It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: VanDenEviL
Yeah so, what did I say then?
Please I really don't feel like playing pathetic games here.
He presented something as fact. I pointed out it is not a fact.
originally posted by: LetsGoViking
No one has any idea about the moment the Universe started; however, we have the Grand Unified Field Theory (GUT) which has produced verifiable predictions, namely the Higgs-Boson.
Before the Higgs-Bosons formed during the intial stages of the Expansion, there were no particles. The Higgs-Bosons formed at 10^-38 - 10^-12 (Planck Time)seconds following the Big Bang. The size of the universe at this time would have been about ~10^23 m at the end of the period of inflation. During the Inflation period the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 s. Inflation stopped at around 10-32 s. The universe increased in size by a factor of 10^50. This is equivalent to an object the size of a proton swelling to 10^19 light years across.
A scientific theory is a theory because it has evidence supporting it. There are no semantics to squabble over. You are simply conflating the common usage of the word theory, with the scientific use of theory. They are two separate things.
Then you misunderstand. Until a while after inflation "began" there were no particles.
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
originally posted by: VanDenEviL
This is pure speculation.
So you must agree that our reality and matter are not quite as solid and "real" as we perceive it.
I agree, simulation might not be the right word but it seems you are arguing semantics here.
I would say that if reality and existence is just the result of a physical process, it would actually matter less if you are "justified" or not, since it would be all over anyway when you die.
I could also say that this notion is "just an escape" for people who worry if they are right or wrong......
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
It just so happens that we'd exist in a universe that runs on a CPU.
originally posted by: VanDenEviL
a reply to: Greggers
What I responded to was presented as a fact. I said it was not fact, but just a theory and unproven.
Here's a definition of the word theory, once more,
an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
End of story. Completely correct.
All the while you were drivelling about semantics, kinda mad that your "scientific" doctrine was, supposedly, being stepped on.
Get over it you nerds.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers
It just so happens that we'd exist in a universe that runs on a CPU.
I worked in computers for fifteen years as an digital hardware technician, thats a ludicrous to me as suggesting everything runs on fairy dust.
Sorry about that. The laws of physics determine the existence and motion of matter, as far as the current technology can see. Or google Hubble Deep Field(s). Theres two images of deep space now.
Yes it is.
Stick with the first one. Atoms and electrons aren't 'stimulated'.
Thats your excuse, life ends when we die. Got proof of that?
You able to shut off your conscience like that? Uncle Sam wants you...
More interesting is the physics behind those whizzing particles. They are not "real" in any normal sense of the word and exist only as Energy. Define energy and you define existence as we perceive it. What we feel when we touch something is not the thing itself, but the forces that have combined to make the thing sensible.
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: LetsGoViking
More interesting is the physics behind those whizzing particles. They are not "real" in any normal sense of the word and exist only as Energy. Define energy and you define existence as we perceive it. What we feel when we touch something is not the thing itself, but the forces that have combined to make the thing sensible.
So you're an energy wave camp, not particle .
I'm in the 'waves of particles' camp. Look at an ocean wave, a sound wave, a sand dune, ice flow. Everything we see in the macrocosm is particles orbiting centers of gravity, i.e., planetary systems, galaxies, galactic clusters.
When they smash atoms together they get the images of things whirling around, spiraling back to their 'center', too.
As above, so below...
originally posted by: Dalan
a reply to: LetsGoViking
Did you mean to reply to me?
Wow it's getting harder and harder to have a normal discussion here on ATS in which there is a mutual understanding of what is being said.
Matter is composed of particles. When they are not observed, they have a probability distribution called a "wave function" that captures it's behavior in aggregate.
ideas or guesses about something that is not known