Proof of God

[edge]

No, no, you don't get it, you write lots and lots of words, also you try to sound like the bible so no one knows what the hell you said, and they will not admit they don’t.

Paul



The more they say, the less they have to say.

What?

 

[Paulhoff]

What's wrong edge, to straightforward for you, no bible sounding text. No Jesus thrown in for bad measure.

Paul

 

[BillyJoe]

BillyJoe:
Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

Irrelevant. You have not shown that time is required for anything to exist at all. Therefore the "instant" that exists without time could very well contain space and matter, unless you can show otherwise or point to evidence of it.

You do realise, don't you, that an "instant" is actually a period of time, albeit a "infinitesimal or very short space of time".
(interesting that the dictionary uses the word "space" in the definition)
You have used scare quotes on "instant", so I suupose you mean somethig else entirely, like "zero" time. In that case we are back to:

Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

So an answer to the question, please.

BillyJoe:
Because, before space began, time could have existed in exactly zero space.

Same as above. Why would a dimension require another in order to exist ?

You wouldn't care to explain, then, how time can exist in a space in which all the dimensions are exactly zero?
What could possibly be happening in zero space?
What could possibly be happening to zero matter in zero space?

Please, I want to know the answer.

Sorry about the question, but your answer begs it.

What my question begs is an answer!
I beg you for an answer, please.

BillyJoe:
I have said repeatedly, I require quantum fluctuations to arise IF its something from nothing.

Again, there was never nothing, so now you don't need them to arise at all.

Well then, my second question: if there was never nothing, explain how there could have been always something (time without beginning).

But time did begin to exist with out universe.

What exactly did time measure without the universe being present, without there being any matter, and without there being any space dimensions?
If there is "nowhere", how can there be any time there?

BillyJoe:
I have repeatedly said that if it is not something from nothing then it must be time without beginning (your "timeless").

I think that's a false dichotomy. But I guess we'll have to wait for Herz' evidence about space and time being dependent upon matter/energy.

You think and you are going to wait.
Thank you for the answer.

Fact is, the universe is expanding and there is more space being created all the time, and yet the amount of energy in the universe remains constant...

I agree, but I'm not sure which of my questions you are answering.

...and there is empty space between particles. So how could space be dependent on something that isn't even there is beyond me.

Okay read this slowly: there - is - empty - space - between - the - particles.
As I said, define space without reference to matter.
You can't do it.

Next you'll be saying there's space outside the universe into which the universe is expanding.
(excluding multiverse, of course, which is speculative at best)

I have answered, allright. I've asked you why you think that one of them is required, and YOU have stadfastly refused to explain it. You prefer to repeat the same claim over and over.

You think answering a question is asking another one?
The answer to my question is one of logic,

something from nothing or time without beginning

It logically has to be one or the other.
Either some thing started from nothing (something from nothing), or some thing was always there (time without beginning).

If you have a third option I would be pleased to hear it.



regards,
BillyJie

 

[Herzblut]

I think that's a false dichotomy. But I guess we'll have to wait for Herz' evidence about space and time being dependent upon matter/energy.

But this can be read in any related textbook, also on Wikipedia. Basically, an object determins the geometry of the surrounding spacetime.

Herzblut

 

[Belz...]

One of the worse ideas humans has ever come up with.
You rebel you.

Edge, please get this through your skull: YOU CANNOT REBEL AGAINST THE NON-EXISTENT.

One of the worst Ideas that god came up with may be us, and better than that with you.

1) Are you saying that God made a mistake ?
2) Are you saying that the people in God's image are imperfect ?

The word of god already tells us long before science did that there are at least 6 dimensions.

Science hasn't said that, yet.

 

[Belz...]

But this can be read in any related textbook, also on Wikipedia. Basically, an object determins the geometry of the surrounding spacetime.

Herzblut

By all means, Herz. A single link will do.

 

[Belz...]

You do realise, don't you, that an "instant" is actually a period of time, albeit a "infinitesimal or very short space of time".

This play on words is getting very tiresome. There is no word for it, so you'll just have to TRY and understand what I mean by "instant" when refering to timelessness.

Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

Zero time, sure.

So an answer to the question, please.

What question ?

You wouldn't care to explain, then, how time can exist in a space in which all the dimensions are exactly zero?

Again, I wasn't aware that time required space to exist, unless all dimensions are interdependent.

What could possibly be happening in zero space?

Not much, but how is that relevant ?

Well then, my second question: if there was never nothing, explain how there could have been always something (time without beginning).

Billy, if time had a beginning, and the "zero" point already had something, then time HAD a beginning and there STILL was never nothing.

What exactly did time measure without the universe being present, without there being any matter, and without there being any space dimensions?
If there is "nowhere", how can there be any time there?

How could I know this ? I said that time began WITH the universe, so your questions are completely irrelevant.

You think and you are going to wait.

I said WE. We Wait. Sheesh. Take an extra minute to read my post properly, will you ?

I agree, but I'm not sure which of my questions you are answering.

Herz' contention that space cannot exist without matter, or something.

Okay read this slowly: there - is - empty - space - between - the - particles.
As I said, define space without reference to matter.
You can't do it.

Of course I can.

From Wikipedia:

Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and mass), space is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard space interval, called a standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second (exact). This definition coupled with present definition of time makes our space-time to be Minkowski space and makes special relativity theory to be absolutely correct by definition.

Bolding mine.

Next you'll be saying there's space outside the universe into which the universe is expanding.
(excluding multiverse, of course, which is speculative at best)

Even a multiverse wouldn't mean there's space "outside" the universe, which is a meaningless statement, anyway.

You think answering a question is asking another one?

I don't understand WHY you think the question makes any sense, so I'm asking for clarification.

something from nothing or time without beginning

It logically has to be one or the other.

[...]

If you have a third option I would be pleased to hear it.

See above.

 

[BillyJoe]

From Wikipedia:

Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and mass), space is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard space interval, called a standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second (exact). This definition coupled with present definition of time makes our space-time to be Minkowski space and makes special relativity theory to be absolutely correct by definition.

Bolding mine.

You have no idea what they are taking about, do you, Belz?
Absolutely no idea.



I quit.

 

[my_wan]

From Wikipedia:

Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and mass), space is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard space interval, called a standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second (exact). This definition coupled with present definition of time makes our space-time to be Minkowski space and makes special relativity theory to be absolutely correct by definition.

I checked, wiki really does say that..



Just to add some educational here. Special Relativity is just as valid no matter measuring system you use.

 

[Belz...]

You have no idea what they are taking about, do you, Belz?
Absolutely no idea.

That's nice.

Care to elaborate or why I'm wrong ?

I checked, wiki really does say that..

So, why am I getting the laughing dog, now ?

Care to explain ?

Or am I supposed to take your guys' word for it that this is wrong, for some reason (the bolded part, that is) ?

 

[Belz...]

Wrong, the opposite is true. In simple words, space and time are downright created by matter.

But if you refuse the General Theory of Relativity, well, go ahead...

Herzblut

Look, guys. I'm quite willing to admit that this is true...

However, I can't seem to find a single reference to this, anywhere...

And wikipedia apparently gets the laughing dog, so you're going to have to do better if you want to show that it's true.

Shouldn't be difficult, since "this can be read in any related textbook"

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

 

[Mobyseven]

Volatile:

I disagree. The following contains not only arguments from incredulity (which I don't dispute) but also very clear arguments from ignorance:

You do realise, don't you, that an "instant" is actually a period of time, albeit a "infinitesimal or very short space of time".
(interesting that the dictionary uses the word "space" in the definition)
You have used scare quotes on "instant", so I suupose you mean somethig else entirely, like "zero" time. In that case we are back to:

Because, before time began, space could have existed for exactly zero time.

So an answer to the question, please.




You wouldn't care to explain, then, how time can exist in a space in which all the dimensions are exactly zero?
What could possibly be happening in zero space?
What could possibly be happening to zero matter in zero space?

Please, I want to know the answer.




What my question begs is an answer!
I beg you for an answer, please.




Well then, my second question: if there was never nothing, explain how there could have been always something (time without beginning).




What exactly did time measure without the universe being present, without there being any matter, and without there being any space dimensions?
If there is "nowhere", how can there be any time there?




You think and you are going to wait.
Thank you for the answer.




I agree, but I'm not sure which of my questions you are answering.




Okay read this slowly: there - is - empty - space - between - the - particles.
As I said, define space without reference to matter.
You can't do it.

Next you'll be saying there's space outside the universe into which the universe is expanding.
(excluding multiverse, of course, which is speculative at best)




You think answering a question is asking another one?
The answer to my question is one of logic,

something from nothing or time without beginning

It logically has to be one or the other.
Either some thing started from nothing (something from nothing), or some thing was always there (time without beginning).

If you have a third option I would be pleased to hear it.



regards,
BillyJie

The confusing matter is of course that the ignorance is not specifically BillyJoe's. BillyJoe is constructing an argument based on what the entire human race is currently still ignorant of - such an argument is a classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

 

[SirPhilip]

Triple post.

 

[SirPhilip]

This play on words is getting very tiresome. There is no word for it, so you'll just have to TRY and understand what I mean by "instant" when refering to timelessness.

Yes.

Again, I wasn't aware that time required space to exist, unless all dimensions are interdependent.

Time is generated by a series of relativistic factors that exist as separated states as forces. The inevitable contraction, a natural process, of the event horizon due to entropy generates the sensation of forward time, and is logically discernible, but the cosmic trigger itself is an impossible event (effect proceeding cause). I hate to tell you this, but you are in a supernatural melodrama.

How could I know this ? I said that time began WITH the universe, so your questions are completely irrelevant.

Time must have began with the universe, how else could you both be observed to utterly waste it.

I said WE. We Wait. Sheesh.

Man could I go for some shisha right now.

Take an extra minute to read my post properly, will you ?

Because you weren't in the proper frame of genius to discuss physics in the first place. But to length you went anyway, and by length I also mean width and volume - coincidentally the only thing Cuddles has going for him/her/it outside the search for answers at the great particle collider place.

Herz' contention that space cannot exist without matter, or something.

Matter existing without space would mean no vector component. It would possess no linearity then, as defined by space.

Even a multiverse wouldn't mean there's space "outside" the universe, which is a meaningless statement, anyway.

How, if matter interaction in the universe is a fixed quantity, which, at the big bang, essentially sprung from a (wishing?) "well".

 

[SirPhilip]

BillyJoe is constructing an argument based on what the entire human race is currently still ignorant of - such an argument is a classic 'god of the gaps' argument.

God doesn't have gaps in any classic sense.

 

[Cainkane1]

I didn't read this. Its too long and it needs to be condensed muchly.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

Time is generated by a series of relativistic factors that exist as separated states as forces. The inevitable contraction, a natural process, of the event horizon due to entropy generates the sensation of forward time, and is logically discernible, but the cosmic trigger itself is an impossible event (effect proceeding cause). I hate to tell you this, but you are in a supernatural melodrama.

Time must have began with the universe, how else could you both be observed to utterly waste it.

Man could I go for some shisha right now.

Because you weren't in the proper frame of genius to discuss physics in the first place. But to length you went anyway, and by length I also mean width and volume - coincidentally the only thing Cuddles has going for him/her/it outside the search for answers at the great particle collider place.

Matter existing without space would mean no vector component. It would possess no linearity then, as defined by space.

How, if matter interaction in the universe is a fixed quantity, which, at the big bang, essentially sprung from a (wishing?) "well".

Well, what do you know ? Another brilliant poster chimes in with insults and non-answers.

Do you have anything to bring to this discussion, or are you just post-whoring ?

 

[SirPhilip]

Doublepost.

 

[SirPhilip]

Well, what do you know ?

That you should be glad time exists; I couldn't run otherwise uptown, purchase shisha and accelerate my own entropy.

Another brilliant poster chimes in with insults and non-answers.

Who was this now.. (?)

Do you have anything to bring to this discussion, or are you just post-whoring ?

Bring is to do something, or if the context is discussion, a point. Now, both Cuddles and I know that proper discussion of strange real but unreal or but by implication real things over time or strange real but unreal or but by implication real things outside of time requires a grasp of real numbers and imaginary real numbers. Now "whore" describes excess closely associated, some say intimately, with length, width and volume, and the quality of a mess over time. Well reading the above over, yes I did in fact have something objectively worth noting in this dialoge after all.