OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 03:06:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Should I continue to debate Jackal?
Definitely, it's educational - 3 (7.9%)
Sure, at least it is providing a little insight. - 7 (18.4%)
Probably not, it's a waste of time. - 12 (31.6%)
Definitely not. We are all losing brains cells because of the discussion. - 16 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 38

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should, I continue my debate with Jackal?  (Read 11556 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #180 on: February 23, 2011, 01:51:25 AM »

Quote
I understand there's mathematics involved.  But in these mathematics I am just wondering about the logic.

1. Imagine a 3 dimensional sphere..
2. Pretend for the sake of argument that this sphere is either material or non-material
3. Now try to collapse a 3 dimensional sphere into a negative sphere, or negative dimensional sphere.

Now this takes some time thinking about a collapsing sphere to understand the following:

Can you have a negative dimensional sphere? Could it exist? Well, the answer is no. Now could it exist with 0 dimensional value? Nope Smiley Could the sphere under infinite regress of reality infinitely regress in size without possibly ever reaching 0? The math states that even in the case of infinite regress the sphere could never reach literal 0. That's why most scientists agree that even under such arguments there can never be literal zero. And why they also agree that a collapse of a sphere would likely reach a point of convergence where all 360 degrees of the sphere would converge to a single relative point. And if you tried to regress any further, all 360 degrees of the circumference of the sphere would swap with their polar opposites and cause the sphere to expand again into a larger sphere all while never being able to regress to zero much less regress to a negative. And this is because the sphere is made of the volume to which it's regressing in. So it's already determined that literal zero doesn't exist materially, physically, or literally. Smiley
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 01:52:07 AM by TheJackel » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #181 on: February 23, 2011, 03:01:08 PM »

Now, imagine a a goat running from hungry Italians down the Autobahn. Did the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

Your examples are completely unrelated and irrelevant.

The math within M Theory calls for 11 dimensions in the fabric of our known universe. We operate being able to identify four of them. Assuming they exist, our ability to envisions and identify only four is no bearing on the existence of the 11 dimensions, nor the math that currently supports the theory.

In the same way, you argue a lack of spiritual existence by paradoxes within the material universe. Non-material isn't non-existent, and at the same time, non-material doesn't contradict a spiritual reality. Assuming an existant God, the material universe is like a backyard sandbox, and your sandcastle won't dictate the swing-set no matter what shape you build it (nor does the swing-set care it's made of metal and not sand).
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 03:03:27 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #182 on: February 23, 2011, 03:29:13 PM »

Now, imagine a a goat running from hungry Italians down the Autobahn. Did the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

Your examples are completely unrelated and irrelevant.

The math within M Theory calls for 11 dimensions in the fabric of our known universe. We operate being able to identify four of them. Assuming they exist, our ability to envisions and identify only four is no bearing on the existence of the 11 dimensions, nor the math that currently supports the theory.

In the same way, you argue a lack of spiritual existence by paradoxes within the material universe. Non-material isn't non-existent, and at the same time, non-material doesn't contradict a spiritual reality. Assuming an existant God, the material universe is like a backyard sandbox, and your sandcastle won't dictate the swing-set no matter what shape you build it (nor does the swing-set care it's made of metal and not sand).
What is more, the fact that we understand the concept of 11 dimensions, even though we have no empirical experience of them, demonstrates that we have a spiritual intellect.
If our mind is merely material, then all our "thoughts" are nothing more than sense impressions and the immediate inferences from sense impressions.
Yet we understand concepts (at least analogically) that are beyond sense impressions and their immediate inferences, from wich we cannot create images, such as the idea of 11 dimenstions.
Therefore, our intellecst are not merely material, but also spiritual.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 03:29:28 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,676


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #183 on: February 23, 2011, 03:40:16 PM »

Quote
I understand there's mathematics involved.  But in these mathematics I am just wondering about the logic.

1. Imagine a 3 dimensional sphere..
2. Pretend for the sake of argument that this sphere is either material or non-material
3. Now try to collapse a 3 dimensional sphere into a negative sphere, or negative dimensional sphere.

Now this takes some time thinking about a collapsing sphere to understand the following:

Can you have a negative dimensional sphere? Could it exist? Well, the answer is no. Now could it exist with 0 dimensional value? Nope Smiley Could the sphere under infinite regress of reality infinitely regress in size without possibly ever reaching 0? The math states that even in the case of infinite regress the sphere could never reach literal 0. That's why most scientists agree that even under such arguments there can never be literal zero. And why they also agree that a collapse of a sphere would likely reach a point of convergence where all 360 degrees of the sphere would converge to a single relative point. And if you tried to regress any further, all 360 degrees of the circumference of the sphere would swap with their polar opposites and cause the sphere to expand again into a larger sphere all while never being able to regress to zero much less regress to a negative. And this is because the sphere is made of the volume to which it's regressing in. So it's already determined that literal zero doesn't exist materially, physically, or literally. Smiley

This makes perfect sense.  But I don't think you're done.  I get it so far.  If I deflate a ball, no matter how much I try, I can never get it to zero, and certainly the idea of negative capacity doesn't make any sense.

But in addition to that, so long as we regress the ball as much as possible as close as possible to zero, it will never reach zero.  Would the same hold for the ball inflating as much as possible towards the direction of infinity, but never reaching that same number?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #184 on: February 23, 2011, 04:29:42 PM »

Now, imagine a a goat running from hungry Italians down the Autobahn. Did the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

Your examples are completely unrelated and irrelevant.

The math within M Theory calls for 11 dimensions in the fabric of our known universe. We operate being able to identify four of them. Assuming they exist, our ability to envisions and identify only four is no bearing on the existence of the 11 dimensions, nor the math that currently supports the theory.

And they would all be positive dimensional values.. Not 0 or even negative. My example remains. Smiley

Quote
In the same way, you argue a lack of spiritual existence

I don't argue the lack of spiritual existence.. Since when would spiritual existence require the need to be made of nothing or have no dimensional value?

Quote
by paradoxes within the material universe. Non-material isn't non-existent,

Can you show me an object made of nothing? These paradoxes would be applicable regardless of what your position is in regards to material vs non-material.

Quote
and at the same time, non-material doesn't contradict a spiritual reality.


?? Perhaps you can elaborate how you can see, feel, or experience a spiritual reality made of nothing? Have you stopped to really think about how you feel emotion? Can you feel it without physically feeling it? It's something I had thought about for quite sometime, and your version of spiritual reality would make it impossible to feel emotion, see, or experience anything at all. :<

Quote
Assuming an existant God, the material universe is like a backyard sandbox, and your sandcastle won't dictate the swing-set no matter what shape you build it (nor does the swing-set care it's made of metal and not sand).

Both the sandbox and the metal of the swing are both dictated by energy. The same energy in different excited states, structures, and complexity. It's irrelevant if the sandcastle could dictate a swing set. :/ The GOD assumption, giving the attributes being assumed would mean GOD literally is the castle, sandbox, and the swing set in best case scenario.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #185 on: February 23, 2011, 05:01:46 PM »

Quote
I understand there's mathematics involved.  But in these mathematics I am just wondering about the logic.

1. Imagine a 3 dimensional sphere..
2. Pretend for the sake of argument that this sphere is either material or non-material
3. Now try to collapse a 3 dimensional sphere into a negative sphere, or negative dimensional sphere.

Now this takes some time thinking about a collapsing sphere to understand the following:

Can you have a negative dimensional sphere? Could it exist? Well, the answer is no. Now could it exist with 0 dimensional value? Nope Smiley Could the sphere under infinite regress of reality infinitely regress in size without possibly ever reaching 0? The math states that even in the case of infinite regress the sphere could never reach literal 0. That's why most scientists agree that even under such arguments there can never be literal zero. And why they also agree that a collapse of a sphere would likely reach a point of convergence where all 360 degrees of the sphere would converge to a single relative point. And if you tried to regress any further, all 360 degrees of the circumference of the sphere would swap with their polar opposites and cause the sphere to expand again into a larger sphere all while never being able to regress to zero much less regress to a negative. And this is because the sphere is made of the volume to which it's regressing in. So it's already determined that literal zero doesn't exist materially, physically, or literally. Smiley

This makes perfect sense.  But I don't think you're done.  I get it so far.  If I deflate a ball, no matter how much I try, I can never get it to zero, and certainly the idea of negative capacity doesn't make any sense.

But in addition to that, so long as we regress the ball as much as possible as close as possible to zero, it will never reach zero.  Would the same hold for the ball inflating as much as possible towards the direction of infinity, but never reaching that same number?

expanding to infinity wouldn't be the problem because we can always say that expansion to make something bigger would be possible. Such as infinite expansion of realities depicted in the movie MIB.  the boundaries of size, or spatial capacity lay in how small the sphere can get. I can always say that I can have an infinitely expanding sphere in an infinitely large space to expand into. Yes it's hard to comprehend a no end in expanding capacity, but it's set into stone because it can't ever regress to zero or negative to which could be used to establish a beginning or an end. In this argument zero or negative capacity would represent both the beginning and end to capacity, but since they can't exist, capacity is thus infinite Smiley

Example 1:

0D = impossible

Science states:
No zero or negative dimensional values

Big Bang theory: (has all the evidence)
*1D, 2D. 3D. 4D ->

String Theory: (Has no evidence and is really just a hypothesis to where no experimentation has been done)
<--4D, 3D, 2D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D -->

M-Theory: (just a hypothesis) It would have to prove inertia to be a spatial dimension in order for it to work.

1D, 2D, 3D, 4D(as a spatial dimension vs just representation of inertia), 5D, 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 10D, 11D

The arguments of a spiritual world posted here are trying to state: transcendence of physical capacity, or a beginning and end to physical Capacity.

<--  -4D, -3D, -2D, -1D, 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 3D, 2D, 1D, 0D, -1D, -2D, -3D, -4D -->


But this is not how the flow of energy works
XD = any number of dimensions you want to add to both sides of the formula.

1D-> 2D-> 3D-> 4D-> XD -> 4D- 3D-> 2D-> 1D

represent complete infinity to where no exit is plausible, and non-existence is impossible. I can also represent this model in the real world to show infinite containment. Between every number there can be an infinite number of numbers. you can take 1,2,3 for example and get :

And Time itself is connected to the flow of energy:


Dimensional time and space time together equal actual time. this is in relation to time particle dilation. So the formation to decay and back again can be considered actual progression and regression of time. Thus to increase in dimensional complexity is to move forward in time, and to Decay in dimensional complexity is to move backwards in time. So the state at which something exists is representative of the time frame to which it exists in. The 1 Dimensional plane represents "Zero base time" or "ground state" , this is to which a beginning begins and an end ends in time. So if existence is a progressive and regressive flow of time (inertia / energy) there is no going back forever in time to revisit a moment of history. Things get cycled like the surface of the Earth. Thus The dimensional time model looks like this:

1D -> 2D-> 3D-> 4D -> XD -> 4D-> 3D-> 2D -> 1D->

So this means everything eventually decays dimensionally back to 1D to where it becomes ground state energy to which then can become borrowed energy to be used for the emergence of new things, or emerging properties. And this is how Quantum Electrodynamics works!.. Hence, back to 0,1. So a Looping or Cycling dimensional time model looks like this:

1D -> 2D-> 3D-> 4D -> XD -> 4D-> 3D-> 2D -> 1D-> 2D-> 3D-> 4D -> XD -> 4D-> 3D-> 2D -> 1D-> 2D-> 3D-> 4D -> XD -> 4D-> 3D-> 2D -> 1D-> infinity

So can the past forever go back in time? Only in memory, provided of course if you were eternal, or if the past is forever recorded and was not forgotten. However, this wouldn't mean that you can literally ever go back in time physically! Hence, duplication is required to keep a process in process! And this is why life must replicate itself. This is DT's correlation to traditional time. So eventually all traces of the past decay back to zero base time (ground state), especially since exact duplication decays over time and transforms into something else. Thus no story will ever remain the same, no pattern will ever retain its pattern.. Traditional time is then subject to dimensional time decay, and can only be averted by exact duplication. This is where duplication will only pro-long it's eventual decay. Hence, you can only sustain a process in a dimensional limbo by duplication. And this is why living organisms must reproduce in order to stay in process.

Now the above argument is rather an old one of mine.. So it still remains questionable if our consciousness can continue on outside the biological container to defy dimensional time decay, or to remain an emerging property.


Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #186 on: February 23, 2011, 10:46:32 PM »

This argument is extremely confusing. (between mina and Jackel)

I will try to clarify some misconceptions I think were brought up.

Nobody knows much about the universe before 10^{-36} seconds after the big bang.  Was it a dimensionless point, or did the Universe always have some extension?  No honest scientist can say anything for certain.  What we do know is that between 10^{-36} seconds and 10^{-32}, the universe seems to be modeled extremely well by the ΛCDM model. This has been confirmed observationally by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP satellite.  You may read details about the WMAP teams' analysis in their Seven Year Report.

The theoretical status of the second law of thermodynamics is controversial.

In statistical mechanics, one fundamental result is known as Poincaré's recurrence theorem.  This states that if the universe passes through a particular state, it will pass arbitrarily close to that state again, infinitely often.  So if I spill some milk, some day it will unspill itself and return to my glass.  This is at variance with the second law of thermodynamics and Boltzmann's H-theorem.

Both statistical mechanics and classical thermodynamics make a number of correct predictions which have been corroborated by experiment.  And both make claims about what the universe will be like, for all time - these predictions are impossible to test so we'll never know who's right.  Practicing physicists do not worry about these considerations - they are content to use whichever theory is the best in a given context, and generally ignore the philosophical concerns that seem to consume you.

I'm sorry I can't resolve the argument.  But I would offer you this small piece of advice, in case you once again feel that science can somehow resolve one of your metaphysical debates: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 10:48:44 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #187 on: February 24, 2011, 09:00:03 AM »

Now, imagine a a goat running from hungry Italians down the Autobahn. Did the Packers make it to the Superbowl?

Your examples are completely unrelated and irrelevant.

The math within M Theory calls for 11 dimensions in the fabric of our known universe. We operate being able to identify four of them. Assuming they exist, our ability to envisions and identify only four is no bearing on the existence of the 11 dimensions, nor the math that currently supports the theory.

And they would all be positive dimensional values.. Not 0 or even negative. My example remains. Smiley

Quote
In the same way, you argue a lack of spiritual existence

I don't argue the lack of spiritual existence.. Since when would spiritual existence require the need to be made of nothing or have no dimensional value?

Quote
by paradoxes within the material universe. Non-material isn't non-existent,

Can you show me an object made of nothing? These paradoxes would be applicable regardless of what your position is in regards to material vs non-material.

Quote
and at the same time, non-material doesn't contradict a spiritual reality.


?? Perhaps you can elaborate how you can see, feel, or experience a spiritual reality made of nothing? Have you stopped to really think about how you feel emotion? Can you feel it without physically feeling it? It's something I had thought about for quite sometime, and your version of spiritual reality would make it impossible to feel emotion, see, or experience anything at all. :<

Quote
Assuming an existant God, the material universe is like a backyard sandbox, and your sandcastle won't dictate the swing-set no matter what shape you build it (nor does the swing-set care it's made of metal and not sand).

Both the sandbox and the metal of the swing are both dictated by energy. The same energy in different excited states, structures, and complexity. It's irrelevant if the sandcastle could dictate a swing set. :/ The GOD assumption, giving the attributes being assumed would mean GOD literally is the castle, sandbox, and the swing set in best case scenario.


You missed the entire point. You responded by insisting a spiritual existence be made of the same physical substance and laws of the material universe.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 09:00:31 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #188 on: February 24, 2011, 09:35:43 AM »

Can you show me an object made of nothing?
Nothing is actually the main component of everything you can see. An atom is mostly empty space.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #189 on: February 24, 2011, 09:38:57 AM »

expanding to infinity wouldn't....WORDS....So it still remains questionable if our consciousness can continue on outside the biological container to defy dimensional time decay, or to remain an emerging property.

Words mean things. Even if you intend this to be more philosophical than scientific, the words you are using still have meanings you have to follow. Your method of simply chaining words together whatever way sounds nice results in something that makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously man, I tried to be charitable, but I cannot read and understand more than like 5 lines from that.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #190 on: February 24, 2011, 02:46:22 PM »

I really dislike how I can't edit on this forum. I'm going to give this a shot again and go back into the lion's den. The vast majority of your large post is pretty incomprehensible, I'd ask you to define your terms, but of lot of the issues are grammar ones, and I end up hitting a brick wall. Before I get to that want to bring up something Mina said:

If I deflate a ball, no matter how much I try, I can never get it to zero, and certainly the idea of negative capacity doesn't make any sense.
I assume by "capacity" you mean "volume", but yes there are physical restrictions on deflating (did you mean compressing?) a ball. Also, if you're making an argument about a transcendental cause, you should explain what this ball thought experiment has to do with anything.

Quote
But in addition to that, so long as we regress the ball as much as possible as close as possible to zero, it will never reach zero.
Here's where I start to lose you Mina. By "so long as", did you mean "even if"? No offense, but is English your first language? I'm having trouble imagining a native speaker making these sorts of mistakes.

Quote
Would the same hold for the ball inflating as much as possible towards the direction of infinity, but never reaching that same number?
If you really mean "inflate" (I suspect you mean "expand"), then the percentage of air/gas in the universe isn't high enough to make it big enough to cause problems. If you just meant expanding, then there are probably lots of reasons that you can't do anything like that. The ball has finitely many atoms, for one thing, so that if you make it big enough, the atoms would have to be so far apart that they basically don't interact anymore; is this a problem?

Also, "towards the direction of infinity" instead of "towards infinity" is another very awkward phrase (although in certain very specialized mathematical contexts it would make sense)

expanding to infinity wouldn't be the problem because we can always say that expansion to make something bigger would be possible.
Well, there are probably physics-based reasons why many would disagree with what you're saying. Also, you mean "wouldn't be a problem" and even if you had said "we can say that expansion to make something bigger would always be possible" (which makes more sense than your original phrasing), it wouldn't actually add anything to your argument.

Quote
Such as infinite expansion of realities depicted in the movie MIB.
I hope you realize that without setting up the context of why considering this sort of thing is relevant to your argument, this makes you sound very silly.

Quote
Yes it's hard to comprehend a no end in expanding capacity, but it's set into stone because it can't ever regress to zero or negative to which could be used to establish a beginning or an end. In this argument zero or negative capacity would represent both the beginning and end to capacity, but since they can't exist, capacity is thus infinite Smiley
This part is either obviously wrong (things like the set {1,2,3} have a beginning and an end), or just incoherent, and I'm having trouble deciding which. Neither case is good for your argument, though.

Quote
Example 1:

0D = impossible

Science states:
No zero or negative dimensional values
What do you mean by this? Just because you can't compress a ball to a point doesn't mean that, for example, physicists never speak of point-like particles.

Quote
The arguments of a spiritual world posted here are trying to state: transcendence of physical capacity, or a beginning and end to physical Capacity.
Around here is where you become almost completely incoherent (or at least where the effort it would take for me to make sense of what you're saying outweighs any benefits of trying), and I have to give up.

It's an interesting case study here. Working physicists tend to get randomly emailed by either regular people asking legitimate questions or cranks hawking their syntactically correct but semantically incoherent gibberish. The latter somehow manages to have almost a flavor, which you learn to recognize pretty quickly.

Reading that post was like biting into spicy Mexican food. At first everything seems normal, but then the heat kicks in.

In other words I don't give a crap, file my papers.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 02:51:32 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #191 on: February 24, 2011, 02:56:00 PM »

I really dislike how I can't edit on this forum.

You have a very brief window - I think it's 15 minutes - from when you make a post during which you can edit the post.  After that point only the mods, GMs, and Admins can edit the posts, and they'll only do so if they have to (i.e. to moderate, insert a requested-for link, etc.).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tallitot
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,648



WWW
« Reply #192 on: February 24, 2011, 02:58:29 PM »

« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 03:01:56 PM by Tallitot » Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #193 on: February 24, 2011, 03:12:30 PM »

Nice
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #194 on: February 24, 2011, 03:16:43 PM »

Quote

Nobody knows much about the universe before 10^{-36} seconds after the big bang.

That's ok because they are only trying to understand the exact physics of it.. Pretty tough to do in just 150 years of modern science Smiley

Quote
 Was it a dimensionless point, or did the Universe always have some extension?


It was never a dimensionless point.. It's best understood as a relative point. Again the big bang was not about the expansion of space..It's about the expansion of space-time. Wink


Quote
 No honest scientist can say anything for certain.


Some things are certain while others are not.. The exact physics of the Big Bang are not fully known yet.. But to put this into perspective:

We could take a glass of coffee and add some milk and watch is swirl.. Eventually the milk and coffee become blended together to give that lighter brown liquid color.. However, imagine trying to figure out how the end result happened by trying to rewind the entire process to the quantum level from a position of not ever seeing the milk being added to the coffee. Even if we could make the right predictions on the evidence, we could never fully understand how the entire process occurred right down to the quantum level. So yes, there is a certain amount of uncertainty, and there will always be since we aren't going to actually go out in the field and test a Big Bang ourselves.

Quote
 What we do know is that between 10^{-36} seconds and 10^{-32}, the universe seems to be modeled extremely well by the ΛCDM model. This has been confirmed observationally by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP satellite.  You may read details about the WMAP teams' analysis in their Seven Year Report.

Yes it is very well modeled, but many people mistaken the Big Bang as the formation of spatial dimension when it's not Smiley In fact under Quantum foam theory, some of the matter already existed before the Big Bang to which helped form those lighter elements that became the gas clouds that first began to make stars and galaxies. But in the most well understood theory is that the mathematics to which are reliable are the ones that show infinite ground state energy.. Space before the Big Bang before the Big Bang was simply seen as 3D, and after it was seen as 3D+1. How exactly that occurred in physics has yet to be fully determined, especially since we didn't get to sit there and observe and take measurements ect of the event as it happened.


Quote
The theoretical status of the second law of thermodynamics is controversial.

It's really not however.

Wiki:
The essential problem in statistical thermodynamics is to calculate the distribution of a given amount of energy E over N identical systems.[3] The goal of statistical thermodynamics is to understand and to interpret the measurable macroscopic properties of materials in terms of the properties of their constituent particles and the interactions between them. This is done by connecting thermodynamic functions to quantum-mechanic equations. Two central quantities in statistical thermodynamics are the Boltzmann factor and the partition function.

Thermodynamic equilibrium:
In thermodynamics, a thermodynamic system is said to be in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, radiative equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium. The word equilibrium means a state of balance. In an equilibrium state, there are no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces , or where apposing forces are in balance) within the system. A system that is in equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings. The local state of a system at thermodynamic equilibrium is determined by the values of its intensive parameters, such as pressure or temperature. Specifically, thermodynamic equilibrium is characterized by the minimum of a thermodynamic potential (ground state, or zero-point energy), or such as the Helmholtz free energy, i.e. systems at constant temperature and volume:

This is seen in Ground State energy. But at times Ground state energy borrows energy from it's neighbor and spawns fluctuations to which spawn particles and anti-particles to where there is only ever Ground state energy on average (Thermodynamic equilibrium on average). Thus the Universe has accounting skills similar to a banking system.


Quote
In statistical mechanics, one fundamental result is known as Poincaré's recurrence theorem.  This states that if the universe passes through a particular state, it will pass arbitrarily close to that state again, infinitely often.  

It is true that we can not predict the end result of the universe as we know it with 100% certainty. However, we do know enough about particle dilation and atomic decay to know that it will eventually vanish.. Even Steven Hawkins know this well enough to understand that even a black whole will dissipate over time as it's rotation slows down over time.. Because energy eventually gets spent as the Universe continues to cool down and expand.

Quote
So if I spill some milk, some day it will unspill itself and return to my glass.  This is at variance with the second law of thermodynamics and Boltzmann's H-theorem.

Ahh NO.. All it states is that if you could reverse time it could unspill back into the cup.. The problem to that is this:

Even if you could break forward inertia and reverse inertia into the opposite direction, it will not translate to time rewinding to where the milk will unspill back into the cup.. It would just change forward progression into the opposite direction like a car changing it's gear to reverse. However, It would just result in the car going a positive velocity in the opposite direction while the outcome will remain chaotic. Hence, molecular chaos. Thus Time would not reverse but progress down a new path of it's own to where the milk could do any number of chaotic things other than unspilling back into the cup. And even it had, it's unlikely it would happen exactly as it had occurred (hence the rewind would no reflect the actual action ..)

impossible[/b] to test so we'll never know who's right.  Practicing physicists do not worry about these considerations - they are content to use whichever theory is the best in a given context, and generally ignore the philosophical concerns that seem to consume you.]
Both statistical mechanics and classical thermodynamics make a number of correct predictions which have been corroborated by experiment.  And both make claims about what the universe will be like, for all time - these predictions are impossible to test so we'll never know who's right.  Practicing physicists do not worry about these considerations - they are content to use whichever theory is the best in a given context, and generally ignore the philosophical concerns that seem to consume you.


No experiment has been done to ever show time reversal possible within a chaotic system. The correct prediction will be closer to what reflects reality best. Yes, if you could reverse the spilled milk as it exactly happened you could consider it time reversal.. However, it wouldn't literally be time reversal vs reconstruction.. It wouldn't be like hitting the rewind button because itself would be a separate progressive action from the last time frame of reference. :/
Quote
I'm sorry I can't resolve the argument.  But I would offer you this small piece of advice, in case you once again feel that science can somehow resolve one of your metaphysical debates: Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Thanks for the effort and it did have some interesting arguments Smiley And yes, science won't be able to solve everything.. It won't, as an example, be able to tell us if we are in an atom within a larger living organism to which exists in a expanded reality. Some things will indeed remain unknown to us. But we do know the basic rules of the system because those are the easiest to determine. It's the complex that arises from those rules that can be incredibly perplexing to understand. This includes more complex rules that arise from base rules that already exist.

Example:


How did the rules of Law come from the base principle rules of (positive, negative, and neutral).. You will find that trying to understand that in total infinite detail to be impossible.. But we can understand that it was a result of the evolution from the base principles that also make our own existence possible even if we don't infinitely know exactly how it happened from beginning to the present.

Example 2:

We can understand how the Earth formed, but we could never know exactly how each atom came together, or the exact order in which it happened.. It would be impossible even if we were there to observe the entire process.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #195 on: February 24, 2011, 03:16:44 PM »

Can you show me an object made of nothing?
Nothing is actually the main component of everything you can see. An atom is mostly empty space.

Empty space isn't nothing.. And you don't perceive empty space as "nothing" actually. Empty space in only on average Ground State energy. However, you are beginning to understand, I think anyways, that nothing can't literally exist. Well, I would hope so anyways Smiley
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #196 on: February 24, 2011, 03:16:44 PM »

expanding to infinity wouldn't....WORDS....So it still remains questionable if our consciousness can continue on outside the biological container to defy dimensional time decay, or to remain an emerging property.

Words mean things. Even if you intend this to be more philosophical than scientific, the words you are using still have meanings you have to follow. Your method of simply chaining words together whatever way sounds nice results in something that makes absolutely no sense.

Seriously man, I tried to be charitable, but I cannot read and understand more than like 5 lines from that.

If you want the simple version:

Existence is energy that never stops flowing. It's of destruction and renewal. You can think of anything higher than ground state as the surface of the Earth to where it's in a cycle of destruction and renewal.

Example of dimensional time decay, or the flow of energy:

A Basketball:

1:) From ground state the Big Bang happens - creates the lighter gasses that give rise to stars and galaxies that create the heavier elements.
2:) After billions of years our solar system comes to be
3:) Earth forms
4:) Few more billion years and Man arises
5:) Man makes a basket ball
6:) the basket ball over time atomically decays back into other elements, and energy.
7:) The Earth atomically decays (should it survive the death of our star)
8:) The solar system followed by the rest of the Universe.
9:) Back to ground state energy to which it all began.
10:) possibility of Repeating similar events.

The concept of time has everything to do with time particle dilation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The examples I have given you in regards to dimensional time decay have everything to do with Time Dilation. It also has to do with atomic decay rates according to Time dilation.. Smiley These may be hard concepts to understand but they are fundamental in regards to every aspect of our lives to which include our perception of time.



Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #197 on: February 24, 2011, 03:16:44 PM »

Quote
You missed the entire point. You responded by insisting a spiritual existence be made of the same physical substance and laws of the material universe.

It would be irrelevant regardless.. It wouldn't matter if you thought the spiritual world was made of legos, it would still have to abide by the same principle rules in regards to information theory. :/ I'm not insisting it has to be made of the same substance, I am insisting that it can't be made of "nothing".. I can't experience, see, feel, touch, smell, or hear things made of nothing.. It would make the experience impossible to experience :< You think you could rejoin a loved one who has no dimensional value? Could you see them, touch them, feel them, smell them.. Absolutely not o.O  I don't understand why theists these days believe they need have their spirit world magically be made of nothing with zero dimensional value. Thus please revisit the collapsing sphere example. Smiley

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #198 on: February 24, 2011, 04:43:45 PM »

Quote
You missed the entire point. You responded by insisting a spiritual existence be made of the same physical substance and laws of the material universe.

It would be irrelevant regardless.. It wouldn't matter if you thought the spiritual world was made of legos, it would still have to abide by the same principle rules in regards to information theory. :/ I'm not insisting it has to be made of the same substance, I am insisting that it can't be made of "nothing".. I can't experience, see, feel, touch, smell, or hear things made of nothing.. It would make the experience impossible to experience :< You think you could rejoin a loved one who has no dimensional value? Could you see them, touch them, feel them, smell them.. Absolutely not o.O  I don't understand why theists these days believe they need have their spirit world magically be made of nothing with zero dimensional value. Thus please revisit the collapsing sphere example. Smiley



Nothing is relative. What constitutes a spirit isn't something material. Non-material =/= Nothing. Even many laws of nature are relative (e.g. time, physical constants, etc). Existing outside this world would necessitate it's own rules.

But of course all of this is after one has "faith" in God. It doesn't matter what you believe possible, if you don't have any belief in God. Hence, in reality, this argument is attempting to run without legs, since you don't accept this first premise. You'll never experience God, because you'll never look for Him. You'll always show your logic proves there is nothing to look for, and looking is a waste of time.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 04:49:54 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #199 on: February 24, 2011, 08:38:25 PM »

Ahh NO.. All it states is that if you could reverse time it could unspill back into the cup.. The problem to that is this:

The problem is that you have been reading Wikipedia too much, and you don't know what you are talking about.

It's not about time reversal. Prof. Dave Levermore of University of Maryland describes Poincaré's recurrence theorem and the resulting controversy:

Quote
If you play bridge long enough you will eventually be dealt any grand-slam hand, not once but several times. A similar thing is true for mechanical systems governed by Newton's laws, as the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912) showed with his recurrence theorem in 1890: if the system has a fixed total energy that restricts its dynamics to bounded subsets of its phase space, the system will eventually return as closely as you like to any given initial set of molecular positions and velocities. If the entropy is determined by these variables, then it must also return to its original value, so if it increases during one period of time it must decrease during another.

This apparent contradiction between the behavior of a deterministic mechanical system of particles and the Second Law of Thermodynamics became known as the "Recurrence Paradox." It was used by the German mathematician Ernst Zermelo in 1896 to attack the mechanistic worldview. He argued that the Second Law is an absolute truth, so any theory that leads to predictions inconsistent with it must be false. This refutation would apply not only to the kinetic theory of gases but to any theory based on the assumption that matter is composed of particles moving in accordance with the laws of mechanics.

Boltzmann had previously denied the possibility of such recurrences and might have continued to deny their certainty by rejecting the determinism postulated in the Poincare-Zermelo argument. Instead, he admitted quite frankly that recurrences are completely consistent with the statistical viewpoint, as the card-game analogy suggests; they are fluctuations, which are almost certain to occur if you wait long enough. So determinism leads to the same qualitative consequence that would be expected from a random sequence of states! In either case the recurrence time is so inconceivably long that our failure to observe it cannot constitute an objection to the theory.

[source: Prof. Dave Levermore, University of Maryland]

[my emphasis]
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,676


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #200 on: February 24, 2011, 09:50:31 PM »

Okay...I am getting confused already reading about how spiritual dimensions work in your model.  To be honest, I never heard anyone try to scientifically explain spiritual dimensions as "negative dimensions."  For all we know, we don't know exactly the "material" of the spirit, we only know its function.  Spiritual realm and Divinity are two different things.  Some people here when hearing about M-theory for instance seem to get excited about it as a proof that spirituality can exist in those other dimensions.  But I know nothing about M or string theory except what I hear in documentaries.  I can only have wished that if I had some interest in them in my college days as I have now, I might have gone into cosmology.

In any case, I'll give you a fuller reply Monday when I'm done with what i have to do.  Thank you.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #201 on: February 25, 2011, 01:24:12 AM »

The concept of time has everything to do with time particle dilation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The examples I have given you in regards to dimensional time decay have everything to do with Time Dilation. It also has to do with atomic decay rates according to Time dilation.. Smiley These may be hard concepts to understand but they are fundamental in regards to every aspect of our lives to which include our perception of time.

I think I see what you're trying to say, let's see if I can flesh it out a bit better using your basketball analogy so other people will understand:

Imagine four basketballs on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the basketball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of basketballs and takes the place of the first basketball. The formerly first basketball becomes the second basketball, the second basketball becomes the third basketball, and the fourth basketball falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.

I'll wait for my Nobel in the mail

This is another important part of any crazy person's hilarious made-up theory, they find a scientific term that sounds sort of science-fictiony like time dilation, and say something that has absolutely nothing to do with what the term actually means. This is due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says we can't really know anything for sure.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #202 on: February 25, 2011, 01:25:17 AM »

Okay...I am getting confused already reading about how spiritual dimensions work in your model.  To be honest, I never heard anyone try to scientifically explain spiritual dimensions as "negative dimensions."  For all we know, we don't know exactly the "material" of the spirit, we only know its function.  Spiritual realm and Divinity are two different things.  Some people here when hearing about M-theory for instance seem to get excited about it as a proof that spirituality can exist in those other dimensions.  But I know nothing about M or string theory except what I hear in documentaries.  I can only have wished that if I had some interest in them in my college days as I have now, I might have gone into cosmology.

In any case, I'll give you a fuller reply Monday when I'm done with what i have to do.  Thank you.

If you are going to say a spirit world exists outside.. it would have to be dimensionless.. AKA 0 Dimensional.. Its pretty damn hard to see things visually or do anything at all without dimensional value.. You might want to make the argument "well it's beyond your understanding", but it's pleading because it ignores what perception is based on.. Especially visual perception. I asked them how they could feel, touch, hear, taste, and smell in a dimensionless "non-material" existence... So far, I just get deflective arguments that don't want to address the questions.. :/  M or String theory are not theories actually..They are hypothesis that do not have a body of facts to support their main premise or arguments.

Regardless of what anyone's reply is here.. Information theory will be entirely applicable to their arguments.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #203 on: February 25, 2011, 10:29:51 AM »

Can you show me an object made of nothing?
Nothing is actually the main component of everything you can see. An atom is mostly empty space.

Empty space isn't nothing.. And you don't perceive empty space as "nothing" actually. Empty space in only on average Ground State energy. However, you are beginning to understand, I think anyways, that nothing can't literally exist. Well, I would hope so anyways Smiley
So what occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and it's electrons?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #204 on: February 25, 2011, 04:56:33 PM »

Ahh NO.. All it states is that if you could reverse time it could unspill back into the cup.. The problem to that is this:

Quote
The problem is that you have been reading Wikipedia too much, and you don't know what you are talking about.

Ahh no, I addressed our argument in how you phrased it. "The milk unspills back into the glass".. This led me to believe you were making an argument for time-backward" trajectory in some weird sense.

Quote
If you play bridge long enough you will eventually be dealt any grand-slam hand, not once but several times. A similar thing is true for mechanical systems governed by Newton's laws, as the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912) showed with his recurrence theorem in 1890: if the system has a fixed total energy that restricts its dynamics to bounded subsets of its phase space, the system will eventually return as closely as you like to any given initial set of molecular positions and velocities. If the entropy is determined by these variables, then it must also return to its original value, so if it increases during one period of time it must decrease during another.

This apparent contradiction between the behavior of a deterministic mechanical system of particles and the Second Law of Thermodynamics became known as the "Recurrence Paradox." It was used by the German mathematician Ernst Zermelo in 1896 to attack the mechanistic worldview. He argued that the Second Law is an absolute truth, so any theory that leads to predictions inconsistent with it must be false. This refutation would apply not only to the kinetic theory of gases but to any theory based on the assumption that matter is composed of particles moving in accordance with the laws of mechanics.

Boltzmann had previously denied the possibility of such recurrences and might have continued to deny their certainty by rejecting the determinism postulated in the Poincare-Zermelo argument. Instead, he admitted quite frankly that recurrences are completely consistent with the statistical viewpoint, as the card-game analogy suggests; they are fluctuations, which are almost certain to occur if you wait long enough. So determinism leads to the same qualitative consequence that would be expected from a random sequence of states! In either case the recurrence time is so inconceivably long that our failure to observe it cannot constitute an objection to the theory.

[source: Prof. Dave Levermore, University of Maryland]

[my emphasis]

This might help you better understand the argument being made.. The Universe is an open system, but the argument being discussed in your post deals with isolated closed systems..

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy2.html
Quote
One of the best established facts in thermodynamics is that it is impossible in a system enclosed in an envelope which permits neither change of volume nor passage of heat, and in which both the temperature and pressure are everywhere the same, to produce any inequality of temperature or of pressure without the expenditure of work.

Quote
The phrase isolated system means that neither energy nor matter may enter or leave the system; it is an embodiment of the word "unaided" as used by Maxwell & Clausius. If the system is not isolated, then energy can get in, and so can "aid". Hence, isolation is required to uphold the restriction "unaided". The manner in which the "transition" is accomplished is irrelevant; all possible transitions are allowed.


This means we live in an open system, and not a closed system. However you misinterpreted my argument that dealt with Chaos theory:

Quote
But maybe there is a better answer, "chaos". Otherwise known as "nonlinear dynamics", but popularly (and misleadingly) called "chaos", this field of mathematical physics comes out of the pioneering work of the French mathematician Henri Poincaré. Poincaré published the first description of chaotic motion in 1890, but it was not until the latter half of the 20th century that the scope of application of chaos theory to Newtonian mechanics was fully realized. But chaos theory will explain the second law of thermodynamics, by virtue of the infinite sensitivity to initial conditions that characterize such systems. The gas molecules cannot return to the previous small phase space volume, because they are a chaotic system, which cannot recover the initial conditions.

Jean Bricmont, mathematician & physicst from l'Université catholique de Louvain, in Belgium, holds to this point of view ( "Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?", J. Bricmont, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 775: 131-175, 1996). Likewise Joel Lebowitz (Department of Physics and astronomy at Rutgers University (Microscopic Origins of Irreversible Macroscopic Behavior, J.L Lebowitz, Physica A 263(1-4): 516-527, February 1 1999, or "Microscopic Reversibility and Macroscopic Behavior: Physical Explanations and Mathematical Derivations", from a lecture on non-equilibrium statistical mechanics in 1994).

But do remember this is specifically dealing with isolated and closed systems and not open systems. However I suspect that a truly closed system is impossible to maintain over a long period of time because the box itself or the isolation envelope itself is made of energy.. I almost wonder if they even considered that when addressing the paradox.
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #205 on: February 25, 2011, 04:56:33 PM »

The concept of time has everything to do with time particle dilation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The examples I have given you in regards to dimensional time decay have everything to do with Time Dilation. It also has to do with atomic decay rates according to Time dilation.. Smiley These may be hard concepts to understand but they are fundamental in regards to every aspect of our lives to which include our perception of time.

I think I see what you're trying to say, let's see if I can flesh it out a bit better using your basketball analogy so other people will understand:

Imagine four basketballs on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the basketball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of basketballs and takes the place of the first basketball. The formerly first basketball becomes the second basketball, the second basketball becomes the third basketball, and the fourth basketball falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.

I'll wait for my Nobel in the mail

This is another important part of any crazy person's hilarious made-up theory, they find a scientific term that sounds sort of science-fictiony like time dilation, and say something that has absolutely nothing to do with what the term actually means. This is due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says we can't really know anything for sure.

No.. That is not what it means at all lol.. Look up the term "Atomic Decay".. Dimensional time decay is the decay rate of anything higher than ground state to which eventually brings their state back to ground state energy. It's a cycle or flow of energy to which includes the Quantum foam.

http://apphysics.ygoy.com/110/nuclear-decay-processes/

So dimensional time Decay is how long will the basketball remain a basket ball before it atomically decays. Hence when does it lose it's 3 dimensional value as a basketball and returns to other states of energy to which includes ground state. This is dimensional time decay. (it doesn't mean the literal decay of dimensions).. It only means how long can a 3Dimensional complex object such as a basketball remain as a basket ball.

Quote
To come back to ground state, the nucleus can emit a γ ray. When the energy of the γ ray is low, interaction of this radiation with matter causes Photoelectric effect.

Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #206 on: February 25, 2011, 04:56:33 PM »

Can you show me an object made of nothing?
Nothing is actually the main component of everything you can see. An atom is mostly empty space.

Empty space isn't nothing.. And you don't perceive empty space as "nothing" actually. Empty space in only on average Ground State energy. However, you are beginning to understand, I think anyways, that nothing can't literally exist. Well, I would hope so anyways Smiley
So what occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and it's electrons?

Space itself is made of energy Smiley I have been stating this all throughout this entire discussion. There is only on average ground state / zero-point energy. AKA the very substance of existence itself is energy to which contains the base principles of all other principles. This is exactly why in science they state that "nothing isn't Nothing anymore" as a catchy phrase to say "nothing" never existed. Thus you can only regress Existence to the point where I can not regress any further.. Existence has no boundaries and is considered an infinite volume simply because non-existence doesn't and can not exist. It's that simple Smiley
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #207 on: February 25, 2011, 07:48:43 PM »

The concept of time has everything to do with time particle dilation..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The examples I have given you in regards to dimensional time decay have everything to do with Time Dilation. It also has to do with atomic decay rates according to Time dilation.. Smiley These may be hard concepts to understand but they are fundamental in regards to every aspect of our lives to which include our perception of time.

I think I see what you're trying to say, let's see if I can flesh it out a bit better using your basketball analogy so other people will understand:

Imagine four basketballs on the edge of a cliff. Say a direct copy of the basketball nearest the cliff is sent to the back of the line of basketballs and takes the place of the first basketball. The formerly first basketball becomes the second basketball, the second basketball becomes the third basketball, and the fourth basketball falls off the cliff. Time works the same way.

I'll wait for my Nobel in the mail

This is another important part of any crazy person's hilarious made-up theory, they find a scientific term that sounds sort of science-fictiony like time dilation, and say something that has absolutely nothing to do with what the term actually means. This is due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says we can't really know anything for sure.

No.. That is not what it means at all lol.. Look up the term "Atomic Decay".. Dimensional time decay is the decay rate of anything higher than ground state to which eventually brings their state back to ground state energy. It's a cycle or flow of energy to which includes the Quantum foam.

http://apphysics.ygoy.com/110/nuclear-decay-processes/

So dimensional time Decay is how long will the basketball remain a basket ball before it atomically decays. Hence when does it lose it's 3 dimensional value as a basketball and returns to other states of energy to which includes ground state. This is dimensional time decay. (it doesn't mean the literal decay of dimensions).. It only means how long can a 3Dimensional complex object such as a basketball remain as a basket ball.

Quote
To come back to ground state, the nucleus can emit a γ ray. When the energy of the γ ray is low, interaction of this radiation with matter causes Photoelectric effect.


Your first paragraph is kinda correct. I get the impression that you actually have no idea what you're saying, but I can be charitable and assume you do. But your second paragraph is just stupid. Nowhere do you define what a 3 dimensional value is, or what other states of energy you think a basketball would transition to. And it's clear you don't understand what the term "ground state" means.

Seriously, science does not work like this. You can't just throw a bunch of terms loosely connected in your brain out there.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #208 on: February 25, 2011, 07:55:38 PM »

Can you show me an object made of nothing?
Nothing is actually the main component of everything you can see. An atom is mostly empty space.

Empty space isn't nothing.. And you don't perceive empty space as "nothing" actually. Empty space in only on average Ground State energy. However, you are beginning to understand, I think anyways, that nothing can't literally exist. Well, I would hope so anyways Smiley
So what occupies the space between an atom's nucleus and it's electrons?

Space itself is made of energy Smiley I have been stating this all throughout this entire discussion. There is only on average ground state / zero-point energy. AKA the very substance of existence itself is energy to which contains the base principles of all other principles. This is exactly why in science they state that "nothing isn't Nothing anymore" as a catchy phrase to say "nothing" never existed. Thus you can only regress Existence to the point where I can not regress any further.. Existence has no boundaries and is considered an infinite volume simply because non-existence doesn't and can not exist. It's that simple Smiley

What is the effecient cause of Energy?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #209 on: February 25, 2011, 08:52:55 PM »

Also, "quantum foam" isn't even a thing; it's something postulated to happen in theories of quantum gravity, but since we don't have a working theory of quantum gravity, as yet we don't know if it exists.

You are stringing words together without understanding their meaning. Words like "dimensional," "time," "decay," "decay rate," "ground state," "energy," and "quantum foam" have definite meanings and you are abusing them. Is English your first language?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,610



« Reply #210 on: February 25, 2011, 09:22:06 PM »

Answer to subject:

Quote
blah blah blah blah yes blah blah blah blah
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #211 on: February 26, 2011, 02:17:38 PM »

Quote
Your first paragraph is kinda correct. I get the impression that you actually have no idea what you're saying, but I can be charitable and assume you do. But your second paragraph is just stupid. Nowhere do you define what a 3 dimensional value is, or what other states of energy you think a basketball would transition to. And it's clear you don't understand what the term "ground state" means.

 Roll Eyes

If I changed a sphere into a flat circle disc, it would change it's 3 dimensional value. It's not hard to grasp.

Quote
what other states of energy you think a basketball would transition to.

Do we need to explore the magnitude of Energy scale again  Roll Eyes Atomic decay alone is changing it's state of energy.

Quote
clear you don't understand what the term "ground state" means

Uhh no, that would be the other way around Wink
Logged
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #212 on: February 26, 2011, 02:17:38 PM »

Answer to subject:

Quote
blah blah blah blah yes blah blah blah blah


Answer to subject of the Omniscience paradox:

"Blah blah blah, ignore, ignore, ignore, blah blah, yes more ignoring, blah blah.

Answer to the subject of information theory:

Ignore, doesn't understand it, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, contradict self, contradict self, ignore.

Answer to how do you perceive a dimensionless spirit world made of nothing:

Ignore.


Please feel free to express where such "Blah, Blah" exists in either of those arguments on my end. Smiley
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #213 on: February 26, 2011, 10:07:34 PM »

If I changed a sphere into a flat circle disc, it would change it's 3 dimensional value. It's not hard to grasp.
What are the topological equations for these transformations?

Quote
Quote
what other states of energy you think a basketball would transition to.

Do we need to explore the magnitude of Energy scale again  Roll Eyes Atomic decay alone is changing it's state of energy.

Quote
clear you don't understand what the term "ground state" means

Uhh no, that would be the other way around Wink
The real questions is: how does your theory take into account Earth's 4-corner simultaneous 4-day timecube? Answer that one smartypants Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 10:19:19 PM by Aposphet » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #214 on: February 27, 2011, 12:45:34 AM »

Also Jackel what if you glued the surface of a basketball to another basketball, and then let an electron bounce around inside of the resulting shape?

Is the groundstate higher or lower than in the case of a singe basketball?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,990


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #215 on: February 27, 2011, 02:00:52 AM »

While this "discussion" is not the most retarded I've seen on this forum, it gets closer to #1 than Icarus got to the sun and here's why.

1. A straight forward question was asked and then answered.  But it was a rhetorical question to begin with with no real foundation as to why the debate should continue.

2. It quickly became a debate on why God does/doesn't exist which we already have ad nauseum and, therefore, should have been locked.

3. It quickly became a springboard for various members to begin arguing with one another and now we're talking about gluing basketballs together.  Neat.   

4. <Insert witty comment about this being a moderated section while pointing out the wild straying off topic for 5 pages.>   

5. Arguing on the internet about God is like the Special Olympics- even if you win, you're still retarded.

Therefore,

 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #216 on: February 27, 2011, 05:45:04 AM »

Thank you for deviating this thread even further with your drivel.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #217 on: February 27, 2011, 08:54:00 AM »

Quote
The real questions is: how does your theory take into account Earth's 4-corner simultaneous 4-day timecube? Answer that one smartypants Roll Eyes

LOL.. I actually found that rather funny when I first read it Wink. Sounds a lot like the nonsense I hear when I get people claiming the existence of a something nothing Tongue Good thing though that none of this is of my theory.. But my theory is that you can't experience nothing Smiley

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #218 on: February 27, 2011, 09:19:08 AM »

But my theory is that you can't experience nothing Smiley

Good, we're in agreement.

Next.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
TheJackel
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Materialist
Posts: 240


« Reply #219 on: February 28, 2011, 09:28:55 AM »

But my theory is that you can't experience nothing Smiley

Good, we're in agreement.

Next.

Wink
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.182 seconds with 69 queries.