The Big Bang as evidence for God

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ok cool, but thats not what I meant, I thought the illustration sufficed. I didn't mean to make it sound like gravity is doing the bending but that is how gravity works because spacetime is bending.

Yes, well, I stopped reading when I hit the word "god". And the problem here is associated with what you've already pointed out, nit-pickeyness as a diversionary tactic in lieu of resorting to a reasoned chain of thought--probably need to add a new fallacy to the list, argument from diversionittyness, er sun'thin. Or we could just cite them separately.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

See our discussion, I called it spacetime countless times. I already took back my word dillate from his nit pickiness.

The problem wasn't that you said "space" instead of spacetime. It's that you separated gravity from space/space-time and described it as something that affects or does something to space. Gravitation IS the curvature/curving/bending of space/space-time. It DOES NOT bend space or space-time. The issue isn't one of terminology, but a fundamental conceptual distinction.
To say that gravity bends space-time is to say that there exists some "force", entity, process, or whatever that does something to space-time. You describe the way this "gravity" acts on/exerts influence on/affects space-time as "bending". But there isn't anything that exists which does this.
Put simply, gravitation doesn't bend space-time, gravitation itself IS the bending of space-time.
Nor was the use of the term "dilate" the issue I had with your description of relativistic affects. You are trying to conceptualize a quantum mechanical process via classical relativistic mechanics and in doing so you are misconstruing AND (far more importantly) misunderstanding/inaccurately conceptualizing BOTH. You've made this connection between nonlocality/entanglement in QM and concepts from special relativity before. You are misleading yourself by these connections. The fact that there appears to be some surface similarity between these concepts to you hides the fundamental distinctions that actually exist. In order to get quantum systems to behave relativistically we have to describe them as fundamentally different entities acting in fundamentally different ways, and a lot of processes from quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, classical mechanics, and special relativity disappear, from chaos (quantum systems do not exhibit chaotic dynamics we see even in Newtonian mechanics) to waves to particles and even to the so-called wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. The structure of spacetime changes in relativistic quantum physics and the structure, nature, even existence of quantum systems do as well (relativistic quantum physics, for example, requires the ability for the creation and annihilation of particles, "particles" are not really even approximately particle-like nor wave-like but are fields that may or may not be real and if they are they may not be physical but could be e.g., the mediation of some force).

 

[paarsurrey]

The Big Bang as evidence for God

Big Bang is an evidence for G-d, as it would have not started if it had not received the Word "to be" from G-d.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

....as it would have not started if it had not received the Word "to be" from G-d.

Pure unfounded supposition. It may be true, but we have no way of knowing.

 

[`mud]

Wouldn't G-d's .....oh the hell with it,
doesn't really matter anyways.
~
'mud

 

[paarsurrey]

Pure unfounded supposition. It may be true, but we have no way of knowing.

There is no supposition involved.
Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The is no such animal as spacetime.....it is a concept to help

The Big Bang as evidence for God

Big Bang is an evidence for G-d, as it would have not started if it had not received the Word "to be" from G-d.
Regards

But there is no evidence of a big bang....only a man made theory..... Duality only comes from the minds of man.....the Cosmos as it is, is one.....and eternal....nothing can ever be removed from it...nothing can ever be added to it....it was never created...nor will it ever be destroyed.. Accept it....and G-d will accept you, for while the apparent infinite manifested forms of G-d are born and die...the underlying essence of the Cosmos is changeless.... call it what you will...some call it G-d....

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no supposition involved.
Regards

Supposition, faith, same difference.

 

[Thief]

indifference, apathy....disbelief.......
all the same stuff

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The is no such animal as spacetime.....it is a concept to help

That is not necessarily true. Many physicists, cosmologists, and philosophers have argued that the theory and its empirical support entail an ontological spacetime in which we are "4-dimensional hunks of matter" and every event has happened or hasn't according to some reference frame. There is no time, no "now", no position in space that is meaningful, no unique time in which any event occur or spatial coordinates in which anything is located, etc.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not necessarily true. Many physicists, cosmologists, and philosophers have argued that the theory and its empirical support entail an ontological spacetime in which we are "4-dimensional hunks of matter" and every event has happened or hasn't according to some reference frame. There is no time, no "now", no position in space that is meaningful, no unique time in which any event occur or spatial coordinates in which anything is located, etc.

Yes...I understand...however it is not my intuited understanding...time involves observation of relative movement within space...it is not a quality of space itself...(for that matter nor are its three dimensions....they do not exist except as abstract conceptual aspects of the unitary space). To include time as an indivisible quality of spacetime may be of some help to the human endeavor to understand the cosmos....but it does not work for some religious meditation which endeavors to transcend the mind's dualistic perspective of observation.

 

[`mud]

you're almost there...
~
'mud

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

you're almost there...
~
'mud

How would you know, you've come and gone.

 

[`mud]

...and come again,
bumper cars, over and over.
~
'mud

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you're almost there...
~
'mud

Yeh......that's why I hesitate to end the journey....I have grown a little too fond of savoring the penultimate moment..

 

[idav]

The structure of spacetime changes in relativistic quantum physics and the structure, nature, even existence of quantum systems do as well (relativistic quantum physics, for example, requires the ability for the creation and annihilation of particles, "particles" are not really even approximately particle-like nor wave-like but are fields that may or may not be real and if they are they may not be physical but could be e.g., the mediation of some force).

I believe this but your not really saying anything here, just being disagreeable. Just because two separate theories can't be reconciled doesn't make one theory obsolete when things get too small to calculate.

Sure, may or may not be real, could just be a force, forces that have the ability to be outside of spacetime with enough mass and/or energy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I believe this but your not really saying anything here, just being disagreeable. Just because two separate theories can't be reconciled doesn't make one theory obsolete when things get too small to calculate.

Special relativity HAS been reconciled with quantum mechanics. We have relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum field theory, quantum chromodynamics, etc. These are all quantum theories reconciled with special relativity. The problem is that your interpretation of nonlocality/entanglement in quantum mechanics and the way you relate it to space time, mass, energy, etc., has NOTHING to do with ANY physics, INCLUDING the successful reconciliation of quantum mechanics with special relativity/spacetime physics. Quantum spacetime is a component of most modern theories of physics including those believed to be the most complete and accurate, including the standard models of particle physics and cosmology.
It may seem as if I'm just being disagreeable, and of course I AM disagreeing with you, but I'm not nitpicking. You are fundamentally mischaracterizing special relativity, quantum mechanics, and by extension modern physics and most unfortunately you don't seem to realize how or where your conceptual simplifications you have thanks to your interpretations of popular sources are misleading you. I'm not trying to get you to agree with my views on quantum physics or relativity (I haven't even expressed them!). I'm not arguing for or even using specific interpretations of modern physics here, nor am I promoting some ideology. I'm doing what I've been trying to do for (I think) a few years now: try to explain to you the basics of the relevant components of the relevant theories and how you are unfortunately misleading yourself. I don't want to convince you that my beliefs are correct, I want you to gain the understanding you seek (or at least something closer to it).

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Special relativity HAS been reconciled with quantum mechanics.

Quantum nonlocality operates outside of time or in a timeless environment--thus entangled particles reacting in sync across the vast reaches of space, and we don't know how or why that can happen. But it doesn't allow for faster than light communication so it is therefore compatible with special relativity for that reason only, not because we understand how qm and special relativity are interrelated.

Would you please tone down your patronizing comments: "You are fundamentally mischaracterizing special relativity, quantum mechanics, and by extension modern physics and most unfortunately you don't seem to realize [how or where your conceptual simplifications you have thanks to (????)] your interpretations of popular sources are misleading you"; "I'm doing what I've been trying to do for (I think) a few years now"; "I want you to gain the understanding you seek".

He (We) should discount popular sources (no matter their expertise) and listen to you (no matter your lack of same) using old science and your arrogant attitude? I'm only saying this because "I want you to gain the understanding you seek".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Quantum nonlocality operates outside of time or in a timeless environment

Then by all means formulate the state of a quantum system or systems which "operates outside of time or in a timeless environment". You have demonstrated already an inability to show your knowledge of quantum mechanics, special relativity, or modern physics is beyond that of a grade school student who has watched some episodes of Bill Nye the Science Guy. But I give you the chance to prove otherwise (again!). Simply demonstrate that your knowledge of quantum physics is not restricted to pathetically simplistic sources by showing that your conception of what "nonlocality" and "operates outside of time or in a timeless environment" is in anyway consistent with the literature.

Of course, I already showed you are utterly incapable of demonstrating such basic understanding of modern physics by BOTH giving you some simple questions to answer AND letting you provide equivalent questions of your own to demonstrate you aren't a complete fraud whose knowledge is less than that of one who can't but quote-mine Wikipedia.

But it doesn't allow for faster than light communication so it is therefore compatible with special relativity for that reason only, not because we understand how qm and special relativity are interrelated.

Duh. I have already described and detailed the mechanisms and nature of relativistic quantum mechanics. You've misrepresented QM, QFT, and SR. Feel free to relate GM to any field theory or modern physics more generally.

Would you please tone down your patronizing comments:

Sure. I'll stop patronizing when you stop pretending you have the SLIGHTEST idea of the FAINTEST conception of the framework of modern physics beyond your pathetically inept interpretation of a SINGLE text on an interpretation of quantum mechanics THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO DEVELOPED THIS INTERPRETATION HAS EXPLICITLY REFUTED. Basically, when you tone down your pretend act of understanding of modern physics, I'll stop patronizing it.

He (We) should discount popular sources (no matter their expertise) and listen to you (no matter your lack of same) using old science and your arrogant attitude?

You rely upon a popular version of a more technical interpretation you neither understand nor have access to (in that she hasn't written a text you are capable of understanding nor which you have read). I have read her sources and communicated with her, and you are limited to the understanding of the physical theory from her popular text that SHE HAS HERSELF STATED IS NOT ADEQUATE!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

OK, we're done.