Atheists

Clean up on isle 8!! Someone's logic bubble just popped and true colors made an ugly mess.

Don't slip and fall now!

 

Okie:

I think it's safe to say that Beethovens parents had a hand in his assembly. I don't see a purpose in his deafness. How far can you question causality? To what end? Only your own, but that is why you should create! Even your own end!

The universe has no mind of itself, but it has minds.
It is carefree in the fullest sense lol

 

Relaxx

I will never break my cognitive bones on Aristotlean 'rock logic'
Suggest anything you wish.
I may or may not agree.
I have my own 'bar' of belief.
My own lateral method.
Dynamic rationality

Yogi's.?. lol

Occam

 

relaxxx, I think everything you said about randomness is right on, but about energy. You say everything is energy, but what IS energy? All physicists can really say about it is that it is that property which is conserved. As for the singularity, we cannot say whether there really was a true singularity. We know the state of the universe very shortly after the big bang, but we do not know what existed at time 0, and certainly not before.

 

Mr stiffy

Heres one that i still fumble over and hit my nose.
Cause my understanding abillity cant encompass it.
The speed of light. The speed of em energy.
Is ~300thousand Kms a second.

To all observers. ALWAYS. No mater what speed they are going.
This could be called magic.
Science cannot even begin to explain it.

What can be before the bang? Well reality was there. like a city.
Then a new suburb 'our bang universe' came to be..

A new medium rent development..lol

Occam

 

Energy in its most basic definition is the natural act of balancing. Energy flows until there is balance.

I have no idea how a state of singularity can develop an imbalance, or energy. What I do know is that there is not one God theory or concept that makes the SLIGHTEST bit of SENSE. There is not one God theory that holds up to scientific and factual scrutiny.

 

Actually it's quite explainable. The math isn't even that complex. Look up Lorentz transformations. That will explain why the speed of light is always the same. As for why the speed of light is 299792458 m/s, the mathematics behind that are a bit more complex, but still quite explainable.

Yeah, that's what I said... "it is that property which is conserved". In physics lingo though I suppose. All that says is that the total energy of a system never changes. But that still doesn't say what energy is. Not that anyone really knows yet, but I'm just curious.

Is there an imbalance? It's possible that the total energy of the universe is zero. It happens in quantum mechanics all the time in a vacuum. A particle and an antiparticle pop up from nowhere. Their total energy adds up to zero though. Then they smack into eachother and dissapear. Crazy shit.

If you mean that matter is distributed unevenly throughout the universe, when the universe was microscopic, and there were these quantum fluctuations, the universe went through an inflationary period where it expanded faster than the speed of light (spacetime can move faster than light, but objects within spacetime cannot). Then different parts of the universe were suddenly too far appart to equalize eachother and the clumpy distrubution became frozen in place, and as time went on the clumps formed into galaxies and super clusters.

You are correct sir.

 

Mr Stiffy

I'm interested to hear what you think of timedilation if the 'C constant' is so easy to understand.
What happens 'timewise' to mass at 99.99 C
And yes it can be 'got there' . thats why we build HUGE accelerators.

Occam

 

Are you asking for the derivations of the equations showing that c is constant for all observers? Like I say, the math is easy (just algebra and some trig), but the derivation is a little long. I can post it if you really want to look at it though.

What it will show though is that if one observer O' is moving with respect to another observer O along the x-axis of O, that the axis of time in O' (call it t') and x' actually rotate with respect to x and t in the O frame. It is this rotation of the x'-axis that make lengths in the O' frame along x' appear shorter relative to the x axis in O. It is also the rotation of the t'-axis that make the observer at O' age at a faster rate relative to the t-axis in O.

I am also well aware of particles observed traveling at .9999c and above. The increase in mass can also be demonstrated with the Lorentzian transformations. Momentum (p) is mass times velocity. In the same way that an event can be specified by the four dimensional [x,y,z,t] vector, there is also a four dimensional momentum [px,py,pz,E], where E is energy. This is transformed in the same way that other properties such as length and time are because of the Lorentz transformations.

Like I say, if you are curious enough to follow the derivations, I can post them here. Just let me know what level of math & physics you are at so I can make it understandable to you.

 

MrStiffy

No. i asked what you thought of passing time being different at 99.999 C
than at ~rest [if there is such a thing]

1 sec per sec is variable dependent on proximity to C.

Math may be able to describe the effect..
But what causes it.?
What is time if is variable relative to C.
The effect is FACT.
[ie.. man goes in ship @ 99.9999 C and returns to earth 2 months latter.
1000 years have passed on earth. I have math of tau effect witten down somewhere
which gives exact ratio of dilation to velocity]

Occam

 

The language of physics is math. Math not only describes the effect but explains why it happens. To describe it in plain english would be like describing color to a blind person. I have developed a program though that visually shows what is happening and visually describes why time dilation occurs. So when I think of time dilation I see it visually. It would be hard to explain, but I can try...

There are 3 spatial dimensions, and then there is the time dimension. The time axis is measured with imaginary numbers. This is what causes the effects of time dilation and length contraction. The spatial dimensions are measured in some unit of length: meters for example. The time axis must also match this unit of measure, so we multiply the time passed along the t-axis by c. This would be seconds*(meters/seconds) which gives meters, and it all works. That is the time axis' relationship to c. So when a light beam shines, it always travels as far along x as it does along t (i.e. at a 45 degree angle in the x-t plane). For example 1 light second along x and 1 second along the t-axis. This holds true for every observer - no matter what.

I think of spacetime as a static, unmoving 4D structure. Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, chemistry is a non-reversable process and our memory only is able to record the past. This gives the illusion that time is flowing. It is not. Spacetime is fixed in stone.

 

I don't think most Atheists claim that there was scientific proof for their belief.

Theists not the one making the assertion of a supernatural being. Atheism is a rejection of this supernatural being, and thus seems a more logical position.

The basis of this logical reasoning is the same impulse in the psyche which is responsible for our desire to learn more about the world, such as the sciences.

Which is why I think most scientists are agnostic.

 

I don't understand. Why is it more "logical" to reject a supernatural being? I can see why, in the absence of proof either way, reasonable people would want to suspend judgment--i.e., be agnostic. But why atheist? Christian Evangelicals have argued that science contains a bias in favor of naturalistic explanations. I think this is true, and also sensible, since an expectation that phenomena are the result of supernatural forces doesn't get us far in developing testable, refuatable, hypotheses. But being sensible doesn't make it "logical" or true, just useful.

 

Mr stiffy

False
Math DOES NOT explain why it happens.
We know the exact math of gravitational effects.
Yet math nor human understanding explain WHY it happens.

Your position seems to be
everything can be expalined by math..false
effects can be explained.. but causes?

we do not know what time is
we do not know what gravity is
we do not know what magnetism is
we do not know what space is
we do not know what mater is.

time is not a dimension
it is a process
If you stop all process, all 'movement'
stasis
'time' stops does it not
thus time is a process dependent on movement.
movement is a process dependent on the laws of reality.

where do the laws come from? they did not evolve to the magnificent
ballance we see in them.

The 'we are on frame 2758579830 of the movie
called existance' is a falsity. Determinism is a falsity.
Q mechanics shows determinism and the 'fixed in stone' reality as garbage.

Occam

 

Okiefrieak

Exactly

Occam is areligious
but not athiest
The problem is thinkers cant get around the idea of a 'god'
and a universe
tied up as one unit.
WHAT came first?
If the universe is reality
how did god exist to make it
If god is the universe. where did 'he' come from without cause.

It can be resolved by 'thinking outside the box'.
Reality is FAR larger than any small and sputtering universe like the one we exist in.
Analogy
Imagine reality as huge city. Our observable universe is but a new housing development out on the nw edge 'medium rent'
WE are the roaches that have just infested one house in that development.

Is 'god' a realty mogul?

Occam

 

Ok, what I should have said was that the language of math is better suited than english to explain why these things happen.

Oh not another person who revels in what we do not know. We do know what gravity is. We do know what magnetism is. We do not know exactly what space is, and we do not know exactly what matter is.

I have wasted many hours trying to explain things to people in forums who had no intention of learning. I have concluded it is a waste of time. If you want to know how this stuff works I can tell you. I can also adress all the points you have brought up in your post, but I can already see that it will be a big waste of time.

 

Mr stiffy

Well you are alone of all humans

WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY?

Or will u be 'leaving the room' cause it all got too human?
[hope u dont.. seems you have a head worth sacking 'pilaging']

Occam

PS

Dont patronise me with 'u dont want to understand'
Who are u? einstein?
Maybe my philosophy is more complex than your math.
Ever thought of that?
How does math explain the tingle on your neck listening to a great piece of music
How does math bring tears to your eyes when the hero dies in a
classic tragedy.
How doe math explain the awe of a great work of art.

ALL is perception. Math, art, philosophy, polity, percieved reality.

The ONLY truth. IS
I think therefore i am
ALL else is extrapolation

 

Simple answers are free:
The curvature of spacetime.

Fully explained answers will require a demonstrated effort on your part to comprehend what I am telling you.

I offered you an explaination. You didn't want to hear it because you seem to have math phobia.

I wouldn't be surprised lol. There is a principle, perhaps you've heard of it, called Occam's Razor: "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best"

 

Mr Stiffy

Fully cognizant of curvature. And mass effects appon space.
Dont need math for that.. I can see it in my head.. easily..without math [Why would i need to complicate things "ie occams razor" with math when i can SEE it]

Bit WHY does mass warp space?
Dont know.. ?
Either do i. thats why i asked.

Your math 'explains nothing' It turns what is known in concept into symbols to support that concept. I see the concept
But does not tell a story or show why something is.
WHY. is time dilated at near C..?
You still have not even touched on this.. dont know.. ?
Either do i . thats why i asked.

Please stop the patronising.
I have iq of 150. your smarts are small things.
I can do the math
But i see a toaster
No the exact parrameters [math] of that which make the toaster.
Math will describe detail.. but never explain the thing.

"To understand the universe, imagination is far more important
than intelligence"
[a einstein]

Hoping you will get of your math high horse and start thinking
Not just calculating
Math does not imagine premis

Occam

 

Because of conservation of energy.
There is a Riemann tensor that describes curved space. The Ricci version of that tensor is a set of possible curvatures of space in which energy is conserved.

Mass, as you know is energy. To balance a concentration of energy, in the form of mass, spacetime must curve to balance out the energy equation, and the Ricci tensor shows how spacetime curves in order to balance out the energy which is the mass.

That's like saying "Your english 'explains nothing'. It turns concepts into sounds or symbols to support those concepts".

The language itself does not explain, but it is a way of communicating concepts that do explain. Math is a language, not an explaination in and of itself.

Yes, I know. The explaination is long though and I'd rather not waste time going through it if you object to the explaination being told through math.