26 Feb 07
Originally posted by vistesdIt was brought up before that God is not bound by space or time, and as such is everywhere in His fullness, able to bring to His full attention to all things at once throughout all time without pause. This doesn't mean that God will not, or isn't allowing/letting/by design causing space time for the time being to do a short work play itself out, it only means He isn't bound by time and distance like we are.
I think my point is that if there is any temporal fixed point called “the beginning of time,” then we cannot get beyond that point, and any talk about “before the beginning of time” is technically nonsensical (though perhaps wonderfully allusive in mythic poetry, which to me is no trivial thing in itself).
At any singularity where space-time dimensionalit ...[text shortened]... Advaita Vedanta—and is viewed as the heresy of pantheism in dualistic religions. I am a monist.
Kelly
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by vistesdI think my point is that if there is any temporal fixed point called “the beginning of time,” then we cannot get beyond that point, and any talk about “before the beginning of time” is technically nonsensical VISTESD
I think my point is that if there is any temporal fixed point called “the beginning of time,” then we cannot get beyond that point, and any talk about “before the beginning of time” is technically nonsensical (though perhaps wonderfully allusive in mythic poetry, which to me is no trivial thing in itself).
At any singularity where space-time dimensionalit ...[text shortened]... Advaita Vedanta—and is viewed as the heresy of pantheism in dualistic religions. I am a monist.
To me talk of time existing is non-sensical
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe singularity has been described as all energy, matter, and everything else being in some zero mass point
The way you are speaking about the BB and the singularity is basically similar to time before the BB isn’t it? The singularity has been described as all energy, matter, and everything else being in some zero mass point at one time, as if that is something we can wrap our minds around, and the BB has something with no mass supposedly blowing up throwing all ...[text shortened]... ther and so on, the same with matter, energy, and everything else you want to talk about?
Kelly
zero volume point. It's a point and all points have zero volume however so that can be left out unless you want to emphasize it.
28 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungZero mass, zero volume either way, why? If we are speaking of nothing to something what does it matter, it is still something from nothing, and I'd still like to know why everything all started at once, why would time be bound to begin the same time energy or matter did? If one started before or after the other, how could you tell?
[b]The singularity has been described as all energy, matter, and everything else being in some zero mass point
zero volume point. It's a point and all points have zero volume however so that can be left out unless you want to emphasize it.[/b]
Kelly
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Zero mass, zero volume either way, why? If we are speaking of nothing to something what does it matter, it is still something from nothing, and I'd still like to know why everything all started at once, why would time be bound to begin the same time energy or matter did? If one started before or after the other, how could you tell?
Kelly
Here's a pretty comprehensive overview of how space and time relate. If you can't understand why the two are linked after reading this (regardless of whether you agree or not) then you have no really have little business debating the issue. Forming an opinion on a subject wihtout actually understanding what that subject entails on some level is like me giving an opinion on what it's like to be the Crab Nebula; redundant. So far in this thread all I've seen from you and Knightmeister are opinions which are not backed up in the slightest by an understanding of the subject matter.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI've pointed this out heaps of times, but they seem to rejoice in their stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Here's a pretty comprehensive overview of how space and time relate. If you can't understand why the two are linked after reading this (regardless of whether you agree or not) then you have no really have little business debating the issue. Forming an opinion on a subject wihtout actually understanding what that s ...[text shortened]... opinions which are not backed up in the slightest by an understanding of the subject matter.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanGive me a break, everything everyone in this debate is giving is opinion! You have a clue what occured in the beginning, you know without a shadow of a doubt that time and matter are so connected they had to start at the same time? You are giving me a link, Scott wants me to read a book, since neither one of you have done anything outside of voice an opinion too, I can understand why you feel the need to push off your position to someone's elses links, or why Scott feels the need to promote someone else's books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Here's a pretty comprehensive overview of how space and time relate. If you can't understand why the two are linked after reading this (regardless of whether you agree or not) then you have no really have little business debating the issue. Forming an opinion on a subject wihtout actually understanding what that s ...[text shortened]... opinions which are not backed up in the slightest by an understanding of the subject matter.
Kelly
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe difference is that we have both read the subject matter, a subject which has been researched by thousands of scientists over decades and hundreds of thousands of man hours. We make our opinions based on real scientific assessment of the topic and as such are talking the same language, even if we were to disagree.
Give me a break, everything everyone in this debate is giving is opinion! You have a clue what occured in the beginning, you know without a shadow of a doubt that time and matter are so connected they had to start at the same time? You are giving me a link, Scott wants me to read a book, since neither one of you have done anything outside of voice an opinio ...[text shortened]... to someone's elses links, or why Scott feels the need to promote someone else's books.
Kelly
You are uneducated about the topic on any level, having done no research into it, read no books on the subject and refusing to look at links offered, and as such cannot have any understanding of what is involved. Your experience on the subject is non-existent, you're talking in a completely different language to others here.
Why should your opinion have any weight at all, you clearly know nothing about the subject.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanI didn't ever say I never read anything on the topic, I didn't say I didn't plan on looking at your link, I am saying that no matter what language you use to discuss the big bang, time and matter, events that you claim happened billions of years ago, you are only dealing with opinions! The facts are that you do not have a clue, no one does, but we do give opinions on what think! Which is all I have been doing, and you and your blinders cannot see that, small wonder you think the universe spins around just your train of thought!
The difference is that we have both read the subject matter, a subject which has been researched by thousands of scientists over decades and hundreds of thousands of man hours. We make our opinions based on real scientific assessment of the topic and as such are talking the same language, even if we were to disagree.
You are uneducated about the topi ...[text shortened]...
Why should your opinion have any weight at all, you clearly know nothing about the subject.
Kelly
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you don't yet understand why time and space are linked, you're not availed of enough information to form an opinion, let alone what opinion it is. There is plenty of evidence to form opinions on if only you bothered exploring it before you make one. Go educate yoursef and stop living in your safe, warm bubble of religious ignorance.
I didn't ever say I never read anything on the topic, I didn't say I didn't plan on looking at your link, I am saying that no matter what language you use to discuss the big bang, time and matter, events that you claim happened billions of years ago, you are only dealing with opinions! The facts are that you do not have a clue, no one does, but we do give o ...[text shortened]... see that, small wonder you think the universe spins around just your train of thought!
Kelly
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWe have both read widely around the subject and understand current theory. You have not and do not. You are unwilling to accept what we tell you as established theory, trying to tell us that it's merely our opinion. It is not. It is the current understanding of physics, researched by some very brilliant physicists.
Give me a break, everything everyone in this debate is giving is opinion! You have a clue what occured in the beginning, you know without a shadow of a doubt that time and matter are so connected they had to start at the same time? You are giving me a link, Scott wants me to read a book, since neither one of you have done anything outside of voice an opinio ...[text shortened]... to someone's elses links, or why Scott feels the need to promote someone else's books.
Kelly
Perhaps you think that Stephen Hawkins is just giving you "opinion", and doesn't have facts to back his stuff up?
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI value your opinion in theoretical physics.
I didn't ever say I never read anything on the topic, I didn't say I didn't plan on looking at your link, I am saying that no matter what language you use to discuss the big bang, time and matter, events that you claim happened billions of years ago, you are only dealing with opinions! The facts are that you do not have a clue, no one does, but we do give o ...[text shortened]... see that, small wonder you think the universe spins around just your train of thought!
Kelly
I value it precisely as much as I value your opinions regarding brain surgery.
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by StarrmanSince I'm questioning the need for such a thing it should be up to you to provide the answers outside of saying I lack understanding you have provided nothing but a condescending position as if you don't have to prove what you seem to think is a foundational truth to your position! If you cannot do that, I'd say you have nothing but an opinion and your desire to attack me instead of sticking to the subject becomes quite clear that is all you really have up your sleeve, it sure isn't knowledge you profess to have, but have yet to be able to display. Look around maybe someone else has a well written link to show you what you think, or should be thinking.
If you don't yet understand why time and space are linked, you're not availed of enough information to form an opinion, let alone what opinion it is. There is plenty of evidence to form opinions on if only you bothered exploring it before you make one. Go educate yoursef and stop living in your safe, warm bubble of religious ignorance.
Kelly
28 Feb 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is right I'm unwilling to accept something you tell me, just because you tell it to me! I'm unwilling to accept your point of view just because you read a book, show me why or walk away knowing you cannot. If it isn't opinion, display here why, shouldn't be hard, except when you start to talk about it all, you immediately have to say you cannot talk about time before the BB, because it does not fit your model, which for me means you don't have much of a model. What you have established so far is that your model breaks down during certain points, meaning you cannot explain, or even guess as to the whys, how, certain things occurred. I find it remarkable that you even refuse to speculate about all events before the BB and the conditions therein. Since the period before the BB had to have all the prerequisites necessary for your so called volume less mass to explode, and I also find you quite childish of you that instead of discussing the points of the matters with people who have honest questions, you have peppered your arguments with insults as if my disagreeing with you for whatever reason means I must be insulted by you.
We have both read widely around the subject and understand current theory. You have not and do not. You are unwilling to accept what we tell you as established theory, trying to tell us that it's merely our opinion. It is not. It is the current understanding of physics, researched by some very brilliant physicists.
Perhaps you think that Stephen Hawkins is just giving you "opinion", and doesn't have facts to back his stuff up?
Kelly