eternity - a clarification

Originally posted by frogstomp
the problem with your definition is that you are talking about the space-time continuum, and there is no proof of that ever existing.
Essentially, without mass or energy, time does not exist, although space can. The problem with a creator ,that always existed, is that without the thing he created time could not have existed.

Did I suggest God lives in 'time'? My definition or eternity is of something without beginning or cause. This may or may not include time but I certainly don't see eternity as dependent on time just because we have to use (out of neccesity) time based phrases to describe eternity.

"Without mass or energy time cannot exist"....I agree but you should have a word with scottishnz about this , he seems to think that physics supports the contrary. Read this thread and the 'atheists account for existence' thread, you 'll find him making all sorts of claims for time.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the problem with your definition is that you are talking about the space-time continuum, and there is no proof of that ever existing.
Essentially, without mass or energy, time does not exist, although space can. The problem with a creator ,that always existed, is that without the thing he created time could not have existed.

the bigger problem is that the concept of time as a bi-polar dimension, extending to infinity in both the positive and negative direction, is that there would be no point in the timeline for anything to have been created without first creating time itdelf.
Of course, if you take into account super-strings you may be able to define the creation of mass and energy but then, you are talking about how the universe, replete with energy, was created. AND , superstrings are neutral in the issue of the existence of god.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What are you gibbering about? Of course nothiness exists, it is fundamental to physics (i.e. the speed of light through a vaccuum). Scotyt put it right, it is the absence of something.

It seems the New Scientist have also been 'gibbering'.....

"...researchers at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton New York...have by colliding nuclei together at enormous speeds..been able to break down the structure of nuclear matter.."

"...it turns out , though, that the nature of matter is inextricably tied to the vacuum in which it resides..They (the experiments) seem to show that the vacuum is a richer and more complicated place than was previously imagined.."
"They suggest the boundary between something and nothing is more blurred than experts had predicted.."
" This is part of the theory of quantum thermodynamics (QCD)....In QCD , it is the vacuum that imprisons the quarks. While it may sound like a barren place , the vacuum of QCD is a complex , dynamic arena. It writhes virtual particles that appear in pairs...It is haunted by strange creatures of various kinds , ...relatives of wormholes...places where space turns in on itself.... the vaccuum is heated so much that the quarks and gluons are freed and matter reverts to a fundamental state (quark-gluon plasma)"

" ..many theoretical phycisists ..say it's pretty clear to us this is the discovery..."

NEW SCIENTIST 16TH OCT 2004 - (www.spcaedaily.com/news/physics)

More gibberish from...Bob Berman Astronomy Professor...

" First no matter how good the vacuum is , it's space is still penetrated by some infrared heat and microwaves from the vacuums walls and environment. Since energy and mass are fundamentally the same , those waves zipping through space mean you can't ever have a true vacuum" (Less than Zero)- Ulster Publishing.com

..and more gibberish...!

" She explains how the absence of stuff doesn't define a vacuum, since it is filled with fields- evanescent particle pairs that flash in and out of existence..and furthermore space time itself is 'something'.."

Re-K.C. Cole, Science writer Los Angeles times. ("The hole in the Universe"😉

Now , I have plenty more well qualified 'gibbering' physicists, science writers and professors out there who I can call upon , and it's just going to get worse and worse for you each time. Do your flies up now and go way and do some proper research! Trust me . I'm not the kind of guy who is going to go down a line of argument like this if I don't think I am on some kind of solid ground.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It seems the New Scientist have also been 'gibbering'.....

"...researchers at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton New York...have by colliding nuclei together at enormous speeds..been able to break down the structure of nuclear matter.."

"...it turns out , though, that the nature of matter is inext ...[text shortened]... ument like this if I don't think I am on some kind of solid ground.

While you seem right in your views about the nature of the vacuum, your definition of eternity leaves much to be desired, in that you mix Galilean relativistic time (what we exist in) and an Einsteinian mathematical model of the universe in which you assume that God can move forward and backward in. What you need is different words for eternity and time since presentism defines their meanings.
Before Einstein, there was only this view of time and eternity and it makes no sense to reason-up a purely metaphysical eternity out of the theory of Relativity's view of time.
I will leave you with this definition of time and you should be able to work out the proper definition of eternity from it:
time: a nonspatial linear continuum wherein events occur in an irreversible order.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , here goes...have a look at www.ts.infn.it/experiments/pvlas/quantum/html

and for more details..

www.ldolphin.org/energetic/html

If you prefer, punch in quantum vacuum into GOOGLE. There's loads of talk in physics about quantum vaccuums but none of them seem to talk about what I would call ABSOLUTELY nothing. Remember , nothingness only ...[text shortened]... mething. You think I am gibbering on because you don't understand what I mean by nothing.

What the hell do you call nothingness?

Originally posted by knightmeister
It seems the New Scientist have also been 'gibbering'.....

"...researchers at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC)at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton New York...have by colliding nuclei together at enormous speeds..been able to break down the structure of nuclear matter.."

"...it turns out , though, that the nature of matter is inext ...[text shortened]... ument like this if I don't think I am on some kind of solid ground.

All these experiments have done is change the definition of a vaccum. Yes, I am aware of the bizzarre world of quantum mechanics but when you say that there is no vaccum because that vaccum has time in it, then you are just making trivial objections. For all intents and purposes it contains nothing. And if you remember, my challenge was that something can come out of nothingess and vice versa. This remains true even if there are quarks and gluons around.

Also, you have failed to demonstrate that nothingess does not exist. Sure vaccums do sporadically contain particles. However, that does not mean that there are not "patches" of nothingess- even if these patches are ephemeral. You see, these particles appear and disappear. This is the amazing part of quantum mechanics. But just so that we're clear, there is or can be nothingness inside a vaccum.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What the hell do you call nothingness?

Funny, I was going to ask you this. Nothing for me is ABSOLUTELY nothing. Even if a vacuum only contains the merest hint of something at all then the bubble is burst , it might as well have everything in it because it stops being nothing. Why is this important you may ask? Simply , because the onus of proof is on you to show conclusively that that a vacuum is actually nothing. If you cannot do this then it becomes the equivalent of a fireman saying to a judge in court..

Fireman -" We only found one tiny tiny hint of slightly burnt match in the corner of the warehouse your honour , apart from that the warehouse was completely devoid of any possible cause for the massive gas explosion , so we can only conclude that the gas explosion started from absolutely nothing"

Judge- " But are you able to eliminate this tiny match as a cause?"

Fireman- " Yes your honour , because to all intents and purposes the warehouse was devoid of anything that could have caused the fire, the fire came out of nothing"

Judge- " I'm sorry but this is errant nonsense. It seems to me that you cannot be absolutely sure that the warehouse was 'devoid' of any cause for the fire , case dismissed"

Can't you appreciate that as soon as you say that a vacuum is 'virtually' nothing you've blown it.You are accepting the existence of something in there that could cause something to happen. This is not science! The onus is on you to show that the illogical , paradoxical 'something from nothing' can happen and for that you have to watertight and rigorous , otherwise we are back to square one.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Funny, I was going to ask you this. Nothing for me is ABSOLUTELY nothing. Even if a vacuum only contains the merest hint of something at all then the bubble is burst , it might as well have everything in it because it stops being nothing. Why is this important you may ask? Simply , because the onus of proof is on you to show conclusively that that a va ...[text shortened]... that you have to watertight and rigorous , otherwise we are back to square one.

Your analogy is flawed. First of all, the quantum warehouse would be a bit different. There would be matches spontenously appearing then disappearing. Thus, even for a nanosecond there were no matches. Also, since the macthes were only in one corner, one could extrapolate that the rest of the building was empty. There was certainly nothingness there in those corners.

Any anyway, it doesn't matter if there are gluons in our vaccum. Gluons can't turn into protons. So for all intents and purposes, if we are discussing the beginning of the universe, it wouldn't matter if there was a gluon because a proton must in the end come out of nothing.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The onus is on you to show that the illogical , paradoxical 'something from nothing' can happen and for that you have to watertight and rigorous , otherwise we are back to square one.

As so many people have pointed out already. The concept of "something out of nothing" is not paradoxical at all. There is no reason to think that it can't happen- and inded it happens all the time.

Originally posted by Conrau K
All these experiments have done is change the definition of a vaccum. Yes, I am aware of the bizzarre world of quantum mechanics but when you say that there is no vaccum because that vaccum has time in it, then you are just making trivial objections. For all intents and purposes it contains nothing. And if you remember, my challenge was that something can c ...[text shortened]... ntum mechanics. But just so that we're clear, there is or can be nothingness inside a vaccum.

1)First of all , they a re not 'my' trivial objections but the New Scientist's so take it up with them. According to the article there's a lot more than just time going on in there!

2) They are not trivial because with your concept of nothingness I can easily argue that the virtual particles that 'apparently' appear and dissappear out of 'nothing' are actually emerging from a quark-gluon plasma as evidenced by the Brookhaven experiment. Are you saying quarks and gluons don't exist? If there are quarks and gluons around then there is something there, not nothing (I can't believe I'm even having to make this point)

3) It's not up to me to demonstrate that nothingness does not exist , the onus is on you to show that nothingness does exist. Otherwise I might equally say that unicorns exist because you can't demonstrate they don't exist.(quick philosophy lesson ) Everything that has a beginning has a cause that we know of and given that it seems logically impossible for something to come out of nothing it is rational to continue with this belief unless new evidence comes to light.

4) Just because particles appear to dissappear and appear from nothing does not mean they actually are. I'm sure that magnetism must have appeared to have 'come out of nothing' centuries ago , until we understood it better. Anyway , the Brookhaven experiment suggests an even deeper level of matter and energy behind 'nothing' , so there is good reason to be suspicious.

I can't eliminate the possibility of something from nothing but in the absence of good evidence I feel justified in claiming it to be rationally less likely than other concepts (like eternity)

Originally posted by Conrau K
As so many people have pointed out already. The concept of "something out of nothing" is not paradoxical at all. There is no reason to think that it can't happen- and inded it happens all the time.

You're right ..it happens all the time...something from nothing...all you need are ..

1) a vacuum which may or may not have microwaves going through it (thus contaminating the evidence from the start)

2) A void of 'nothingness' with a hint of quark-gluon plasma in it. LOL

3) An outrageously woolly and unscientific definition of nothingness that allows for just a little tinchy bit of something to be in there.(Please tell me you're not a practising scientist , you methodology is frightening)

4) Finally , make sure you have lots of other woolly thinkers out there who can also say 'something comes from nothing'. (Oh ..and make sure you don't ever refer to an actual physicist or quote any experiments) That would make it true(duh!)

..voila....something from nothing...accept..er..um... the nothing turns out to be something anyway...

Originally posted by Conrau K
Your analogy is flawed. First of all, the quantum warehouse would be a bit different. There would be matches spontenously appearing then disappearing. Thus, even for a nanosecond there were no matches. Also, since the macthes were only in one corner, one could extrapolate that the rest of the building was empty. There was certainly nothingness there in thos ...[text shortened]... it wouldn't matter if there was a gluon because a proton must in the end come out of nothing.

1.My analogy is a philosophical one designed to show up flawed argument and faulty reasoning. I'm not surprised that it doesn't work well as a quantum analogy.

2. "It doesn't matter if there are gluons in our vacuum" Say again ?????????????????????????????????????????????????
Philosophically and logically it COMPLETELY matters. How are you able to logically argue that a vaccuum has nothing in it if it has gluons in it or are you discounting gluons as part of existence? Are you saying that only protons exist ?

a)nothingness has nothing in it

b)nothingness has something in it

make your choice please..

PS- Is this a wind up or have you no understanding of philosophical debate?

Originally posted by frogstomp
While you seem right in your views about the nature of the vacuum, your definition of eternity leaves much to be desired, in that you mix Galilean relativistic time (what we exist in) and an Einsteinian mathematical model of the universe in which you assume that God can move forward and backward in. What you need is different words for eternity and time s ...[text shortened]... ty from it:
time: a nonspatial linear continuum wherein events occur in an irreversible order.

At least you have seen the logic in my argument. I'm too exhausted trying to explain basic logic and philosophy to ConrauK to answer right now......ZZZZZZZ

I agree we need different words ...any suggestions?

Originally posted by knightmeister
1)First of all , they a re not 'my' trivial objections but the New Scientist's so take it up with them. According to the article there's a lot more than just time going on in there!

2) They are not trivial because with your concept of nothingness I can easily argue that the virtual particles that 'apparently' appear and dissappear out of 'nothing' ...[text shortened]... claiming it to be rationally less likely than other concepts (like eternity)

1. They are trivial. Or rather you have just misinterpreted what they are saying.
2. Most of the atom consists of nothingness. If there were something inside of it we could expect something bizarre. It would also contradict the experiments that first established the existence of the atom. The atomic theory relies on the fact that there is nothingness.
3.
Everything that has a beginning has a cause that we know of and given that it seems logically impossible for something to come out of nothing it is rational to continue with this belief unless new evidence comes to light.
This is not true. We do no of events that have no cause. The emmission of radiation during a radioactive decay is completely random and has no determining factor as to when it will happen (ergo it has no cause).

4. Your gibbering again. You have to manipulate the observations of partciles appearina and disappearing in order to sustian your theory. We have a word for this, "parsimony".

Originally posted by knightmeister
You're right ..it happens all the time...something from nothing...all you need are ..

1) a vacuum which may or may not have microwaves going through it (thus contaminating the evidence from the start)

2) A void of 'nothingness' with a hint of quark-gluon plasma in it. LOL

3) An outrageously woolly and unscientific definition of nothingness tha ...[text shortened]... omething from nothing...accept..er..um... the nothing turns out to be something anyway...

Vaccums have nothingness in them. Just because there are a few gluons does not mean that the whole vaccum is full. What I would say is that we have "patches" of nothingess which are interspersed with particles. What you say sounds like vaccuums are completely sated in gluons. Which is not true, light would refract in a strange way. And since light does not do this in a vaccum we do have nothingness.

Also, the observed particles which come out of nothing COULD NOT come from the gluons present. That would be inconsistent with the observations.

You have also missed my point. Say we have a speculative nothingness. There is no reason why something cannot come out of this.