We live in a infinite universe

[turingtest]

Wait! Your entire premise is that the universe is infinite. Infinite means it has no boundaries. The very concepts of Beginning and End are boundaries. If you say that something is infinite, it means that it has neither physical *nor* temporal boundaries.

IOW, your claim is that, among other things, the universe always existed, that it has neither beginning nor end.

If it has no beginning, the universe could not have come from Nothing because the universe has always existed and it is made of Something; therefore *Something always existed*. This, in turn, means that Nothing never existed, and the entire concept disappears in a grammatical double-negative whirlpool.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Yes the universe is infinite.

You know, it's not unusual to see the really hard-core woo totally ignore a point while pretending he's answering it; but this is a level of blithe imperviousness that's almost impressive.

 

[Belz...]

Me insulting you for no reason? That's rich. You spend your time telling me I'm ignorant

That's not an insult.

for questing a term you used, only for you to finally admit you made it up.

Now that's a blatant lie. I never claimed that "substrate" was anything but my own wording. I SAID SO SPECIFICALLY in the post where I first used it.

When I stated that virtual particles are created from nothing

...which is not true. Again, they don't come from "nothing". They form from fluctuations in the spacetime "foam" (now, that's an actual term).

Did you look up what I told you to look up or not?

 

[Belz...]

saying it is timeless runs into the same issue though?

No, it really doesn't. It's one fewer "entity" to be assumed.

 

[Beady]

Yes the universe is infinite.

Uh, did you read the rest? Let's try it again:

IOW, your claim is that, among other things, the universe always existed, that it has neither beginning nor end.

If it has no beginning, the universe could not have come from Nothing because the universe has always existed and it is made of Something; therefore *Something always existed*. This, in turn, means that Nothing never existed, and the entire concept disappears in a grammatical double-negative whirlpool.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes the universe is infinite.

You're not answering the questions.

 

[baron]

That's not an insult.

Yet it is incorrect, and incredibly hypocritical given that you've demonstrated your total lack of knowledge in the area repeatedly in only a few short posts.

Now that's a blatant lie. I never claimed that "substrate" was anything but my own wording. I SAID SO SPECIFICALLY in the post where I first used it.

You said the wording was yours, not the terms. I can say, "The Big Bang is thought to be an explosion from a point source that expanded to become the universe" and although the wording is mine, and clumsy, it is broadly accurate. I could also say, "The Big Bang is thought to be a megaflump arising from a dish of quantum duck paste which expanded to become a hypervelocity divergent antiphase psychophagron." In this case the terminology is nonsense and that makes my statement nonsense, just like yours.

...which is not true. Again, they don't come from "nothing". They form from fluctuations in the spacetime "foam" (now, that's an actual term).

Oh, is the term which I suggested an actual term? I had no idea. First they come from the 'quantum state', a completely absurd concept, and now they come from the quantum foam which I told you about in the first place. Where might they spring from next..? stay tuned.

Did you look up what I told you to look up or not?

What is it you'd like me to look up, and for what purpose? I'm eager to see what relevant and important theories I've missed in my 20+ years reading on the subject.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Damnit, I want to get to the weighing!

Can we at least talk about the invulnerability of iron chariots?

...and leave out the entire discipline of earthquake prevention? Pfui!

 

[Slowvehicle]

You don't see many of them around these days. If they were invulnerable, one might expect to bump into one every now and then.

AH, but that's because you are ignoring all the evidence for mesoamerican tapir drawn iron chariots...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes the universe came from nothing.

Sigh.

No.

"We don't know" is not the same as "nothing".

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's simple. It's impossible for something to always have existed. So the universe came from nothing.

Yet another unsupported assertion...

 

[Slowvehicle]

You've been talking to Vroomfondle and Magicthighs again haven't you?

Props!

 

[Belz...]

Yet it is incorrect, and incredibly hypocritical given that you've demonstrated your total lack of knowledge in the area repeatedly in only a few short posts.

That you never heard of something I'm telling you means that I'm ignorant?

You said the wording was yours, not the terms.

I can say, "The Big Bang is thought to be an explosion from a point source that expanded to become the universe" and although the wording is mine, and clumsy, it is broadly accurate.

Well no, because it isn't an explosion. But what do I know, you have 40 books on the topic right next to you.

Oh, is the term which I suggested an actual term? I had no idea. First they come from the 'quantum state', a completely absurd concept, and now they come from the quantum foam which I told you about in the first place. Where might they spring from next..? stay tuned.

Do you have an actual argument to make? Because so far you're focusing on nothing and using it to do little but justify making more posts.

What is it you'd like me to look up, and for what purpose?

Go back and read my posts. It's one thing to ask me to spoon-feed you on current scientific knowledge but to ask me to re-post something I specifically asked you to look up is getting more than just lazy.

 

[baron]

That you never heard of something I'm telling you means that I'm ignorant?







Well no, because it isn't an explosion. But what do I know, you have 40 books on the topic right next to you.



Do you have an actual argument to make? Because so far you're focusing on nothing and using it to do little but justify making more posts.



Go back and read my posts. It's one thing to ask me to spoon-feed you on current scientific knowledge but to ask me to re-post something I specifically asked you to look up is getting more than just lazy.

I wouldn't waste my time further discussing this matter with someone who has no knowledge of it whatsoever.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't waste my time further discussing this matter with someone who has no knowledge of it whatsoever.

Ok, good advice, thanks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's common sense the universe came from nothing.

No, it's no such thing. We all commonly sense that the universe appears to have already existed before we became able to sense it, and that it appears it will continue to exist after we're no longer able to sense it. Common sense, therefore, suggests to us that the universe has always been there and always will be there, because we can only extrapolate our experiences. More careful analysis may of course yield a different conclusion, because common sense is quite frequently misleading; the appeal to common sense is quite rightly a logical fallacy. So both your premise and your derivation of a conclusion are flawed here.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

For those with more interest in learning stuff, you might want to look up articles and papers about the origin of the universe, multiverse theory and so on.

Here's one from Stephen Hawking.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Of course, Hawking probably doesn't have 40 books on QM, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[baron]

For those with more interest in learning stuff, you might want to look up articles and papers about the origin of the universe, multiverse theory and so on.

Here's one from Stephen Hawking.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

Of course, Hawking probably doesn't have 40 books on QM, so take it with a grain of salt.

Your pompous and delusional posts advising people 'with more interest in learning' to look to you as some kind of tutor are unwarranted and unnecessary, especially since you have proved beyond all doubt that your knowledge of the subject is precisely zero.

 

[Belz...]

Your pompous and delusional posts advising people 'with more interest in learning' to look to you as some kind of tutor

Another lie from you. I'm suggesting that people read up. How is that me setting myself up as a tutor or expert?

You're just mad that you didn't know the things I told you about and now linked to.

you have proved beyond all doubt that your knowledge of the subject is precisely zero.

Once again, baron: talking about something YOU don't know about doesn't say anything about MY knowledge on the topic.

Did you read Hawking's text? Did you spot what I was talking about in there? And this is something I found very quickly via Google. Do you think that may have been covered in one of your 40 books on the matter?

 

[baron]

Another lie from you. I'm suggesting that people read up. How is that me setting myself up as a tutor or expert?

You're just mad that you didn't know the things I told you about and now linked to.

Then tell us all about these gems of erudition that I am so ignorant of. Would one of them be that virtual particles arise from 'the quantum state', an assertion so absurd it doesn't even make grammatical sense? Or would it be my lack of knowledge of the term 'quantum substrate', which turned out to be a term you made up. Then, when I suggested you actually meant 'quantum foam', you pretended you'd told me this in the first instance and informed me pompously that actually, quantum foam is an 'actual term'. Gee thanks for the lesson, guru!

Once again, baron: talking about something YOU don't know about doesn't say anything about MY knowledge on the topic.

Correct. I rely solely on your own posts for that.

Did you read Hawking's text? Did you spot what I was talking about in there? And this is something I found very quickly via Google. Do you think that may have been covered in one of your 40 books on the matter?

Yes, I've been reading Hawking's material for almost 30 years. Which part of it do you imagine proves your assertion that something cannot come from nothing? Is it perhaps where he says in his 1988 book 'A Brief History of Time':

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

The quote itself is obviously not the full story, and neither is it meant to be, so that's why you might also hear Hawking referring to more detailed examples, saying things like

Instead, it [a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe.

So, let's see your evidence.

 

[fuelair]

Is this a Poe?

Appears more like a Pooh to me!!!!!