Deep Sight:

Well my good and gallant friend, I am quite drunk on a bottle of brandy right now, which I have used to down my earthy and timely woes: thus suffice to say in response to thine:

I I hopest that thou gettest it:

Perception is NOT reality: perception is ONLY COGNITIVE reality.

Gbam.

Hic. . . . . . where's that bottle now. . . .what a world it would be without alcohol. . . the greates investion b4 da wheel. . . .

Hic. . . . rolls over

Deep Sight: Let's simplify.

1. The Big Ban.g refers to an expansion - no? Yes, it does.

2. Does nothingness "expand"? - No, because "nothingness" does not exist - by definition.

3. As such, referring to an expansion, necessarily indicates a reference to something that expanded. This is not obviated by referring to a "point" that contained all matter and energy - that is STILL SOMETHING - - - > Which must necessarily pre-exist, for us to be able to speak about it BEGINNING TO EXPAND.

4. It is thus apt to ask - what THAT thing was - that expanded.

5. For it to expand [whatever it was] it must have pre-existed its expansion - no? - Yes.

6. Otherwise you refer to something coming into existence out of nothing at the precise moment that the very same thing begins to expand? No? - YES.

7. As such, if something existed which expanded, then there must have existed a timeline for its existence.

8. Thus time as a whole, could not have commenced with the Big Ban.g.

PhysicsQED:

Of course.



Right. But I only introduced the issue of nothingness to point out that if there was only nothingness, there would be no need for time and no reason to assume that there was time.



Okay. Here's the real problem.

You assert that it must necessarily "pre-exist" before expansion for whatever reason, but you don't say anything about this period of time over which it "pre-exists" or what the singularity is doing while "pre-existing" prior to expansion.

Even if I accept that there was ever a period of time during which this point was not expanding (which I don't because I prefer the opposite assumption), I find it strange that you're willing to posit that there was such a specific period of time when there is no particular reason to make that assumption and when you seem unwilling to state how long this period of time would be.



I don't see how the issue of "what" it was arises. I mean I've already explained that you're in THAT thing right now so I don't see how there's a question of "what" it was that expanded.



Well, no.

I mean, in your imagination, did it just "pop" into existence, sit around for a while, and then gain spatial extent (expand) later?

But let's assume for the sake of argument, that it was just sitting around for a while before expanding even though there is no more reason to go with that assumption than with the assumption that it was never was.

Let's then ask, what if it was sitting around for about 10^-9999999999^-99999999999^-999999999^-99999999^-9999999. . .^-999999 femtoseconds or better yet, a duration of time many times shorter than that before expanding. What would be the effective difference between it sitting around in stasis for that period of time and it never sitting around in stasis at all? None.



You've decided to separate time from the the object itself so that there is some kind of external absolute Newtonian timeline in which it is operating. This particular mental/cognitive abstraction you've introduced is basically just an assumption. It was a popular assumption in the past, but it's a relic now.

This "timeline" for its existence is predicated on the idea of time existing "prior to" the thing (the singularity) existing, which is an assumption that I don't have any particular reason to support. As I said in the other thread, time can only be measured in relation to some thing. Otherwise it is meaningless.



Well, I really don't see why you're certain about this, but it's getting boring repeating the same stuff over again, so I'll just leave you with your belief in this. I'm not even 100% certain of what current science holds, but I thought it would be better to at least explain how it's different from what you sometimes misrepresent it as in order to argue against it.

You seem to be a die hard proponent of the old "time precedes existence" assumption for whatever reason, and I can't seem to convince you otherwise, so obviously we're never going to agree and we're probably just wasting each other's time.

PhysicsQED:

Of course.

Right. But I only introduced the issue of nothingness to point out that if there was only nothingness, there would be no need for time and no reason to assume that there was time.

Okay. Here's the real problem.

You assert that it must necessarily "pre-exist" before expansion for whatever reason, but you don't say anything about this period of time over which it "pre-exists" or what the singularity is doing while "pre-existing" prior to expansion.

Even if I accept that there was ever a period of time during which this point was not expanding (which I don't because I prefer the opposite assumption), I find it strange that you're willing to posit that there was such a specific period of time when there is no particular reason to make that assumption and when you seem unwilling to state how long this period of time would be.

I don't see how the issue of "what" it was arises. I mean I've already explained that you're in THAT thing right now so I don't see how there's a question of "what" it was that expanded.

Well, no.

I mean, in your imagination, did it just "pop" into existence, sit around for a while, and then gain spatial extent (expand) later?

But let's assume for the sake of argument, that it was just sitting around for a while before expanding even though there is no more reason to go with that assumption than with the assumption that it was never was.

Let's then ask, what if it was sitting around for about 10^-9999999999^-99999999999^-999999999^-99999999^-9999999. . .^-999999 femtoseconds or better yet, a duration of time many times shorter than that before expanding. What would be the effective difference between it sitting around in stasis for that period of time and it never sitting around in stasis at all? None.

You've decided to separate time from the the object itself so that there is some kind of external absolute Newtonian timeline in which it is operating.

This particular mental/cognitive abstraction you've introduced is basically just an assumption. It was a popular assumption in the past, but it's a relic now.

This "timeline" for its existence is predicated on the idea of time existing "prior to" the thing (the singularity) existing, which is an assumption that I don't have any particular reason to support.

As I said in the other thread, time can only be measured in relation to some thing. Otherwise it is meaningless.

PhysicsQED: Dude, he sometimes piles on assumptions upon assumptions upon misunderstandings

and portrays what he's claiming to the contrary as superior

while implying or stating outright that others are foolish.

Even if there were a reasonable argument somewhere in there, there's absolutely no line of thinking I've seen so far in our discussions that I haven't already come across

and I wouldn't pretend I think he's any less wrong than I do just to be polite.

PhysicsQED: Dude, he sometimes piles on assumptions upon assumptions upon misunderstandings and portrays what he's claiming to the contrary as superior while implying or stating outright that others are foolish. Even if there were a reasonable argument somewhere in there, there's absolutely no line of thinking I've seen so far in our discussions that I haven't already come across and I wouldn't pretend I think he's any less wrong than I do just to be polite.

Deep Sight:
I am Deist, my good friend, you should bear that in mind in reference to the points I set forth.

Certainly not: I AM, as I have told you, Deist, and as such I do not believe such voodoo: it is rather the materialist scientists whose arguments amount to the above.

jayriginal:

You catch on quick.

No. You Sir, are a charlatan and a humbug plus a lightweight to boot !

Deep Sight:
Talking about lightweight, I am not sure that anyone has ever seen you post any thing of significance or remote moment anywhere on this forum. To be fair: you are one of the lightest minds I have ever engaged in this forum: there have been far far better. People who actually say things. Cna you remind anyone of anything of significance that you have ever set forth on this forum, save cheer-leading for dolts such as logicboy, Dawkins and the rest.

Please stick your words right up where they belong and don't strive to associate where you do not belong.

jayriginal:

Ah, but mon ami, that does not move me in the slightest, for I know nought, and know that I know nought. Ok, I lied. Theres one thing I know.

I know that you are the physical embodiment of monumental folly.

You, are a comedian Sir. Cheap and pitiful.

Sorry. I hate to be the one to do this to you.

Deep Sight:

Abeg jaare. Do what to whom? You must be living in la la land. As far as I know, you have not said anything worth reading ever since your lamentable arrival on this board.

Please PhysicsQED, come and make your posts and save me from reading such stark, asinine nothingness.

jayriginal: Funny what inferiority complex can do to a man.

Someone with poor comprehension skills and zero grasp of logic haughtily abuses his superiors.

He will tell us he went to Kings College and read all the encyclopedias in the library.

Somme people need learning.

How tragic

Deep Sight:

Yawn.

I cannot account for your lapses in logic. As far as I know, if there is a ghost of inferiority hanging around here anywhere, you reek of it.

Stop stalking me.

Mr. "I-like-science-but-I-cannot-give-scientific-examples-for-my-nonsensical-postulations"

OLODO! WAKA JOOR!

jayriginal:

Dude, you are sliding into dementia. Me stalk you ke ?

Nobody takes you seriously mate. You're good for comic relief. Thats all.

You dont need to tell me no one takes me seriously, thats ok. I'm not here for that. I call myself jayriginal, you call yourself Deep Sight. Go figure!

And oh, about the scientific examples did I say I couldnt give or I didnt see the necessity ? Not sure.

Either way, I didnt want to derail stuff back then but the argument you claimed to have taken delight in shooting down was a strawman. You may wish to tell us now the cause of virtual particles instead of telling us that they dont emerge from nothing.

Deep Sight = Acute Myopia

Deep Sight:

Jesus mate, at leats my Dog does. And nah, he is somebody.

I have advised you before to stop obsessing. Weitin consine u inside my username nah?

Six and half a dozen. YOU made the contentions contrary to known science and so YOU had to give examples. Over several pitiful pages you absconded that duty. One single example of an uncaused material thing that you know of would have done.

Lol, after running away from virtual particles, you are back here? Anthing that emerges from somethingness is not uncaused. FACT. As such, since it is proven that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, then virtual particles are not uncaused. Period.

U won't be the first mate. The moniker itself screams for mockery, and it gets it. They even say "Deep Sh.it"

No matter.

jayriginal:

Not till he registers on nairaland.

I think its a major cause of the hot air in you.

NO, you were the one asserting. I was questioning. You sought to convince me. You dont ask your opponent to prove his case until you have proven yours.
No case submission !

I didnt bring that up, you did and I refused to be distracted. I have asked you what causes virtual particles. You still havent told me.

Nah, that wont be original. Its too obvious (and you dont hide it either )

Deep Sight:

He has already. Enigma caught him, and I had to ask him not to re appear.

I gave you Galileo: I showed you that EVEN WHERE RIGHT, any person questioning accepted scientific laws such as cause and effect, will have to adduce proof and examples validating his doubt.

I would not say, for example, that the law of gravity is an " assumption " - and then insist that the world should be the one to prove same to me. Evidence of gravity is all around us in the same way as evidence of cause and effect is all around us. If I wish to deny or question the law of gravity on any level - even at the level of the early universe - I will have to show my reasons for questioning that which is commonly observed.

This is what you failed to do, and I tire of explaining this fact to you. Once you question a commonly observed law, you must show WHY.

Your stance is just like me questioning the law of gravity and then asking you to show me the evidence for gravity. Its absurd, accept that.

Virtual particles have been made an issue by people who seek to prove that something may emerge from nothing. That is the exact point: virtual particles do not emerge from nothing, because the vacuums referred to are not nothing: they contained low gaseous pressure and as such are not nothing. In science, there has never been a perfect vacuum observed anywhere.

jayriginal:

Ehya.

No. There is a difference between our container and outside our container. Even our container is vastly unknown. It is not out of place then to ask you if a local law has scope outside our immediate vicinity. Thats simple enough.

You keep going on about perfect vacuums. I havent asked that. My question is "what is the cause of virtual particles" ?

Its perfectly ok to say you dont know, even if you think they must be caused somewhat.

Go ahead and asnwer.

Martian: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

The term “virtual particle” is an endlessly confusing and confused subject for the layperson, and even for the non-expert scientist. I have read many books for laypeople (yes, I was a layperson once myself, and I remember, at the age of 16, reading about this stuff) and all of them talk about virtual particles and not one of them has ever made any sense to me. So I am going to try a different approach in explaining it to you.

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

Deep Sight:

Believe you me, i'm yet to live that one down.

Yes: and with reference to the example I gave about gravity, who would you say would have the burden of proof if it is said that gravity does not apply at the stage of the early universe. Given that we observe gravity in all aspects of the universe [your favorite term - "as far as we know"] - then if these statements are made -

Man X - Gravity applies across the universe

Man Y - Gravity is only an assumption as far as we know

- - - > Which man has the burden of proof? Be honest here.

I repeat: any person stating that which is contrary to common observation must bear the burden of proof.

The universe is material and we see cause and effect in all things material. Cause and Effect is thus intrinsic to matreial reality "as far as we know". As such, any person who asserts the contrary will have to show why. Just as Galileo had to - even when right. Just as Corpenicus had to - even when right.

Deep Sight:

Your stance is just like me questioning the law of gravity and then asking you to show me the evidence for gravity. Its absurd, accept that.

jayriginal:
^^
Alright; fine.

1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist

We do not necessarily know that these first two are correct. It does "sound" correct but we do not necessarily know so.
Only if we accept BOTH premises can we move to the conclusion.
3. The Universe has a cause

Now can you really claim to have absolute knowledge of the truth of the first two premises or you are just going with what your natural experience suggests to you ?

As an example, the early man would have known that anything he throws up would come down (if unhindered). In that light, he would imagine (going by natural experience)that if he could throw an object far enough (like into space) it would still come down. We know better today but he didnt.
Therefore, on what grounds do you hold the first two premises to be true ?

https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/6#10393474

jayriginal:

The way it went was
Man X, gravity applies across the Universe
Man Y, How do you know ?

Funny you should mention this

Now on to Martians link. I have been aware of that since before we debated but I am not entirely satisfied. Maybe I will if I pursue the subject vigorously, but I wonder if I can borrow a leaf from my mentor Deep Sight and label the Prof as "i[i]d[/i]iotic", illiterate and such like terms of endearment.

jayriginal:

The way it went was
Man X, gravity applies across the Universe
Man Y, How do you know ?

Funny you should mention this

Now on to Martians link. I have been aware of that since before we debated but I am not entirely satisfied. Maybe I will if I pursue the subject vigorously, but I wonder if I can borrow a leaf from my mentor Deep Sight and label the Prof as "i[i]d[/i]iotic", illiterate and such like terms of endearment.

Scientific American

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

. . .

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea

Deep Sight:

The succeeding answer would be that it is intrinsic in the material universe. Cause and effect is more intrinsic. As such, I repeat: if any person wishes to cast doubt on its applicability else where in the universe, he will have to show why.

This is axactly what some dolts have been laboring unsuccessfully to do with virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.

If they succeed, fine. They have not, simple.

We can know that Cause and Effect applies across the universe SO LONG AS WE ARE DEALING WITH MATTER: because we have seen that material phenomena need causes AND WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MATERIAL.



How? I cannot ask you to prove to me why something like grravity is NOT an assumption, can I? By the way, less gravity is not no gravity, in reference to your reference. Would you say that it will be am assumption to say that other planets have some gravitational pull as well about them? Would this be an assumption, or a correct inference from what we know? How do we know such then? Again, be honest here.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Abeg, real or fake, they are not uncaused. That is the fact.

Have to be off now. Hope you enjoyed our banter as much as I did, and don't take my melodrama seriously o.

Later pal.