₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Except this (especially the bold) bears no resemblance to what I actually said. If we are to have a discussion, please try not to misquote or misrepresent me.

It is what you said. Or do you wish to clarify what you meant here?

DeepSight:
It is not sufficient to mouth all the platitudes physcists and cosmologists do in saying that "the laws of physics breakdown" the closer one gets to the singularity, etc. It must be shown exactly how and why - and that it even happens at all in the first place. Beyond this, this matter of the question of what the universe expands into is so basic and fundamental that the usual ruse about the laws of physics breaking down simply cannot suffice to side step it.


It is very unlike you to make assumptions. Because here you are assuming that the space must be of such a solid nature that it must be pushed away. How do you know it cannot be permeated?

This once again shows your lack of understanding. The space between galaxies contains particles. If something is growing in such a low density part of the universe, it will have to move things out of the way.

DeepSight:
Secondly, even if it is in fact pushed away, how is that an issue? Yes of course in that event it must move on into some other space. And then how does that become an issue. Do you know or do you want to circumscribe the limits of all infinite space in extant reality?

It is an issue because it will have an effect on this universe.

DeepSight:
It still befuddles me that you imagine bodies moving away from one another does not imply that they must be moving into existing space of some sort or the other. Anything else is so beyond illogical that it is worse than any voodoo thinking you can ever accuse any religionist of. Tell me, how does the fact that it is "bodies" moving away from one another change the fact that they must move somewhere?

How is movement even possible without space to move into?

Does this make any sense to you?

It seems to me that just the way the religious will believe absurd "miracles" because their pastors claim them, you will also believe any absurdity you read from the priests of science.

Frankly I am not going to go back and forth on this eternally. It is clear that there can neither be movement nor expansion of any kind without space.

If you wish to delude yourself in such an illogicality, that is your business.

I understand. It will continue to befuddle you but your ignorance or inability to understand this concept doesn't make it incorrect. Mobile phones and the concepts that underpin them will look like miracles to humans in the 1200s. This doesn't make them miracles. The inability of those people to understand the underlying concepts wouldn't mean that they're just like the priests who teach transubstantiation.

DeepSight:
I am no cosmologist or physicist and I dont have any special model of the universe of my own - I am just telling you something which can never be logically controverted, that any movement of any kind requires existing space.

Therefore, to the extent that the initial expansion which is called the big bang was movement, was an expansion, then there must have been already existing space and therefore space cannot be said to have been created by the bang.

Also to the extent that it was an event, and events can only occur in an already existing timeline then time could not be said to have been created by the bang either.

Summarily, whatever the scientists are referring to as space-time is actualy something else. They have simply appropriated that term.

Conscisely: I am saying -

1. There cannot be any movement without existing space - and -
2. There cannot be any event without existing time

Therefore -

Since the big bang was an event and involved movement, both time and space must have already existed.

Beat this logic.

Your ignorance of a cosmology is not the equivalent of an expert's explanation of phenomena in cosmology. Since you have no model, I'll suggest you study the available model first before making more ignorant statements.

DeepSight:
Why would a brain be needed for consciousness, even plants are conscious. What do you understand by consciousness?

I mean:
awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/consciousness

What do you understand by consciousness?

DeepSight:
These kinds of responses are insufficient and quite tiresome.

I'm sorry you feel that way but ignorance is not a demonstration of knowledge. By the way, can you address this?

How would you say the theory of evolution explains the common ancestry between gorillas and chimpanzees?

@ thehomer -

Repeating that your co-discussant is ignorant a zillion times over does not equate sound reasoning. It is neither here nor there, so long as you are unable to address the logic of the matter. Let me keep it simple:

Just explain to me -

1. How anything can move without extant space

2. How any event can occur without extant time

Its that simple. No long thing.

PS: If you cannot do this, stop wasting my time by bleating the word "ignorance" over and over again.

Let me just point out to you that I did not say the space-time of Einstein does not exist. I said they have appropriated words to describe something else - obviously a thing that is, as Einstein described it - a fabric.

Please lets keep it simple and just address the red above. if we scale that hurdle (I suspect we will not, due simply to your pompous assumptions) then we can move on to other matters.

DeepSight:
@ thehomer -

Repeating that your co-discussant is ignorant a zillion times over does not equate sound reasoning. It is neither here nor there, so long as you are unable to address the logic of the matter. Let me keep it simple:

Pointing out your ignorance isn't for reasoning, it is to encourage you to resolve it by studying the required material. There's no "logic of the matter" to be discussed without understanding some of the physics concepts.

DeepSight:
Just explain to me -

1. How anything can move without extant space

2. How any event can occur without extant time

Its that simple. No long thing.

1. The question is malformed. The universe is expanding. The space we observe is between bodies within the universe.

2. Events within the universe occur within time.

If it so simple, why are you confused?

DeepSight:
PS: If you cannot do this, stop wasting my time by bleating the word "ignorance" over and over again.

I think this is your attempt to evade the clear questions I asked you in response to your questions. If you engaged in answering the questions, you too might become enlightened with knowledge.

DeepSight:
Let me just point out to you that I did not say the space-time of Einstein does not exist. I said they have appropriated words to describe something else - obviously a thing that is, as Einstein described it - a fabric.

So what has been described? I didn't say you said space-time of Einstein does not exist.

DeepSight:
Please lets keep it simple and just address the red above. if we scale that hurdle (I suspect we will not, due simply to your pompous assumptions) then we can move on to other matters.

I haven't made any assumptions. If you think I have, then show them to me or prove them wrong. I'm sorry you feel my responses are condescending but you don't see the problem with your attempts at ridiculing scientific work. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

thehomer:
1. The question is malformed. The universe is expanding. The space we observe is between bodies within the universe.

I can't carry on in circles forever. If you wish to kid yourself so be it. If you go back to the example of a balloon expanding, you will find that the space within the balloon (and thus the particles within it) are moving outwards. In this two things are inescapable. One, is that that something is being injected into the balloon. Two, is that, if there was no space outside that balloon it would not be able to move outwards.

And this remains simple.

Motion cannot occur without space. It's simple. Where anything moves from one point to another that already discloses the existence of space. Otherwise there would be no points to move to or from.

You can kid yourself and be as arrogant as you want. It only rebounds on you.

2. Events within the universe occur within time.

Again, the big bang itself, was an event which is said by orthodox science to have created time itself. An event cannot occur if time is not already existing. The very words "occur" or "happen" should suggest this to you and I am midly irritated to have to explain it. Events can only occur within time. Thus, for the event of the bang to occur, there was time already. Thus, the bang could not have created time itself. That is as absurd as a creationist saying that God created himself. An event cannot create the time within which it happens.

As I have said with reference to space above, I will not go round in circles on this forever. Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. If you choose to delude yourself, thats your cup of tea.

DeepSight:
I can't carry on in circles forever. If you wish to kid yourself so be it. If you go back to the example of a balloon expanding, you will find that the space within the balloon (and thus the particles within it) are moving outwards. In this two things are inescapable. One, is that that something is being injected into the balloon. Two, is that, if there was no space outside that balloon it would not be able to move outwards.

And this remains simple.

Motion cannot occur without space. It's simple. Where anything moves from one point to another that already discloses the existence of space. Otherwise there would be no points to move to or from.

You can kid yourself and be as arrogant as you want. It only rebounds on you.

I know facts look like arrogance to those who don't understand but it can't be helped. You're not paying attention to what I've posted before. I'll post it again. Your thinking relies on the fallacy of composition.

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

You're relying on a logical fallacy to make your point and you still don't recognize this after I've pointed it out several times. All I can say is you need to read the information already available. Do you understand the logical fallacy I shared with you? Universe type objects are different from objects within the universe. They act differently and with universe type objects the information we can obtain about them is limited. If you're proposing special knowledge, try to understand what we already know and how we came to those conclusions.

DeepSight:
Again, the big bang itself, was an event which is said by orthodox science to have created time itself. An event cannot occur if time is not already existing. The very words "occur" or "happen" should suggest this to you and I am midly irritated to have to explain it. Events can only occur within time. Thus, for the event of the bang to occur, there was time already. Thus, the bang could not have created time itself. That is as absurd as a creationist saying that God created himself. An event cannot create the time within which it happens.

As I have said with reference to space above, I will not go round in circles on this forever. Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. If you choose to delude yourself, thats your cup of tea.

Once again you're demonstrating how superior your knowledge is compared to actual cosmologists in the field. You're declaring that time didn't start with the expansion of the universe. Do yourself a favour and study first. Actual scientists recognize that there is a limit to what is knowable and it is explained as where the laws of physics breakdown but you refuse to accept this and propose your theory. I asked to elaborate on this and you ignored my request. If you know better, provide your explanation or model. Keep in mind that if there was time outside the universe, then there would be space, i there's space then it will have some effect on this universe.

thehomer:
I know facts look like arrogance to those who don't understand but it can't be helped. You're not paying attention to what I've posted before. I'll post it again. Your thinking relies on the fallacy of composition.

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

You're relying on a logical fallacy to make your point and you still don't recognize this after I've pointed it out several times. All I can say is you need to read the information already available. Do you understand the logical fallacy I shared with you? Universe type objects are different from objects within the universe. They act differently and with universe type objects the information we can obtain about them is limited. If you're proposing special knowledge, try to understand what we already know and how we came to those conclusions.



Once again you're demonstrating how superior your knowledge is compared to actual cosmologists in the field. You're declaring that time didn't start with the expansion of the universe. Do yourself a favour and study first. Actual scientists recognize that there is a limit to what is knowable and it is explained as where the laws of physics breakdown but you refuse to accept this and propose your theory. I asked to elaborate on this and you ignored my request. If you know better, provide your explanation or model. Keep in mind that if there was time outside the universe, then there would be space, i there's space then it will have some effect on this universe.

I did say I will not go on in circles on this forever and I will not. I have said all I have to say and thus have nothing further to add - unless you introduce a point I have not yet heard. Good luck.

We can move on to the the evolution of sexual reproduction.

DeepSight:
I did say I will not go on in circles on this forever and I will not. I have said all I have to say and thus have nothing further to add - unless you introduce a point I have not yet heard. Good luck.

We can move on to the the evolution of sexual reproduction.

I'd rather stick to this topic as again, you've not addressed the issues I've raised. I don't see why we should move on to another topic. If we can't deal with this topic that is more clear cut then lets draw the curtains here.

thehomer:
I'd rather stick to this topic as again, you've not addressed the issues I've raised.

I cant keep repeating that 2 + 2 equals 4 only to be told that I am ignorant and subscribing to a fallacy of composition. If we interrogate your use of that fallacy you will find that you have no clue what you are talking about. I dont have the energy to teach anyone that if you jump up you must fall down, or that the law of cause and effect exists (only to be told that such breaks down at the early stages of the universe - when you were not there to observe that, etc). I see no point in telling a man that if he eats food he will likely excrete. I see no point in telling anyone that if a thing is a circle, it cant also be a square. I just generally see no point in illogicalities, no matter how nonsensically proud you may attempt to sound, it can NEVER impress me.

People like Lawrence Krauss defined "nothingness" and even ascribed qualities to nothingness. That is BS. Simply put, if anyone understands the word "nothingness" they will know that it is exactly nothing and has no qualities therefore. However he appropriated that word to his BS Cosmology in order to try to claim that the universe arose from something called nothing. I hope your pride has not gone so far as to fail to see the problem with that.

This is the same way in which I am telling you that the phrase "space-time" has been appropriated. Scientists have used normal words to describe something else entirely which those words do not mean. I dont give an f.... if you imagine me ignorant for saying so, because frankly I also see you as nothing different from a religionist who worships the words of so called scientists and does not have the independnce of mind to interrogate them with logic. You actually sound like a Muslim, Many times when incongruencies are pointed out in the Quoran, the Muslim will say, "have you read the schorlarly exegesis" - which is similar to the way you attempt to speak to me.

No matter what you say,movement cannot occur without extant space. No matter what you say, events cannot occur without extant time. Period.

Frankly I see no reason why you dont also believe in all the voodoo miracles described in the Bible.

I don't see why we should move on to another topic. If we can't deal with this topic that is more clear cut then lets draw the curtains here.

Happy to do that, since it appears your intellectual capacity has diminished over the years. I see no reason to believe that you will ever agree that two plus two equals four. You will likely say that the laws of mathematics have broken down at the point of asking the question or bring up Schroedinger's Cat to answer it and claim there is no way to know the answer.

No serious thinker has time for such, so take care.