OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 8 of 13  
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:57:26 -0600, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Thus the only possible comment is "I don't know."
This discussion is going nowhere - count me out as of this post.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Thus, your position for the origin of the universe has not and cannot solve that primary problem: first cause. Therefore, your position is also reduced to the same position as any other religion. At least religion recognizes that a cause must have been present for an effect to occur. As others have pointed out, this is a totally consistent position because the theological position is that God is eternal having no beginning nor end, thus not needing a cause to exist or come into existence.
You can dress up all the esoteric math you want, the fact of the matter is that if you have nothing, and do nothing, it doesn't matter how long that nothing sets there, nothing will happen. If one postulates that something must happen without a cause, then one of the fundamental tenets of science and logic has just been suspended. But, that is the primary element of the Big Bang theory of modern cosmology that essentially states: nothing + nothing + lots of time = everything.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong. I encourage you to read about Hawkings "Vacuum Fluctuations". This from a NASA website: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html
"Zero Point Energy (ZPE), or vacuum fluctuation energy are terms used to describe the random electromagnetic oscillations that are left in a vacuum after all other energy has been removed. If you remove all the energy from a space, take out all the matter, all the heat, all the light... everything -- you will find that there is still some energy left. One way to explain this is from the uncertainty principle from quantum physics that implies that it is impossible to have an absolutely zero energy condition."
More here on Vacuum Fluctuations from Hawking: Taken from : http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm :
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) "

Negated above.

Big bang doesn't state that nothing + nothing ... It states that the universe is expanding PERIOD. Based on the theory, if everything is expanding, we must assume that it was once all together (non-expanded). The question becomes "where did all that stuff come from that eventually expanded?" God?
Enter: The Conservation of Mass-Energy (See Hawking above)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The above should not have read (See Hawking above). The quotes I gave were not Hawking's, but Hawking's theory taken from two websites.
Here is another great site on Vaccum Fluctuations: http://mysteriousworld.org/vacuum-fluctuation.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GarageWoodworks wrote:

But even here you are describing phenomena in the existent universe, not the condition prior to the postulated origin of the universe. Even in this case, you have a problem in that you have no way that a pre-universal singularity could have existed in stasis for an infinite amount of time prior to the big bang.

No, not at all. You have created an even greater problem for yourself because now your cosmic egg could not exist in stasis. If it could not exist in stasis it had to have an origin. If it had an origin, you have no modern theory of cosmology.

By your commentary above, you have not addressed the issue of origin at all.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote: ...

Au contraire, good buddy...rather than not addressing the subject it appears you haven't read the literature (or at least followed where present research seems to be heading)...
It's really worth reading simply because it makes an incredibly amazing story far beyond the science fiction writers' imaginations.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do you mean by 'pre-universe'?
How could there be a time, before time?
Talk.origins is a GOOD place to discuss this.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Then by definition, you did *not* "remove all the energy from [that] space", thus contradicting the initial assumption, and hence invalidating the entire argument.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

Poorly worded, not precisely what Hawking says. There is positive and negative energy which cancel except for the quantum fluctuations...as I said before, it's truly mind-boggling but seemingly the wave of the future :) direction on the way towards a "theory of everything"...
Try Greene for an approachable introduction before tackling Hawking.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, by definition, it wasn't *all* removed, contradicting the initial assumption that it was.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

That's why I said it's not what Hawking has written. Zero is zero and the resulting is actually an intrinsic part of the "fabric" of space. There's nothing more to take out, yet there's "something" there anyway in a _very_ rough transliteration. As I said before, the world of the quantum is so far removed in behavior from the macroscopic world in which our senses operate that it is simply not possible to extrapolate on the basis of what one "knows".
Have you read any of the suggested works or even seen the PBS Nova series "The Elegant Universe" that scans over Greene's book? The concepts are novel but as noted before, seeming to get closer to the underlying way things really are w/ yet a long way to go. But, so far, there's been no need to invoke the man behind the curtain. Maybe we'll end up there, maybe not, but to invoke cloture on the subject is premature at best.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.. an obvious contradiction.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

No, it's not a contradiction in the strange world of quantum theory. It only appears that way by trying (as did the NASA blurb) to state the situation in a brief nontechnical form as best as one can. To try to present the argument in detail is simply too much to even attempt on a usenet posting.
One simply must read at least a popularization (which is why I keep harping on Greene) in order to have any clue of what the state of affairs currently is, but it's not possible to apply macro-scale concepts on the scale of quantum effects, particularly when systems are massive enough yet on those scales such that gravitational effects can't be ignored.
It's that separation of modern physics in particular from what "seems" normal that I believe is much of the basis for the lack of communication between the current philosophers and scientists--the one simply doesn't understand the realm of the other sufficiently in depth to make meaningful contributions any longer whereas at one time the two were inseparable.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Not a contradiction... only appears that way..."
Pretty much the same language used by the theists, no? <g>
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

:) touche (sorta')
Only when trying to verbalize it, though, which is a fundamental difference.
For physics we have a language that expresses things quite precisely. It's the task of trying to turn that language into everyday English where the translations fail because the results are so foreign to everyday experience.
(It's hard enough to come to grip w/ the "wave-particle duality" conundrum and these kinds of effects are even more mind-boggling. At the risk of repeating myself, reading about this stuff is more entertaining than any science fiction ever thought of being at their most audacious.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I had the reverse problem when trying to understand Einstein's universal speed limit - the speed of light. The everyday experience of say two cars racing toward each other tells us that the combined speed is the total of the two speeds of the cars or:
vt = v1 + v2
So, if the two cars are traveling each at the speed of light or C, the combined velocity should be C + C or two times the speed of light.
Old Einstein corrected this when he added the relativity factor to the equation so that the more precise formula is:
vt = ( v1 + v2) / ( 1 + (v1 x v2) / ( C x C) )
Say the two cars are hurtling toward one another, each at the speed of light. What's the combined speed? - The speed of light!
The math takes the mystery out of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

Where the math is simple enough for most folks to follow, it really helps (_IF_, of course, one can ever get any of the folks one runs into to actually look at it :( ) as in your example. But, stuff has gotten so complex it's not many that have the mathematical sophistry to be able to read it, what more comprehend so we're left w/ trying to make words take the place which is difficult at best. As noted earlier, that's mostly what's left the philosophers behind, unfortunately.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know this is a typo, but this gave me a big chuckle in this very heated debating context.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote: ...

Dang, I could almost have wished for it, but can't claim credit. :(
Moral of story is _never_ trust an auto-correcting editor... :)
(Look for "Spelling Checker" on google...it's quite a nice bit o' work...I forget the original author (or authoress, as the case might be). )
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Actually, Mark, I think if you read through all the various responses by those defending the Rational/empiricist method their argument (if I understand it) boils down to this:
1) R-E cannot completely answer questions of First Cause, so our answer will always be "I don't know".
2) No other system that might posit a different approach is valid because it does not fit into our R-E method of confirmation. That is, we R-E devotees refuse to even consider another means of acquiring knowledge absent a way to confirm it via our R-E methods ... which would make such a system R-E in any case.
3) Anyone who accepts the possibility of an answer via a system of type 2) above is inherently: "irrational" and an "idiot" (both of those terms were used specifically in this thread along with some other fairly lowbrow invective).
This line of thinking is - as you point out - far more religious than its adherents here will admit. But ... the good news is that they are not particularly representatives of all or even most practitioners of the R-E disciplines. There are a goodly number of serious practicing scientists, mathematicians, engineers,et al - people whose very work is grounded in R-E methods of doing things - that happen to also happily be theists or people of faith in some form. I count myself among them and have met a great many more, and read even still more over the years.
Now, majority or minority rule on this matter is irrelevant. Reality is what it is, whatever we may think about it. But I find it telling that this harsh, abrasive stand from the R-E defenders we've witnessed here is a relatively new thing. It has come about (this is an *opinion*) at the same time as we've seen an ascendancy of very vocal radical atheism poking its head up in the culture at large. Methinks they protest too much ... perhaps they're worried we theists may end up being right at some level, I dunno. What I do know is that secure thinker don't need the level of vitriol displayed here (and other places) of late.
Notice that at no point in this thread did I describe my personal belief system in any detail, nor did I try to "convert" people to theism. I merely suggested that the snotty condescension directed at people of faith from literally the first post onward was unwarranted and bad manners and tried to lay examples of how thoughtful people could be led to theistic conclusions. This alone invoked shrieks of "irrational idiot" or words to that effect. Religious indeed ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.