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.

 

Before The Big Bang

page: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 



The linear concept is just abstract gobbledygook like chaos theory, randomness.

And in my mind the logic of a closed system is as equally crazy and abstract because it involves the idea of a void surrounding the closed space. It's much more logical to say the entire realm of reality is simply an infinite expanse of space-time.

In any case you have lost all respect from me by talking about chaos theory in such a way. Try educating yourself. If you actually believe the Universe is completely predictable in the way you describe on the last page you are grasping onto outdated theories and living in the past. We now know the Universe is not deterministic in the way you believe, so try and catch up with science please. There is no such thing as a "clockwork universe".


Stopped time and immense gravity cause an implosion that then blasts outward.

And how exactly do you assume an implosion could happen in a place where time has stopped? Your theories seem to be verging into the realms of esoteric nonsense rather than science.
edit on 5-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


That's what makes a horse race. Good racing with ya.




And in my mind the logic of a closed system is as equally crazy and abstract


However I'm not hawking abstracts. "Finite" is the antithesis of anything abstract keep in mind. Love the equality note though on the two schools of thought be equally crazy. I consider that progress.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Followup:


Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 





Stopped time and immense gravity cause an implosion that then blasts outward.

And how exactly do you assume an implosion could happen in a place where time has stopped? Your theories seem to be verging into the realms of esoteric nonsense rather than science.


Actually, it could be a perception issue. It could be that this universe is imploding and not moving outward at all. That we are observing a mirror image of what is really occurring when assessing the data regarding an expanding universe. There is no frame of reference to determine one way or the other just as there is no way to determine if the Universe is spinning or not making such subjects moot, but it's fun to ponder. If pondering unknowns is nonsense then so be it.

What do you think this venue is about anyway?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


I find it interesting that you would respond to an assertion by asking "You know this how?" What goes around comes around. You're so sure about the predetermination of all events in time. You know this how?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

If pondering unknowns is nonsense then so be it.


And yet you're the one rejecting other theories as if you have some monopoly on logic and truth. LilDude, I love discussing things with you, but you're not pondering unknowns here, you're acting as if you know exactly how those unknowns work. Not to mention the fact that almost every single one of you is making use of a subject you obviously don't know how to work with. Even people who are going to reject General Relativity need to be formally educated in it to do so. And if you're going to be using General Relativity as a basis for a theory, then you most certainly need to have a working knowledge of it. By all means, twist and contort General Relativity all you want, but don't act like you know how it applies to the universe any better than the people who have actually been educated in its applications and intricacies (and, in some cases, have helped build and test it).



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Because predetermination is not an abstract and follows known facts such as the law of conservation of energy dictates for instance. It does not involve infinite quantities, or math that is so elaborate like the Winchester mansion is laid out to be understood only a handful of people on the planet can understand the math. that's quite a curtain of OZ wouldn't you say? AKA it means, "Take what we say on blind faith, take our word of it that is is fact." that's what randomness relies on to be popularly accepted. Predetermination on the other hand is based on fundamental principles in applying simple to understand known laws of physics, and of course a belief that the Big Bang occurred. Thus everything that exists, or ever happened, in the Universe is all linked to the singularity of that event link a row of standing dominos that fall, and that the primeval atom contained a finite quantity of energy.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

If pondering unknowns is nonsense then so be it.


And yet you're the one rejecting other theories as if you have some monopoly on logic and truth. LilDude, I love discussing things with you, but you're not pondering unknowns here, you're acting as if you know exactly how those unknowns work. Not to mention the fact that almost every single one of you is making use of a subject you obviously don't know how to work with. Even people who are going to reject General Relativity need to be formally educated in it to do so. And if you're going to be using General Relativity as a basis for a theory, then you most certainly need to have a working knowledge of it. By all means, twist and contort General Relativity all you want, but don't act like you know how it applies to the universe any better than the people who have actually been educated in its applications and intricacies (and, in some cases, have helped build and test it).



Well call it being confident, or overly sure of myself with a touch of being a lil overzealous then.


Youz still my friend right?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
PS


Even people who are going to reject General Relativity need to be formally educated in it to do so. And if you're going to be using General Relativity as a basis for a theory, then you most certainly need to have a working knowledge of it.



I have a thread going on the subject. Why don't you educate me there about what you think I don't understand about General Relativity?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   


Are you confusing inside 3D physical knowns within this universe with theoretical outside 3D abstract unknowns? If you would please explain in sort how anything infinite is contained within this 3D universe? You would have to claim that the primeval atom contained infinite energy, an infinite number of photons for anything to be infinite within our universe.


There is nothing infinite within this finite universe. Our finite universe is within the infinite universe.






Because no matter what finite you take away from our existence, infinite space will never get smaller in size or cease to exist. It will always be there.


You know this how?


The only way a infinite space will grow larger is if you put something from the outside of the infinite space, and into it. But that is not possible since the infinite takes up all space possible. Where would you find more space?

The only way a infinite space would stretch is: if you can get rid of a portion of the infinite space. But than where would you put it?




Quit believing in infinite space, and there is no such thing as infinite dimensions. They are all finite. They my reciprocate or cycle continuously whatever their processes might me, but they all contain finite forms of energy just like this one. Where they touch can leak energy from one plane to the next, probably how the primeval atom first appeared, like a sea spry drop blown onto a dry beach, but that's about it.


The only day i will quite believing in my self, is the day someone can prove me wrong with evidence that will put my mind to ease. I for sure wont take any other mans theory over my own. I have faith in myself.

At least two others who are debating here have noticed that.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Energy conservation says that the total energy within an isolated system is constant with time. It says nothing about the trajectories of objects through time. In fact, Quantum Mechanics rejects your predestination by proving that motion at the quantum level is entirely probabilistic. You can't even pin down the location of the one electron in a Hydrogen atom. The best you can say is where is has the highest probability at any given time. Essentially, even the universe doesn't "know" where the electron is going to be from one instant to the next. Neither does the electron. Its location is entirely random. Even its current location is subject to doubt due to Uncertainty.

Also, Uncertainty allows the existence of virtual particles which are a fundamentally random phenomenon.

The entire discipline of Quantum Physics rejects your predestination idea. There is no way to predict the layout and composition of the universe at a given time based solely on its initial conditions.
The only thing you can say, based on the initial energy content of the universe, is what the energy content will be at a given time. It will be the same, because the universe is an isolated system (the reason why the conservation of energy is a law in the first place). But this has nothing to do with predestination, and it is most definitely not an indication that all of time exists as its own physical fourth dimension through which the 3 spatial dimension simply move at a given rate.

Do you seriously like the idea that you're actually not shaped like a person but like an infinite tube with a human-shaped cross-section? Even a cup isn't just a cup, it's an infinitely long line with a cup-shaped cross-section. That's just silly.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Well call it being confident, or overly sure of myself with a touch of being a lil overzealous then.


I'd get over that if I were you.



Youz still my friend right?


I suppose



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66



There is nothing infinite within this finite universe. Our finite universe is within the infinite universe.

How? based on what math supports such a theory? can you understand the math involved because supposedly only a hand full of people on the planet can? Are you one of the chosen few who can?


........................................................................


Because no matter what finite you take away from our existence, infinite space will never get smaller in size or cease to exist. It will always be there. The only way a infinite space will grow larger is if you put something from the outside of the infinite space, and into it. But that is not possible since the infinite takes up all space possible. Where would you find more space?

The only way a infinite space would stretch is: if you can get rid of a portion of the infinite space. But than where would you put it?


Now that all works together so I put it all together, i hope you didn't mind my putting your thoughts together in flowing statement and following explanation. It allows me to understand what you are meaning much better.

Now I will counter what you have stated with this. With what frame of reference are you employing? With the indeterminate value of infinite comes with it the idea that the primeval atom contained infinite energy. That's just not possible. So are you sure the term infinite is not being use for a fancy way of stating "a whole lot, and don't check my math because I'll just add some more zeros?" That's if there is any math involved. I'm pretty sure the idea is based on theoretical ideas that just sound good in abstract and there is really no way to check abstracts for the reasons I've already stated. That's a real racket!




The only day i will quite believing in my self, is the day someone can prove me wrong with evidence that will put my mind to ease. I for sure wont take any other mans theory over my own. I have faith in myself.

At least two others who are debating here have noticed that.


You bet. Everyone here is religious, be it a religion based upon prima facie secular belief systems or other.

edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: of quote box issues.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Well call it being confident, or overly sure of myself with a touch of being a lil overzealous then.


I'd get over that if I were you.



Youz still my friend right?


I suppose


I can't get over myself as i'm all "that." That's what you're asking. You are asking me to do away with some of my self confidence.


And I'm glad weez still friends.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Energy conservation says that the total energy within an isolated system is constant with time.


That supports predetermination.


It says nothing about the trajectories of objects through time. In fact, Quantum Mechanics rejects your predestination by proving that motion at the quantum level is entirely probabilistic. You can't even pin down the location of the one electron in a Hydrogen atom. The best you can say is where is has the highest probability at any given time. Essentially, even the universe doesn't "know" where the electron is going to be from one instant to the next. Neither does the electron. Its location is entirely random. Even its current location is subject to doubt due to Uncertainty.


So how did those electrons escape being linked to the singularity and became independent for it? Because they would have to in order to act in a truly random fashion.

And "probabilistic" probability only pertains to narrowing a prediction of a predetermine outcome before it happens, nothing more.


Also, Uncertainty allows the existence of virtual particles which are a fundamentally random phenomenon.


Based on math only a hand full of people on the planet claim to understand, the rest must take it on faith. Very
in a convenient sort of way.


The entire discipline of Quantum Physics rejects your predestination idea. There is no way to predict the layout and composition of the universe at a given time based solely on its initial conditions.
The only thing you can say, based on the initial energy content of the universe, is what the energy content will be at a given time. It will be the same, because the universe is an isolated system (the reason why the conservation of energy is a law in the first place). But this has nothing to do with predestination, and it is most definitely not an indication that all of time exists as its own physical fourth dimension through which the 3 spatial dimension simply move at a given rate.
A discipline that does not like having to comprehend complex math said to have been worked by others, and so a lot of what other peers do is accepted on faith alone. That's quite a discipline.



the universe is an isolated system


So it has to be finite right?

And how can you not understand that predetermination has everything to do with not having energy added or subtracted from the total volume of the Universe? That's the only way to have multiple possible outcomes. A controlled environment that is both closed and finite that only produces one chain of lined outcomes from beginning to end without exception. Because you have to introduce something foreign into a closed system to produce a possible alternative outcome. Conditions, factors... have to be altered to change outcomes. There is no way around it.


Do you seriously like the idea that you're actually not shaped like a person but like an infinite tube with a human-shaped cross-section? Even a cup isn't just a cup, it's an infinitely long line with a cup-shaped cross-section. That's just silly.


I like the Russian doll or onion shape analogy much better.
A tube is linear. That's not apart of my chosen religion. the idea of a linear universe was written down by false prophets practicing a foreign religion.

edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: of quote box issues. AGAIN




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool



the universe is an isolated system


So it has to be finite right?


Do you know what an isolated system is?



And how can you not understand that predetermination has everything to do with not having energy added or subtracted from the total volume of the Universe? That's the only way to have multiple possible outcomes. A controlled environment that is both closed and finite that only produces one chain of lined outcomes from beginning to end without exception. Because you have to introduce something foreign into a closed system to produce a possible alternative outcome. Conditions, factors... have to be altered to change outcomes. There is no way around it.


That's not true. You're thinking classical...you have to go quantum. At the quantum level, everything is a wavefunction. This is what causes the probability - the uncertainly found in the quantum wavefunction. It's an inherent quirk of reality, and it's emphatically not an affect of having "choices" determined by external influence. This isn't even Chaos Theory (which you've stated your dislike of), it's intrinsic probability.



I like the Russian doll or onion shape analogy much better. A tube is linear. That's not apart of my chosen religion. the idea of a linear universe was written down by false prophets practicing a foreign religion.


Okay, a torus shape, since you want cyclic. That's what you get when you wrap 4 spatial dimensions end-to-end (which, by the way, requires a 5th dimension). So, even better than a person being an infinitely long, solid, 4-dimensional chunk of flesh, a person is now a solid 4-dimension ring of flesh. So, what aspect of skin and bone exists in the 4th dimension?
And your Russian doll example is just a diversion. When you stack those Russian dolls together and make a single body out of them, you get one weird-looking person. No matter how you explain it...it's silly.

And then there's what I wrote in your thread...which should take precedence.
edit on 5-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I find your concept interesting. I have often wondered if the exit of a black hole was a new universe being created by the energy absorbed by the black holes entrance. However, I don't think this is a feasible theory because the shape of the universe would indicate a that the universe started as an infinity dense, energetic sphere and while black holes do spew forth some energy from their entrances it is usually in a sort of cone shape from either side of the black hole. However, I still think that this theory has some ground to it because frankly no one really knows whats on the other side of a black hole. People have theorized that it is perhaps just another black hole on the other side and thus the relation of black holes and worm holes like the Einstein–Rosen bridge. This is my own thought based on my reading. I digress though.

Your theories seem sound considering the material you referenced but its so vague and abstract that its hard to imagine. Perhaps it is laziness but I often envy the extremely religious because even if their explanation doesn't make a lot of sense because it seems hard to imagine, how is that really any different from modern explanations that don't have a religious overtone. Modern explanations like yours and mine are so abstract and at least at this point indeterminable that it seems irrelevant to think too much about it. I don't necessarily buy Hawkings views on time either. Then again I don't really understand how he has come to the conclusion that time could not exist outside of this universe. Why is time a function of man or of THIS universe. Why is time not an entity to itself outside of such realms. I have never seen an explanation I would consider valid for this.
edit on 5-6-2012 by GrimReaper86 because: broke up the text into smaller sections



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Your misunderstanding what hes trying to say.In order for things to be predetermined everything would have to act within certain parameters and could be repeated exactly.What he was pointing out is we cant even determine the location of a single electron or even if we could we wouldnt know its momentum all we can determine is spatial probabilities.Now heres the problem predetermining anything in the universe.in the universe every particle, such as a photon, electron, proton, positron, and so on, has a wave associated with it.The size of this wave determines the probability of finding a particle in a region.It will probably be in an area where amplitude is large but again this is probabilities not always the case.(bear with me were getting closer) Now we know waves are localized called wave pockets.Now wave pockets are made from multiple waves at varying wavelengths.wave packets confined to a small region must be made up of a lot of different wavelengths, and therefore a lot of different momenta. So if the uncertainty in the position of the particle is small then uncertainty in the momentum is large. Also if a particle whose wave packet is made up of only a few wavelengths (and hence only a few momenta) will be spread out over a large region. That is, if the uncertainty in momentum is small, the uncertainty in position is large.

To some this up if you throw a rock there is an uncertainty to its location it will be so small that we will not notice.However the smaller the object the more uncertain its location becomes.So if the universe cant even make sure a rock being thrown is in one location how in the world can anything be predetermined? (glad i finally made it to the point took alot less time in my head )



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool



the universe is an isolated system


So it has to be finite right?


Do you know what an isolated system is?


Yup en.wikipedia.org...


And how can you not understand that predetermination has everything to do with not having energy added or subtracted from the total volume of the Universe? That's the only way to have multiple possible outcomes. A controlled environment that is both closed and finite that only produces one chain of lined outcomes from beginning to end without exception. Because you have to introduce something foreign into a closed system to produce a possible alternative outcome. Conditions, factors... have to be altered to change outcomes. There is no way around it.


That's not true. You're thinking classical...you have to go quantum. At the quantum level, everything is a wavefunction. This is what causes the probability - the uncertainly found in the quantum wavefunction. It's an inherent quirk of reality, and it's emphatically not an affect of having "choices" determined by external influence. This isn't even Chaos Theory (which you've stated your dislike of), it's intrinsic probability.

You want me to accept the term "probability" as meaning possible outcomes, and not as the odds in calculating, in the attempt of, predicting beforehand what the final outcome will be, the inevitable outcome.

I just can't accept the first being true because the Universe contains a finite amount of energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, and everything in the Universe, all the energy it contains which is everything, is all linked back to the singularity of the Big Bang.


I like the Russian doll or onion shape analogy much better. A tube is linear. That's not apart of my chosen religion. the idea of a linear universe was written down by false prophets practicing a foreign religion.


Okay, a torus shape, since you want cyclic. That's what you get when you wrap 4 spatial dimensions end-to-end (which, by the way, requires a 5th dimension). So, even better than a person being an infinitely long, solid, 4-dimensional chunk of flesh, a person is now a solid 4-dimension ring of flesh. So, what aspect of skin and bone exists in the 4th dimension?
And your Russian doll example is just a diversion. When you stack those Russian dolls together and make a single body out of them, you get one weird-looking person. No matter how you explain it...it's silly. The "metric tenser vectors
" out from center (or in from out depending on how you observe it) and not across. Time expands just like space... I believe.



And then there's what I wrote in your thread...which should take precedence.


Yeah I read it, great diction. Very impressive. You should write science term and thesis papers for a living selling them online for lazy party animal college students.
edit on 5-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: spelling



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by CLPrime

Do you know what an isolated system is?


Yup en.wikipedia.org...


Good, then you know that, by definition, an infinite system is an isolated system.

Oh, and "metric tensor vectors" is redundant. A vector is a tensor.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Your misunderstanding what hes trying to say.In order for things to be predetermined everything would have to act within certain parameters and could be repeated exactly.What he was pointing out is we cant even determine the location of a single electron or even if we could we wouldnt know its momentum all we can determine is spatial probabilities.Now heres the problem predetermining anything in the universe.in the universe every particle, such as a photon, electron, proton, positron, and so on, has a wave associated with it.The size of this wave determines the probability of finding a particle in a region.It will probably be in an area where amplitude is large but again this is probabilities not always the case.(bear with me were getting closer) Now we know waves are localized called wave pockets.Now wave pockets are made from multiple waves at varying wavelengths.wave packets confined to a small region must be made up of a lot of different wavelengths, and therefore a lot of different momenta. So if the uncertainty in the position of the particle is small then uncertainty in the momentum is large. Also if a particle whose wave packet is made up of only a few wavelengths (and hence only a few momenta) will be spread out over a large region. That is, if the uncertainty in momentum is small, the uncertainty in position is large.

To some this up if you throw a rock there is an uncertainty to its location it will be so small that we will not notice.However the smaller the object the more uncertain its location becomes.So if the universe cant even make sure a rock being thrown is in one location how in the world can anything be predetermined? (glad i finally made it to the point took alot less time in my head )




I simply can't accept the term "probability" as meaning possible outcomes, and not as the odds in calculating, in the attempt of, predicting beforehand what the final outcome will be, the inevitable outcome.

I just can't accept it because the Universe contains a finite amount of energy that cannot be created nor destroyed, and everything in the Universe, all the energy it contains which is everything, is all linked back to the singularity of the Big Bang. That's why anything and everything in the Universe is predetermined.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by CLPrime

Do you know what an isolated system is?


Yup en.wikipedia.org...


Good, then you know that, by definition, an infinite system is an isolated system.


I asked for clarification. You gave it. I understand your meaning as for example, you believe energy cannot be added nor subtracted from the system, but it still can expand infinitely such as the space between the photons, you explained to me about earlier, will keep expanding after all the energy in the Universe has been reduced to spares radiation.


Oh, and "metric tensor vectors" is redundant. A vector is a tensor.
Sure is.
< And that means I'm trying to be funny.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join