On Evolution & Creation

[shunyadragon]

Then please tell me where Science thinks it came from.
You already told me where you think it came from, in msg 156. Which is not what science says.

Enljoy,

Based on our present knowledge our physical existence beyond the universe and underlying our universe is a Quantum World with Quantum Gravity and not non-existence.

 

[icant]

Wrong, please read up about the Big Bang, and not in Answers in Genesis.
Why 380,000 years?
Do you understand that the Universe is still expanding? Scientists have extrapolated that in reverse to estimate the beginning.

Hi Altfish,

I do not read Answers in Genesis or quote anything they print as they are a bunch of religious fanatics after a buck.
They totally messed up Creation by several trillion or more years by jamming two different events together and making one out of them.
They have done more to harm to Christianity than the Devil thought they could, when they adopted Ellen G. White's dreams while in a coma to be what God said in the Bible.

Why 380,000 years?

Because in that 380,000 years nothing can be seen. After that there was no light in the universe until the first stars had began to exist several hundred millions of years later.

Do you understand that the Universe is still expanding? Scientists have extrapolated that in reverse to estimate the beginning.

Yes, I know that it will keep expanding until it melts with fervent heat.

Enjoy

 

[shunyadragon]

Well blow my socks off, I have always been told the universe began to exist at the BB and continued until today., and the BB Theory covers the happening's pretty well.

The BB is an event and not the beginning. The universe may possibly be cyclic,

 

[ratiocinator]

Well blow my socks off, I have always been told the universe began to exist at the BB and continued until today., and the BB Theory covers the happening's pretty well.

It's a popular misconception. The BBT does cover the history of the universe from a hot dense state until today and does pretty well, but we lack both evidence and the theoretical framework to be sure what happened at the very start.

You mean because clocks run differently at different distances from the force of gravity that affects them.

If you're trying to imply that gravity affects the way clocks work, then that is not consistent. The satellites are in free fall, so don't actually experience gravity, it would also not account for the relative speed time dilation, even Galilean relativity says that you can't detect inertial motion. Relative motion time dilation requires two frames and is symmetrical; each will see the other's clocks going slower.

 

[ratiocinator]

But gravity did not exist at T=0.
It requires mass and there was no mass there.

Not that it's all that important, because we can't go back to "T=0" because everything becomes infinite, but you don't need mass, energy will do. The Einstein field equations relate the space-time curvature to the stress–energy–momentum tensor.

But Science says there is no time and existence prior to T=0.

I've lost count now of how many times you've been told science does no such thing. That is what the application of GR alone would say (because it totally breaks down at "T=0") but we know that quantum effects will be important, and we don't know how that will change things.

A;lthough they have been trying furiously to find a way to say there was.

No, they have not. There are multiple hypotheses, some of which will have a before and some not. The Hawking no boundary proposal is one that doesn't have a before.

 

[icant]

According to our current understanding of physics, a singularity is considered to have "infinite mass" concentrated at a single point in space, meaning its mass is not a finite value but is theoretically infinite due to its infinitely high density at zero volume; however, this concept is considered a limitation of our current theories as true infinities likely don't exist in the real world.

It does not matter what is presently understood about what is called today.
It only matters what the singularity at T=0 means as there was no before T=0 although scientists have propose several things trying to prove there was. Like other universes that collapsed and then exploded and built a new universe. Or we are part of a multi-verse, but they have never got past T=0.

So, there was no gravity at T=0 or mass.

Huh!?!?!?! You have time to acquire some real knowledge of science if you wish instead of a warped view of science based on an ancient tribal agenda.

The problem is that your science doesn't have any answer that I can learn from.

What existed prior to Time not existing.?
What existed and where did it come from that began to exist at 1 billionth of a second after T=0?
What caused the universe to began to exist when it did instead of trillions of years before it did?
When did Quantum Gravity become a theory?

Answer these four questions for me and I will have learned a lot.

Enjoy

 

[ratiocinator]

What existed prior to Time not existing.?

Gibberish question. You can't apply the word 'prior' if there is no time.

What caused the universe to began to exist when it did instead of trillions of years before it did?

Also, a gibberish question, for the same reason. You can't apply 'before' without time.

YET AGAIN: The space-time is a 4-dimensional manifold or 'object'. The manifold itself is not subject to time. It cannot begin to exist, nor can it stop existing, it just is. It is not embedded in time. Only things inside it can experience time because time is nothing but an observer-dependant direction through it.

 

[metis]

It's so pathetic that some people here at RF seeming suggest that scientists are stupid and/or dishonest people who spend their lives on basically nothing. And yet so many of them think they're being so religious.

 

[shunyadragon]

It does not matter what is presently understood about what is called today.

It does matter what the present knowledge of science is today which we perpetually ignore.

It only matters what the singularity at T=0 means as there was no before T=0 although scientists have propose several things trying to prove there was. Like other universes that collapsed and then exploded and built a new universe. Or we are part of a multi-verse, but they have never got past T=0.

Science doe not propose there was no before T=0. Your perpetual intentional ignorance is a barrier to understanding the present knowledge of science. Science has long gone past T=0. You are stuck in the intentional circular vortex of ignorance

Perpetually you use bad terminology concerning science. Science does not prove anything!!!!

So, there was no gravity at T=0 or mass.

Yes there is infinite mass as previously defined as to what a singularity is defined.

The problem is that your science doesn't have any answer that I can learn from.

The problem is you are stuck in a religious agenda and refuse to accept science as science

What existed prior to Time not existing.?

A Quantum worldof Quantum time and Quantum Gravity.

What existed and where did it come from that began to exist at 1 billionth of a second after T=0?

The Quantum World never began to exist.

What caused the universe to began to exist when it did instead of trillions of years before it did?

Physics. There may very well have been many universes before ours and possible a cyclic universe.

When did Quantum Gravity become a theory?

Quantum Gravity did not become a theory. It has always existed. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics explains the current knowledge of Quantum Gravity as previously defined.

Answer these four questions for me and I will have learned a lot.

All these questions have been repeatedly answered with references and you have ignored them

Enjoy

Enjoy your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal religious agenda.

See post #171 and respond coherently.

 

[shunyadragon]

If scientists are so happy to say "We don't know", why would it take seven years of arguing to get one particular scientist to say "we don't know"?

Scientists have always acknowledged that their knowledge of our physical existence was limited. That is why scientists are always researching and seeking to discover new knowledge, solve the problems, and answer the questions. That is the purpose of science.

The Big Bang is supposedly when the universe began to exist. Anything that happened after 380,000 years could very well be what we know the history of the universe.

We cannot see gravity

 

[icant]

It does matter what the present knowledge of science is today which we perpetually ignore.

Does science have any evidence that there was existence before T=0 or 1 billionth of a second latter?
I know there have been all kinds of things talked about, and proposed to have happened but where is the evidence?

Perpetually you use bad terminology concerning science. Science does not prove anything!!!!

The can't prove anything because they don't have the evidence.

Quantum Gravity did not become a theory. It has always existed.

Do you mean Quantum Gravity has been in existence eternally in the past?
Or that it has been in existence since time began to exist shortly after T=0?

 

[shunyadragon]

Does science have any evidence that there was existence before T=0 or 1 billionth of a second latter?
I know there have been all kinds of things talked about, and proposed to have happened but where is the evidence?

This has been a long contorted dialogue on your part with you basing your argument on a religious agenda with intentional ignorance of science. If you are not willing to comprehend objectively posts #171 an #180 your hopelessly lost in conundrum of circular reasoning.

The can't prove anything because they don't have the evidence.

Again, again and again your terminology and comprehension of scientific methods involving science is horrendous. Science does not prove anything.

Do you mean Quantum Gravity has been in existence eternally in the past?

Yes, The Quantum World and Quantum Gravity has always existed. T=0 and the existence of singularity are dependent on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity. The singularity is infinite mass, which you seem to fail to comprehend.

Or that it has been in existence since time began to exist shortly after T=0?

No. The Quantum World. Quantum time and Quantum Gravity are independent of our space-time universe that began at T=0.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, The Quantum World and Quantum Gravity has always existed. T=0 and the existence of singularity are dependent on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity. The singularity is infinite mass, which you seem to fail to comprehend.

No. The Quantum World. Quantum time and Quantum Gravity are independent of our space-time universe that began at T=0.

Sorry but this is science fiction, not science.

Quantum mechanics gives us no evidence at all that there is a separate "Quantum World", it is a theory about this universe, formulated on the background of normal space and time.

Quantum Field Theory goes beyond QM and is formulated on the background of Special Relativity. There is no tested theory of quantum gravity yet, only various hypotheses, such as String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Twister Theory, and so on.

Some of them may take us to something beyond this space-time but we cannot say that we know this to be the case. They also generally avoid a real singularity, which, as I said before, nobody in cosmology really takes seriously any more.

You are generally arguing in the right direction in the sense that we need to look at the science and reject religious or other science-denying points of view, but going beyond the science yourself, doesn't help.

 

[ratiocinator]

Does science have any evidence that there was existence before T=0 or 1 billionth of a second latter?

Yet again: science cannot answer that question yet.

The can't prove anything because they don't have the evidence.

You really don't understand science at all, do you? Theories in science are backed up by evidence, but no amount of evidence can absolutely prove a theory. Theories and hypotheses can be disproved (falsified) simply by making a testable prediction that turns out to be false. We gain confidence in theories by trying to break them, by repeatedly testing their predictions.

 

[icant]

It's so pathetic that some people here at RF seeming suggest that scientists are stupid and/or dishonest people who spend their lives on basically nothing. And yet so many of them think they're being so religious.

I think you were talking about me for one.
But I for one do not think scientists are stupid. Some are the most brilliant people alive and those who have gone. But brilliant people can do, think and believe some of the wildest things.

I know and have friends that have PHD's, and they can pull some pretty awful things.

Just look at all the diseases they have been able to defeat.
Made it possible for us to fly without wings.
Stay cool inside when it's a hundred and eight degrees outside. I really love that one.
The internet we are having a conversation on, and the computer's we use and all the other things we did not have back during WWII.
We have come a long way since I was born Sept. 26, 1939.
And most scientist I know are too busy to be on here chatting with us wasting their time.

Now I don't think I am religious.
But I do claim to be a poor wretched sinner who is a born-again child of the King and not worthy of anything He has to offer.
I have spent my life trying to do the things He tells me He wants me to do. I have enjoyed every minute I spent doing that, along with spending the last 67 years of my life with the charming lady he led me to 69 years ago. If I could go back and do it over again I, would not change a thing as I have no regrets. If that is being religious, I would to that.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

This has been a long contorted dialogue on your part with you basing your argument on a religious agenda with intentional ignorance of science. If you are not willing to comprehend objectively posts #171 an #180 your hopelessly lost in conundrum of circular reasoning.

I understand completely that a singularity is a place where the theory breaks down at T=0 and the math has nothing to explain what is happening there.
I understand completely that to go any further than General Relativity breaks down there has to be a new Theory.
I also understand that some say no we can add a couple of Band-Aids and that will do the trick.

Again, again and again your terminology and comprehension of scientific methods involving science is horrendous. Science does not prove anything.

Well, I thought they could by experimenting and actually producing something.
If I remember correctly science gave us electricity, the phones, autos, airplanes, trains, etc.
I don't ever remember any of those things, just popping into existence by themselves.

Yes, The Quantum World and Quantum Gravity has always existed. T=0 and the existence of singularity are dependent on Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Gravity. The singularity is infinite mass, which you seem to fail to comprehend.

So you believe that existence existed prior to T=0 and is responsible for the energy that existed at 1 billionth of a second after there was no time.

My Goodness that is what I have been trying to say since I got here. My Bible tells me that is exactly what took place.
"Genessis 1:1 in the beginning created God the heavens and the earth."

But, because of the Quantum gravity hypotheses you have grabbed the bull by the horns and declared it a Theory and therefore is a fact.

Now as far as a singularity is concerned it is only a place in physis that math becomes unintelligent and offers nothing.
I could call my head a singularity sometimes because it doesn't make sense. Like now I am sitting here typing a message to you and I could be out on the lake trying to find a stupid fish that would try to swallow that piece of wood I could keep throwing in front of him.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

time is nothing but an observer-dependant direction through it.

Things exist, events happen in that existence, whether an observer is there or not.
Time was invented by mankind to measure the duration between events in that existence.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

no amount of evidence can absolutely prove a theory.

Actually, that is a fact they can't refute yet.

Theories in science are backed up by evidence, but no amount of evidence can absolutely prove a theory.

Are you saying that Jonas Salk who was one of the leading scientists of the twentieth century and the creator of the first polio vaccine.
Which I thought was one of the most important things anyone could do for the welfare of mankind.
But you are now telling me it was never a proven fact that if you took the vaccine, you didn't get polio?
But you are quite right that it is almost impossible to reach a fact based on an assumption.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

Things exist, events happen in that existence, whether an observer is there or not.

Okay, I meant any notional observer or 'frame of reference'. The point is that time is a direction through the manifold but not a fixed one. I could be any timelike path.

Time was invented by mankind to measure the duration between events in that existence.

The evidence is for spacetime being an aspect of reality. General relativity works.

Posted this on another thread about the predictions of time dilation and how it affects satellites:

"Daily time dilation over circular orbit height split into its components. On this chart, only Gravity Probe A was launched specifically to test general relativity. The other spacecraft on this chart (except for the ISS, whose range of points is marked "theory") carry atomic clocks whose proper operation depend on the validity of general relativity."

Time dilation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When the theory was published that made these predictions, there were no artificial satellites and no atomic clocks.

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you saying that Jonas Salk who was one of the leading scientists of the twentieth century and the creator of the first polio vaccine.
Which I thought was one of the most important things anyone could do for the welfare of mankind.
But you are now telling me it was never a proven fact that if you took the vaccine, you didn't get polio?

The effectiveness of a vaccine (or any other treatment) isn't a theory, it's evidence. The theory is how it works, the effectiveness is (very good) evidence for the theory.