What is your Religion/Affiliation/Religious Affiliation/Etc.

[Grakthis]

But there is no evidence, just theories, And i started by saying i dont believe yet he continued to argue with scientists say this, and scientists say that.  In my last post i put in information opposing his ideas from Einstein's theories,, so i feel that he has not debunked me

space + time = infinite ...the best theory there is

things like that cannot be proven wrong or right, you cannot debunk a belief with no substantial proof,

Another way to look at it is,  A scientist said pink grass grows on Pluto, You can simply not believe this and i can say its true because a scientist said so, therefore i debunk you?

Yeah dude.  I like arguing with you and all, but you just sound like a beligerant ass right now.

First, your einstein mathemetics are both in-applicable and irrelevant.  In fact, Einstein has had about alf a dozen theories proven WRONG over the years by later finds.

Look, did you google up the buzz words I told you to google?  Because if you did then you have all the proof for what I am telling you that you should need.  I will assume you did not and explain it to you in small words.

We are now able to observe and measure an "anti-gravity" force in space.  What it does, is it is litterally the opposite of gravity.  Where gravity gets stronger the closer 2 objects are, anti-gravity gets stronger the further away 2 objects are.  And anti-gravity (aka dark matter or about a dozen other names) PUSHES things apart.

So what this means is that the universe will continue to push away from itself at increasing speeds as it slowly breaks the pull of gravity.   We have as much evidence for anti-gravity as we do anything else that occurs in the universe.  It is a theory, and it fits the observed facts of the universe and nothing disproves it.  Where as there is 0 evidence to support the concepts of a cyclical universe you are proposing.  The idea of a bibg bang + big crunch universe was pretty well trashed about 10 years ago becase we see NO evidence that expansion is slowing in the background radiation of the universe.

Now you can give me these lines about "I don't believe in your theories" all you want.  But by that matter, I can just say "Pete doesn't matter because pete has an extra chromosome" and no matter how much you dispute this, I can just say "I don't believe you."  Hmmm, does this tactic sound anything like what some other people on this MB do that you can't stand?

What I am telling you, Pete, is that science seems to support the notion that space and time are infinitly reaching into the FUTURE, but NOT into the past.  Science agrees that the universe is expanding with time.  Science does not, however, agree that the universe will eventually collapse in on itself again and recreate the big bang.

But you can have your "belief" all you want.  Just as I am sure there ar epeople in this world who "believe" the earth is the center of our solar system and "believe" the world is flat.

But much like those people, you're still wrong.

[Logikal X]

lol, you sound like a beligerant ass, Einstein has been proven wrong and scientists today may as well be proven wrong.  I dont think there is a center of our universe. I believe it expands forever.  These scientists say the universe keeps expanding....Well into what?  More space....So where does space end?  Im just fighting your belief that there is no limit to space.  You keep trying to fight me on how things keeps expanding.  Im not fighting you about anti gravity, or dark matter at all.  Of course things keep expanding, its a push pull system balanced on magnetism and gravitational pull.  As we all know magnets lose charge over time, as will planets, thus lessening the strength of the glue holding the planets in sync so to speak. Now im not saying that is exactly how it works, but that is a part of it.


      I dont believe there is an end to the universe, or an edge of the universe.  This doesnt mean that eventually life will end or wont end, it means that there is no limit to space.  So what scientist can prove what is out there?  I believe anything could be out there,  and i believe in aliens.  Not saucer flying aliens that people see in the sky, but i believe life does exist somewhere else, and maybe they do visit here, i really dont know .  I also cant prove or disprove any big bang, and if there was or wasnt, i believe that all of the matter that existed previous exists now.  I dont believe anything came first or second.  I think it was all here.  Your theories and arguments arent disproving my beliefs, they are proving something, im not sure sure what,  other than the fact that i dont believe something had to be first.  Anything and everything could be first, nothing could be first, whatever, i just believe it was all here.  Thats the only possiblility i can understand because i cant see matter just appearing out of nowhere.  However ill continue to say i dont believe anyone can really understand what actually happened thus making both our arguments insubstantial and boiling on beliefs and theories.

[tylor2000]

So to my point, if SOMETHING was always there then SOMETHING existed first.  Duh.

If something was always there then something doesn't have to be first.  In order to be first you have to have something to be second.  Point out to me what was second if something has always existed, and therefore first.

tylor

Untruth.  Double-plus bad.

Just because there is no second does not mean there wasn't a first.  Because there is always a potential for a second.

And arguably,  life, protient chains and sentience came second.  Or even, gravity.  Or maybe dark matter came 2nd.  Thee are a million things I could argue came 2nd to matter and energy in a purely scientific creation.

Well most of those million things could just be considered variations, characteristics, or corelatives of the same thing.  Some of which may have existed forever in the past together.  Whatever variation you consider to be first makes no difference, no matter how simple or complex.  Because if it has always existed and to find something to come second is only it's variations of complexity, it's charateristics, or it's corelatives --many which might have also existed together forever in the past, then you are not stating what seperately came second.  Stating potentials and possibilities is not really coming to a conclusion, which is where my point of view sits.

tylor

[tylor2000]

If I have only one child, isn't he still the first child?  Even if there is no 2nd?

They are called only children for a reason.  I've never heard someone with such a child refer to the child as his first child.  Just saying he/she is the first child implies there is a second.  We could go into the nature of  ordinal numbers if you wish.

tylor

[blueglove]

CHRISTIAN OR CATHLOIC NOT QUITE SURE THEIR SOO ALIKE :roll:

[kev222]

And i started by saying i dont believe yet he continued to argue with scientists say this, and scientists say that.

Again, what you believe is not relavent. If you have good reasons not to believe the theories Andrew put forward, then you should put those reasons forward. Just stating that you don't believe them is of no value to your side of the argument.

In my last post i put in information opposing his ideas from Einstein's theories, so i feel that he has not debunked me

space + time = infinite ...the best theory there is

This equation makes no sense. I'm sure Einstein didn't come up with it. Space plus time equals infinite? And, like Andrew, I fail to see how Einstein's theories apply. How to they refute Andrew's dark matter anti-gravity arguments or predict that matter/energy has always existed?

things like that cannot be proven wrong or right, you cannot debunk a belief with no substantial proof

Another way to look at it is,  A scientist said pink grass grows on Pluto, You can simply not believe this and i can say its true because a scientist said so, therefore i debunk you?

If somebody did use this pink grass "theory" in a debate, I would point to what we know about the evironment on pluto and what we know about grass and demonstrate that it is very unlikely (unreasonably so) that pink grass grows on pluto. The pink grass theory would then stand refuted and unfit to debunk anything. At the very least I would point out that there is nothing to support the pink grass theory. IMO this is the way you should approach Andrew's dark matter/anti-gravity arguments if you want to defend your position against them.

Stated simply: You claimed that matter and energy have always existed, Andrew claims this is  not a possibility in light of dark matter/anti-gravity theory. You have failed to challenge this argument except to say that you don't believe the theories correct, which isn't good enough. The "first requires a second" argument may well be of use in arguing that "always existed" is different to "existed first" but it doesn't help your case for an universe that has always existed.

Edit: In fairness, I now realise that you have indeed made the argument that there is no evidence to support DM/AG theories. Andrew hasn't presented any, but if you did google up the words you would see that theorists claim to have some. As for the quality of the evidence, I don't know (I suspect it's dubious).

Edit 2: The second law of thermodynamics is a much more solid argument against what you are saying. In an isolated system (which the universe is by definition) energy tends to become less available for work, NEVER the other way. If matter/energy had always existed then there would be no energy available for work at this point in time (universal heat death). The second law is a natural law, no single counter-example has ever been observered. Every observation we make supports the 2nd law and therefore every one of these observations refutes the idea that matter/energy have always existed.

-Kev

[tylor2000]

Edit 2: The second law of thermodynamics is a much more solid argument against what you are saying. In an isolated system (which the universe is by definition) energy tends to become less available for work, NEVER the other way. If matter/energy had always existed then there would be no energy available for work at this point in time (universal heat death). The second law is a natural law, no single counter-example has ever been observered. Every observation we make supports the 2nd law and therefore every one of these observations refutes the idea that matter/energy have always existed.

-Kev

Oh great, now I have to challenge this argument.  I'm pretty sure it's wrong, doesn't apply, or irrelevant.  Could you display actual respectable texts of the first and second laws?  I'll do the same...as well as browse thru the physics texts to find something wrong with your argument.  :wink:

I have to argue it because I love physics. EDIT:  

tylor

[kev222]

These scientists say the universe keeps expanding....Well into what?  More space?

FTR: They say that the universe (3 dimensional space) is expanding into 4 dimensional space (hyperspace). That is, 3D space itself is expanding, not that matter is expanding into pre-existing empty 3D space.

-Kev

[kev222]

Oh great, now I have to challenge this argument.  I'm pretty sure it's wrong, doesn't apply, or irrelevant. Could you display actual respectable texts of the first and second laws?

Any standard physics text book will do. Nobody disagrees when it come to the laws of thermodynamics, so all books should give the same info.

Edit: You are right to mention the 1st law in addition to the second. My argument requires that the amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. Which it is according to the 1st law.

I have to argue it because I love physics. EDIT:  

Me too. And you're more than welcome to argue it

-Kev

[Logikal X]

4 dimensional space?  lol, pink grass on pluto.  The 3 dimensions are height, width, and depth.  Unless you are planning on speaking of supernatural things, which im neither proven nor disproven on

[kev222]

4 dimensional space?  lol, pink grass on pluto.

Haha. It does seem like science fiction. But, at one time or another, so did much of what we now consider science fact.

4D hyperspace does not suffer the same fate as the pink grass theory (which I might add, is rapidly becoming my favourite theory ;-)). An extra space dimension is a requirement of the equations of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This theory is well established experimentally. So unless you have any particular theoretical or experimental evidence against a 4D space, then there's no real reason to reject the idea out of hand. A 4th space dimension is not analogous to pink Plutonian grass, which is not a requirement of a well established theory and also contradicts experimental observations about both pluto and grass.

It should be noted that some (perhaps most) relativists do not consider the 4th space dimension to be real, but simply a convenient mathmatical tool.

The superflous dimension is added to help the reason in reasoning, not to help the traveler in traveling

But the reasons for adopting this view are not scientific. It's probably adopted to preserve the philosophy that the 3D universe is all that there is, or to keep quiet those who suggested that hyperspace could be the home of God, ghosts or other super-natural stuff.

I personally have no problem with a real 4D space (although I don't believe God lives there). But whatever floats your boat. The maths doesn't care either way.

-Kev

[Logikal X]

"So unless you have any particular theoretical or experimental evidence against a 4D space, then there's no real reason to reject the idea out of hand"


I have a popular science that explains 10 dimensions of existance, Its a pretty interesting read.....But i just dont see it as a sure possibility.  


Just a random thought.  Lets say you are an indestructable molecule.  At what point could you end?  Mathematics alone prove that infinite IS in fact very real.  Nothing else proves an ending or a beginning to anything at all.


Lets say you were to cut something in half, no matter what it is.  At what point could you not cut it in half any more?  Doesnt that depend on how fine of a cut you make?  And how finely are we capable of cutting?..... I believe this relates to mathematics in the form that .001>00001>000000000001,  how many zeros can you put?  Cant that go on forever?  Show me an end and i will believe time has an end and space has an end, and that our universe is the only universe and that we are the only child of creation, if creation exists which is the common belief.  It is impossible

[Will]

Superstring theory may or may not accurately depict the makeup of the matter and the universe as a whole. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. What is important is if it accurately predicts phenomena. If it can, it's a useful theory. If it can't, it should be relegated to the trash heap.

[Logikal X]

Superstring theory may or may not accurately depict the makeup of the matter and the universe as a whole. Whether it does or not is irrelevant. What is important is if it accurately predicts phenomena. If it can, it's a useful theory. If it can't, it should be relegated to the trash heap.

Does or doesn't it? Do you know anything about this theory?

[Will]

Does or doesn't it? Do you know anything about this theory?

I know that as of now, it has never been experimentally verified. That may change soon.