Higgs Boson

[stovebolts]

Other matter. Are you serious? Things formed before the earth.

You need to go back and read what I wrote again as it is obvious that you are not reading what I wrote. If need be, please ask me to clarify before jumping to false conclusions.

Do you agree that time is the measurment between two points while the span between two points would be distance. I am not talking about distance since it is time that it takes to cover the distance between two points.

 

[Atothetheist]

You need to go back and read what I wrote again as it is obvious that you are not reading what I wrote. If need be, please ask me to clarify before jumping to false conclusions.

Do you agree that time is the measurment between two points while the span between two points would be distance. I am not talking about distance since it is time that it takes to cover the distance between two points.

I do not agree that it is between two points. All time needs is a beginning, not an end.

 

[stovebolts]

I do not agree that it is between two points. All time needs is a beginning, not an end.

That it has no end does not mean it is not covering distance. You can pick any point that you choose along the way and call it a point.

For instance, one full rotation of the earth is considered a day as denoted by its position to the sun, yet each day it is a different relation to the son which we note as seasons.

So we measure the time it takes to get from one point to the next. Again, time involves distance, but it is not distance. Time requires matter, energy and space aka distance.

As far as a beginning, did time exist before the big bang? What started time?

 

[Atothetheist]

That it has no end does not mean it is not covering distance. You can pick any point that you choose along the way and call it a point.

For instance, one full rotation of the earth is considered a day as denoted by its position to the sun, yet each day it is a different relation to the son which we note as seasons.

So we measure the time it takes to get from one point to the next. Again, time involves distance, but it is not distance. Time requires matter, energy and space aka distance.

As far as a beginning, did time exist before the big bang? What started time?

Time started when actions started, and the earliest action was the big Bang. Therefore it started at that time. Time is a measurement of actions. You don't need distance to measure time. Not at all. Time can pass by without you going anywhere.as long as time has a beginning, it works, it doesn't at all need an end. What do you constitute as an end marker for time?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I must be out of the loop. When was Super-string theory rendered an obsolete model?

Isn't it within superstring theory that we have some possible explanation as to why matter throughout the universe tends to exist in great big clumps rather than a more even distribution?

Again, i'm just coming up to speed with a lot of the literature.

Well, that was largely my personal opinion; there's still nowhere near a consensus. But supersymmetric string theory requires only fermions and doesn't adequately explain bosons, which have been shown to have integer spins (consistent with known reality) as opposed to the fractional spins that fermions need to have. Then again, the list of things that aren't adequately explained is still quite long so our understanding will doubtless change.

So, if this was a chess match between string and superstring, I'd say superstring just lost a knight. Game's not over, but the scale is starting to tip :P

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Time started when actions started, and the earliest action was the big Bang. Therefore it started at that time. Time is a measurement of actions. You don't need distance to measure time. Not at all. Time can pass by without you going anywhere.as long as time has a beginning, it works, it doesn't at all need an end. What do you constitute as an end marker for time?

By your logic (which I'm not attacking in and of itself) why do you constitute a "start" marker for time?

Under most astrophysical models, "our" big bang need not be the first. Assuming the critical mass of the universe (including an unknown amount of dark matter) is greater than can be expanded by the force of the big bang, the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to contract. We could have gone through countless cycles of such. This is known as the closed universe theory.

I don't personally believe that, but I lack any hard evidence either way.

 

[Atothetheist]

By your logic (which I'm not attacking in and of itself) why do you constitute a "start" marker for time?

Under most astrophysical models, "our" big bang need not be the first. Assuming the critical mass of the universe (including an unknown amount of dark matter) is greater than can be expanded by the force of the big bang, the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to contract. We could have gone through countless cycles of such. This is known as the closed universe theory.

I don't personally believe that, but I lack any hard evidence either way.

This universe isn't a closed universe, it's a flat universe.

You if it is an assumption, then yes, THIS bigbang, wouldn't be the first marker. I never said this big bang was. All I said was the start of time is always the start ofan action, and we know that the bigbang is the start of the universe, and an action, so it was a marker to start time.

We I am not denying that there could be an end to time, all I am saying is that we don't need there to be.

Assuming when the universe closes up, it is forming the point of sigularity of the big bang, and stops doing anything. Time, as I understand it, has ended. Time again will begin as an action takes place, because time is a measurement of an action.

Am I saying it in a way that makes sense?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

This universe isn't a closed universe, it's a flat universe.

I agree, as does our best understanding of the current rate of expansion. Still, it's no guarantee per se that previous universes didn't exist in a closed state.

 

[Atothetheist]

I agree, as does our best understanding of the current rate of expansion. Still, it's no guarantee per se that previous universes didn't exist in a closed state.

Is there any evidence that there are previous universes?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Is there any evidence that there are previous universes?

It's an interesting thought experiment simply to figure out how we could find evidence of such. Definitely none at present though.

 

[ColdBlooded]

Staggering implications indeed.
Although trying determine the cause of the universe may be fruitless as the implication is that universe must have a cause.

And (Barring Religious reasoning) that may not be true.

Trying to find the start and finish of something seemingly infinite is quite the task but a worthy one at that.

There is much theology in this as science.

 

[AlexBC]

By "closed universe" we mean one in which there will eventually be a big crunch?

The thought of our galaxy alone in the cosmos is just so damn depressing. I think I prefer the idea of a big crunch.

 

[AlexBC]

That it has no end does not mean it is not covering distance. You can pick any point that you choose along the way and call it a point.

For instance, one full rotation of the earth is considered a day as denoted by its position to the sun, yet each day it is a different relation to the son which we note as seasons.

So we measure the time it takes to get from one point to the next. Again, time involves distance, but it is not distance. Time requires matter, energy and space aka distance.

As far as a beginning, did time exist before the big bang? What started time?

I admit i'm a little confused as to why you keep saying distance is important for time to exist.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

By "closed universe" we mean one in which there will eventually be a big crunch?

The thought of our galaxy alone in the cosmos is just so damn depressing. I think I prefer the idea of a big crunch.

Yup, an open universe would keep expanding until it uses up all its energy and experiences a heat death (or matter breaks apart; less likely). Closed will fall back in on itself like an elastic. A flat universe will keep expanding, but that expansion will slow over time and limit at zero. Probably the most desirable outcome, it requires a very specific amount of mass, and our best estimates indicate this is the case. God does know what He's doing.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I admit i'm a little confused as to why you keep saying distance is important for time to exist.

I'm also somewhat confused. Matter exits in three dimensions, in addition to time, so there does need to be distance along each of the 3 axis in order to exist in the physical world and be subject to time. Perhaps that's what he meant.

 

[Atothetheist]

Yup, an open universe would keep expanding until it uses up all its energy and experiences a heat death (or matter breaks apart; less likely). Closed will fall back in on itself like an elastic. A flat universe will keep expanding, but that expansion will slow over time and limit at zero. Probably the most desirable outcome, it requires a very specific amount of mass, and our best estimates indicate this is the case. God does know what He's doing.

You shouldn't assume a creator. No matter how likely this universe is, imagine how likely it is to get another universe.

Study enough science, and you'll see that the fine tuning argument is kinda stupid. They way things are, is because of certain laws that act upon eachother, not a deity.

You seem to be a bit more of a logical deist, or athiest as you like to call yourself.

Is the finetuning argument the only one that convinces you of a Creator? Or is there more.

And another question, does your God answer prayer and intervene in anyway with humankind? (I.E Miracles?) or did he just create universe, and leave it to it's own doing?

 

[DarkHorseRising]

You shouldn't assume a creator. No matter how likely this universe is, imagine how likely it is to get another universe.

Study enough science, and you'll see that the fine tuning argument is kinda stupid. They way things are, is because of certain laws that act upon eachother, not a deity.

You seem to be a bit more of a logical deist, or athiest as you like to call yourself.

Is the finetuning argument the only one that convinces you of a Creator? Or is there more.

And another question, does your God answer prayer and intervene in anyway with humankind? (I.E Miracles?) or did he just create universe, and leave it to it's own doing?

Well, it would be very highly likely to get another universe, but the problem is that almost no other universe would support matter or life. But I'll definitely keep studying science as you recommend, because I find it a great way to understand the universe that (I believe) God made. Currently finishing a BSc. in zoology and physics.

Fine tuning is by no means the only argument that shows me God. A full list of them would probably take longer than I have right now, but the biggest thing for me isn't an argument, but my personal relationship with God. And so to answer your last question, God definitely does intervene in our lives through intercession and *occasional* divine miracles.

I take it you're a "no God" style atheist? (apologies if I'm mistaken)

 

[Atothetheist]

Well, it would be very highly likely to get another universe, but the problem is that almost no other universe would support matter or life. But I'll definitely keep studying science as you recommend, because I find it a great way to understand the universe that (I believe) God made. Currently finishing a BSc. in zoology and physics.

Fine tuning is by no means the only argument that shows me God. A full list of them would probably take longer than I have right now, but the biggest thing for me isn't an argument, but my personal relationship with God. And so to answer your last question, God definitely does intervene in our lives through intercession and *occasional* divine miracles.

I take it you're a "no God" style atheist? (apologies if I'm mistaken)

There is no "God style atheist" if you are, you are mistaken.your are simply nonrelgious.No need to even think of the oposite.... I have made my position very clear.

The only way, People like you, would be called an atheist is if you use the direct meaning of the word.

A-theist against theism. Deism( the belief in a Creator, but not one that intercedes) would fall into that claim.

I am interested in talking about more with you, do you have skype? Or any other way we can civilly discuss? Email, perhaps?

And actually yes, it would be about 66% chance that we should have gotten enother universe, but if we had a closed universe, it would be 66% chance that we could have gotten another universe model, and the same goes for the open model.

Probabilities are really really shady in these types of discussions.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

There is no "God style atheist" if you are, you are mistaken. Ou are simply nonrelgious.

Not need to even think of the oposite.... I have made my position very clear.

The only way, People like you, would be called an atheist is if you use the direct meaning of the word.

A-theist against theism. Deism( the belief in a Creator, but not one that intercedes) would fall into that claim.

I am interested in talking about more with you, do you have skype? Or any other way we can civilly discuss? Email, perhaps?

And actually yes, it would be about 66% chance that we should have gotten enother universe, but if we had a closed universe, it would be 66% chance that we could have gotten another universe model, and the same goes for the open model.

Probabilities are really really shady in these types of discussions.

My dilemma is that as soon as I declare myself to be religious in any way, people find out I'm a follower of the Bible and I get lumped in with the Christians, which is completely antithetical to my beliefs and values. However, I do share the same religious scriptures with them, which is why I'm here. They're really not all bad, I promise.

If you want to contact me, PM would probably be best as I don't have skype and am not comfortable giving out my e-mail address on the public boards.

 

[Atothetheist]

My dilemma is that as soon as I declare myself to be religious in any way, people find out I'm a follower of the Bible and I get lumped in with the Christians, which is completely antithetical to my beliefs and values. However, I do share the same religious scriptures with them, which is why I'm here. They're really not all bad, I promise.

If you want to contact me, PM would probably be best as I don't have skype and am not comfortable giving out my e-mail address on the public boards.

I am weary of breaking rules here. I'd rather steer onto a nuetral playing field, which is why I suggested those spots.

I'd hate to post a link to " Anti-christian" Websites... Even if it is in a PM, I am still weary of it. This site has a lot of retrictions. All of the rebuttals I have I referance them from secular, or atheistic sites, and therefore can't post them.