- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 15 2008,19:58) That is true. But one is allowed to show logically a flaw in ones arguments. This is a forum after all.
If a flaw is pointed out, and a person continues on with their argument despite the flaw, then everyone else gets to see that persons motives a bit clearer.
Remember that the light shows up the deeds of the heart.
Nothing wrong with light, truth, logic, and correction.
I agree.Genesis 1:3-5 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
1) Nothing
2) Something
3) SomeoneIf you cannot answer that, then you have no right to say that any of them are wrong.
If you need help about the definition of nothing, then think of something and nothing is the absence of something. Nothing is not something.
Darkness is the absence of light. If there is NO light, you have darkness. Not sure if you are able to grasp this, but I would still appreciate an answer as to where you sit.
If you cannot, then your attacks against the idea that the cosmos was created is of no serious value to anyone seeking the truth.
It's quite simple Stu. If you cannot say that the cosmos came from nothing, something, or someone, then you really have no idea Stu.
How are you to then narrow down the something or someone if you cannot make a decision at this early stage?
And if you think this is philosophical, then does that not show the weakness in your belief that all things can be worked out scientifically?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2008,22:21) Let’s just go back a page, here t8. You said
Quote OK, we have an answer. HE DOESN'T KNOW. You know what that means Stu? It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer. If you are honest with yourself, you would keep the options open if you do not know. If you close down options and you do not know, then you simply do not know what you are doing. Have a long hard think about it. “It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer.”
This is what changed the discussion from the pointless one about matter into a philosophical one about the existence of god. If you don’t intend this to be a valid point, then please just retract it. Otherwise you have considerably opened up the terms of the discussion, but into areas you paradoxically don’t appear to want to go.
By the way, the discussion is pointless because you can’t say what the difference between nothing and something actually is, and therefore the assertion that they are different things is just an unjustified assumption. This may sound barking mad to you, but since neither of us are committing to an actual model of how matter came to be, I am quite happy to speculate that what we call ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ could well be nonsense concepts. The world of the tiniest particles is known to be at least extremely peculiar, and very possibly it is almost incomprehensibly so.
Nothing from nothing might be no different from something from nothing, or indeed nothing from something!
The cyclotron in British Columbia has ‘created’ around a gram of matter in its working life to date. That is, it has converted energy to mass. That energy was present as a wave as much as it was a particle. Now explain to me how that weighs anything. Then tell me you know what ‘something’ is.
Stuart
Well Stu, obviously a wave is a wave and that makes it something.
A particle is a particle and that is something.Obviously light particles seem to be both a wave and particle, but regardless that is still something.
So are you inclined toward “b) Something” now?
Quote I always first think of the kind of cosmology done most popularly by Carl Sagan and by Stephen Hawking 2.the branch of astronomy that deals with the general structure and evolution of the universe
These are my two favorite science authors. I own books by both of them.
Have you read: “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.”
I like his writing style. He is good at logically pointing out the stupidity of certain things.Not really related, this is a clip of Carl Sagan explaining the concept of a fourth dimension.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9KT4M7kiSw&feature=related
He explains it quite well.
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2008,13:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2008,22:21) Let’s just go back a page, here t8. You said
Quote OK, we have an answer. HE DOESN'T KNOW. You know what that means Stu? It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer. If you are honest with yourself, you would keep the options open if you do not know. If you close down options and you do not know, then you simply do not know what you are doing. Have a long hard think about it. “It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer.”
This is what changed the discussion from the pointless one about matter into a philosophical one about the existence of god. If you don’t intend this to be a valid point, then please just retract it. Otherwise you have considerably opened up the terms of the discussion, but into areas you paradoxically don’t appear to want to go.
By the way, the discussion is pointless because you can’t say what the difference between nothing and something actually is, and therefore the assertion that they are different things is just an unjustified assumption. This may sound barking mad to you, but since neither of us are committing to an actual model of how matter came to be, I am quite happy to speculate that what we call ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ could well be nonsense concepts. The world of the tiniest particles is known to be at least extremely peculiar, and very possibly it is almost incomprehensibly so.
Nothing from nothing might be no different from something from nothing, or indeed nothing from something!
The cyclotron in British Columbia has ‘created’ around a gram of matter in its working life to date. That is, it has converted energy to mass. That energy was present as a wave as much as it was a particle. Now explain to me how that weighs anything. Then tell me you know what ‘something’ is.
Stuart
Well Stu, obviously a wave is a wave and that makes it something.
A particle is a particle and that is something.Obviously light particles seem to be both a wave and particle, but regardless that is still something.
So are you inclined toward “b) Something” now?
Have a look at a wave, say a suspended coil of wire that is flicked to make the wave, in freeze-frame as the displacement moves from left to right. For an instant of time the coil is straight, and if you take a photo then it would seem to the observer as if there was no wave in the coil.
All particles have a wavelengh; they are all waves as well as particles. Those particles spend some of the time not appearing to exist.********************************************
Gravity manifests itself as a distortion of space-time. That distortion can appear to attract matter. How can 'empty' space, with 'nothing' in it attract 'something' just because the 'nothing' is bent?
********************************************
If we can't say what matter really is, of even if it is really there, what is the point of the word 'something', or its origins?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,18:36) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2008,13:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2008,22:21) Let’s just go back a page, here t8. You said
Quote OK, we have an answer. HE DOESN'T KNOW. You know what that means Stu? It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer. If you are honest with yourself, you would keep the options open if you do not know. If you close down options and you do not know, then you simply do not know what you are doing. Have a long hard think about it. “It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer.”
This is what changed the discussion from the pointless one about matter into a philosophical one about the existence of god. If you don’t intend this to be a valid point, then please just retract it. Otherwise you have considerably opened up the terms of the discussion, but into areas you paradoxically don’t appear to want to go.
By the way, the discussion is pointless because you can’t say what the difference between nothing and something actually is, and therefore the assertion that they are different things is just an unjustified assumption. This may sound barking mad to you, but since neither of us are committing to an actual model of how matter came to be, I am quite happy to speculate that what we call ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ could well be nonsense concepts. The world of the tiniest particles is known to be at least extremely peculiar, and very possibly it is almost incomprehensibly so.
Nothing from nothing might be no different from something from nothing, or indeed nothing from something!
The cyclotron in British Columbia has ‘created’ around a gram of matter in its working life to date. That is, it has converted energy to mass. That energy was present as a wave as much as it was a particle. Now explain to me how that weighs anything. Then tell me you know what ‘something’ is.
Stuart
Well Stu, obviously a wave is a wave and that makes it something.
A particle is a particle and that is something.Obviously light particles seem to be both a wave and particle, but regardless that is still something.
So are you inclined toward “b) Something” now?
Have a look at a wave, say a suspended coil of wire that is flicked to make the wave, in freeze-frame as the displacement moves from left to right. For an instant of time the coil is straight, and if you take a photo then it would seem to the observer as if there was no wave in the coil.
All particles have a wavelengh; they are all waves as well as particles. Those particles spend some of the time not appearing to exist.********************************************
Gravity manifests itself as a distortion of space-time. That distortion can appear to attract matter. How can 'empty' space, with 'nothing' in it attract 'something' just because the 'nothing' is bent?
********************************************
If we can't say what matter really is, of even if it is really there, what is the point of the word 'something', or its origins?
Stuart
Stu,You honestly make good points.
However, I personally think you are cheating on this one when you get to the very core of it.
Let me try to define what I mean by 'something” in this discussion.
Ready?
NOT NOTHING
If you really really really believe that everything popped into existence out of nothing and I mean ABSOLUTE PURE NOTHINGNESS, then Stu you really shouldn't make fun of those who believe in God. Your concept should be considered way more far fetched and Harry Potter like.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 16 2008,19:00) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,18:36) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2008,13:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2008,22:21) Let’s just go back a page, here t8. You said
Quote OK, we have an answer. HE DOESN'T KNOW. You know what that means Stu? It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer. If you are honest with yourself, you would keep the options open if you do not know. If you close down options and you do not know, then you simply do not know what you are doing. Have a long hard think about it. “It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer.”
This is what changed the discussion from the pointless one about matter into a philosophical one about the existence of god. If you don’t intend this to be a valid point, then please just retract it. Otherwise you have considerably opened up the terms of the discussion, but into areas you paradoxically don’t appear to want to go.
By the way, the discussion is pointless because you can’t say what the difference between nothing and something actually is, and therefore the assertion that they are different things is just an unjustified assumption. This may sound barking mad to you, but since neither of us are committing to an actual model of how matter came to be, I am quite happy to speculate that what we call ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ could well be nonsense concepts. The world of the tiniest particles is known to be at least extremely peculiar, and very possibly it is almost incomprehensibly so.
Nothing from nothing might be no different from something from nothing, or indeed nothing from something!
The cyclotron in British Columbia has ‘created’ around a gram of matter in its working life to date. That is, it has converted energy to mass. That energy was present as a wave as much as it was a particle. Now explain to me how that weighs anything. Then tell me you know what ‘something’ is.
Stuart
Well Stu, obviously a wave is a wave and that makes it something.
A particle is a particle and that is something.Obviously light particles seem to be both a wave and particle, but regardless that is still something.
So are you inclined toward “b) Something” now?
Have a look at a wave, say a suspended coil of wire that is flicked to make the wave, in freeze-frame as the displacement moves from left to right. For an instant of time the coil is straight, and if you take a photo then it would seem to the observer as if there was no wave in the coil.
All particles have a wavelengh; they are all waves as well as particles. Those particles spend some of the time not appearing to exist.********************************************
Gravity manifests itself as a distortion of space-time. That distortion can appear to attract matter. How can 'empty' space, with 'nothing' in it attract 'something' just because the 'nothing' is bent?
********************************************
If we can't say what matter really is, of even if it is really there, what is the point of the word 'something', or its origins?
Stuart
Stu,You honestly make good points.
However, I personally think you are cheating on this one when you get to the very core of it.
Let me try to define what I mean by 'something” in this discussion.
Ready?
NOT NOTHING
If you really really really believe that everything popped into existence out of nothing and I mean ABSOLUTE PURE NOTHINGNESS, then Stu you really shouldn't make fun of those who believe in God. Your concept should be considered way more far fetched and Harry Potter like.
Well, let's hear your definition of 'nothing' then.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,19:04) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 16 2008,19:00) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,18:36) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 16 2008,13:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 15 2008,22:21) Let’s just go back a page, here t8. You said
Quote OK, we have an answer. HE DOESN'T KNOW. You know what that means Stu? It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer. If you are honest with yourself, you would keep the options open if you do not know. If you close down options and you do not know, then you simply do not know what you are doing. Have a long hard think about it. “It means that you cannot write off that there is a God because you do not know the answer.”
This is what changed the discussion from the pointless one about matter into a philosophical one about the existence of god. If you don’t intend this to be a valid point, then please just retract it. Otherwise you have considerably opened up the terms of the discussion, but into areas you paradoxically don’t appear to want to go.
By the way, the discussion is pointless because you can’t say what the difference between nothing and something actually is, and therefore the assertion that they are different things is just an unjustified assumption. This may sound barking mad to you, but since neither of us are committing to an actual model of how matter came to be, I am quite happy to speculate that what we call ‘nothing’ or ‘something’ could well be nonsense concepts. The world of the tiniest particles is known to be at least extremely peculiar, and very possibly it is almost incomprehensibly so.
Nothing from nothing might be no different from something from nothing, or indeed nothing from something!
The cyclotron in British Columbia has ‘created’ around a gram of matter in its working life to date. That is, it has converted energy to mass. That energy was present as a wave as much as it was a particle. Now explain to me how that weighs anything. Then tell me you know what ‘something’ is.
Stuart
Well Stu, obviously a wave is a wave and that makes it something.
A particle is a particle and that is something.Obviously light particles seem to be both a wave and particle, but regardless that is still something.
So are you inclined toward “b) Something” now?
Have a look at a wave, say a suspended coil of wire that is flicked to make the wave, in freeze-frame as the displacement moves from left to right. For an instant of time the coil is straight, and if you take a photo then it would seem to the observer as if there was no wave in the coil.
All particles have a wavelengh; they are all waves as well as particles. Those particles spend some of the time not appearing to exist.********************************************
Gravity manifests itself as a distortion of space-time. That distortion can appear to attract matter. How can 'empty' space, with 'nothing' in it attract 'something' just because the 'nothing' is bent?
********************************************
If we can't say what matter really is, of even if it is really there, what is the point of the word 'something', or its origins?
Stuart
Stu,You honestly make good points.
However, I personally think you are cheating on this one when you get to the very core of it.
Let me try to define what I mean by 'something” in this discussion.
Ready?
NOT NOTHING
If you really really really believe that everything popped into existence out of nothing and I mean ABSOLUTE PURE NOTHINGNESS, then Stu you really shouldn't make fun of those who believe in God. Your concept should be considered way more far fetched and Harry Potter like.
Well, let's hear your definition of 'nothing' then.Stuart
my definition of something is:NOT NOTHING
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,19:36) You said that already. What is your definition of 'nothing'? Stuart
absence of ALL things!Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 16 2008,19:49) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 16 2008,19:36) You said that already. What is your definition of 'nothing'? Stuart
absence of ALL things!
So you have a mutually circular definition, in which something and nothing define one another? You will never be able to tell the difference in that case!**********************************************
Here's Stephen Hawking on the origins of matter, reproduced from his collection of essays called Black Holes and Baby Universes:
“The inflation (at the beginning of the universe) was a good thing in that it produced a universe that was smooth and uniform on a large scale and was expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least ten-to-the-eightieth particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is that relativity and quantum mechanics allow matter to be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. And where did the energy come from to create this matter? The answer is that it was borrowed from the gravitational energy of the universe. The universe has an enormous debt of negative gravitational energy, which exactly balances the positive energy of the matter. During the inflationary period the universe borrowed heavily from its gravitational energy to finance the creation of more matter. The result was a triumph for Keynesian economics: a vigorous and expanding universe, filled with material objects. The debt of gravitational energy will not have to be paid until the end of the universe.”
There are questions here about the maths. Can we account for the conversion of all that gravitational energy into matter? What parts of the universe contain matter that cannot be observed?
Nevertheless, it does make sense that we are made of “stored gravitational energy”.Stuart
Hi Stu,
In the beginning there was energy.
Gravitational energy.
Whoa.
Gravity comes from mass.
In the beginning there was mass causing gravitational energy.
whoa
Where did the mass come from?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,05:53) Hi Stu,
In the beginning there was energy.
Gravitational energy.
Whoa.
Gravity comes from mass.
In the beginning there was mass causing gravitational energy.
whoa
Where did the mass come from?
You wouldn't have a clue, would you? Do you understand what rules govern the interconversion of matter and energy?Read Einstein's theories of relativity.
Stuart
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 17 2008,16:31) Hi Stu,
Ignorance is bliss when it comes to your fantasies.
You really didn't know what you were talking about regarding gravitational energy, did you? How do you judge it as fantasy? Does it tell you in revelation that Hawking is wrong about the way that quantum mechanics and relativity allow matter to be produced from gravitational energy? Will you be having a paper published in Nature on why he has it wrong?Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
