OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more!

[Arryn]

Originally posted by atul:
Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon.

Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down. IOW, you get mathematical infinities as solutions to equations.

BTW, there is a current theory, not particularly well-known by most people, that postulates that a black hole does not contain a singularity, and that some rather exotic stuff lies within the event horizon.

EDIT: typo

[ July 29, 2004, 14:44: Message edited by: Arryn ]

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)

The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.

Originally posted by Arryn:

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy.

If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:

Some being which can ignore the laws of physics

- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot.

[Jack Simth]

This apparently got lost in the shuffle, so I'm bringing it back to the top for a moment.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:
If they were suffering from mass delusion, then logically so are all believers today. And if today's believers aren't delusional, then by corollary, neither were the ancient Greeks, and thus modern Judeo-Christian-Islam is wrong and there are many gods.

Could you expound on the specifics of the "logically" you are using? To the best of my knoweledge, two Groups believing opposing things about a single thing necessitates neither both being equally right nor both being equally wrong.

---

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.

The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old. (And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

[atul]

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down.

Hm, it hasn't ever been quite clear to me what's the stuff with the black holes anyway, so thanks for the clarification. Okay, not the edge, the center. The discussion goes far too theoretical for us little engineering physicists...

Anyone else noted that the original topic has gained some heat on itself also, by the way?

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Arryn:
The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

quote:

---

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old.

---

It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this? Any reliable, citeable observations of a case where physicis were suspended?

Originally posted by Arryn:
(And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Where did I say the universe had infinite energy?

Originally posted by Arryn:

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.

Seeing as how you clearly aren't reading my Posts very carefully, there isn't much point in further discussion, is there?

Edit: fixed a grammer mistake

[ July 29, 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]