want to fight about it? Not me, count me out if there are numbers for that. God was always there. Before anything.

Yes, this is your claim. but the quality of the text shows it to be written by a person, not a deity. And not even a person inspired by a deity: just an ordinary person showing the ignorance of the time.