Does infinity exist?

[dad]

Already answered this above.

No. You said this

"You can look at how the star's luminosity changes over the orbital period or simply by bare observation looking at transits and eclipses of one star by the other (like how the moon 'blots out' the sun during a solar eclipse). The latter method, along with looking at the transited star's luminosity, is one method by which exoplanets orbiting other stars are discovered "

One needs to know how big and how far the stars are...for starters. You do not.

You can't just arbitrarily say that time may act differently; you have to explore the implications of saying that. Unless you can quantify how time is different, and how that might affect observation, then we're not talking science.

Unless you can quantify how time is the same, and how that might affect observation, then we're not talking science.

Science is chiefly empirical; ideas fall or rise but data is paramount. If time did work differently "out there", our observations of luminosity, the speed of light, redshift, etc... would all be different from what we observe now.

Nope. Only what really goes on is different. What we observe science filters through earth state laws and forces to explain. The issue is what really goes on.

The hypothesis that space-time is isotropic and homogenous is one that is constantly and consistently validated by experiment.

No. It is one that colors all observations.

You don't like it or find it inelegant therefore it's not true?

I simply ask you to prove that all neutrinos change flavor from the sun? Where do they do this? 90 million miles out? 30 million? Dark side of the moon??

Again, you can't just assert that physical laws are different, you have to say how and what that would mean for experiments that would attempt to explore the phenomenon.

Again, you can't just assert that physical laws are the same, you have to stop first assuming that for experiments that would attempt to explore the phenomenon.

All evidence, including the few non-comprehensive phenomenoa I listed earlier, agree with the sun fusing hydrogen as its main power source so this is all a big Russell's teapot.

No. Where does the flavor change take place?

How you know this I'd love to know. Sounds like you're just making stuff up to suit your beliefs.

The records of Sumer and Egypt and the bible talk of certain differences.

Can you prove that Cana existed 2000 years ago? Can you prove that the natural laws near Earth were the same 2000 years ago? Can you prove Peter and Luke were historical persons?

Within reason of course. The early Christian records do exist.


"
Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
His earliest notice is in Paul's Epistle to Philemon, verse 24. He is also mentioned in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, two works commonly ascribed to Paul. The next earliest account of Luke is in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, a document once thought to date to the 2nd century, but which has more recently been dated to the later 4th century. Helmut Koester, however, claims that the following part – the only part preserved in the original Greek – may have been composed in the late 2nd century:
“ Luke, a native of Antioch, by profession a physician.[8] He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his [Paul's] martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years. (p. 335) ”
Epiphanius states that Luke was one of the Seventy (Panarion 51.11), and John Chrysostom indicates at one point that the "brother" Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians 8:18 is either Luke or Barnabas. J. Wenham asserts that Luke was "one of the Seventy, the Emmaus disciple, Lucius of Cyrene and Paul's kinsman." Not all scholars are as confident of all of these attributes as Wenham is, not least because Luke's own statement at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (1:1–4) freely admits that he was not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospel."


Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History? Well that sounds like something based on a bunch of faulty assumptions: Can you prove that historical persons writing things on documents were trustworthy?

No need. If they say Napoleon would always get the army drunk as they started a march, one could conclude that they had wine at the time, and armies. We are not talking accuracy in the way of who really won a battle.

So, if the first leaders of Egypt were considered gods and spirits, and the bible says spirits married women, then we can surmise that spirits once walked with men.

 

[Jazer]

Can you prove Peter and Luke were historical persons?

The Bible were the books approved for Canon. But there were lots and lots of books and lots of early church fathers. It is well established that Peter and Luke were real people. In fact to say they were not real people is revisionism and against the rules on this forum. I think there is a forum somewhere on here that they allow the discussion of revisionism.

 

[Jazer]

the bible says spirits married women, then we can surmise that spirits once walked with men.

The Bible says: "sons of God saw the daughters of men".

"many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." Enoch, Nephilim, Sons of God, Daughters of Men - from Blue Resonant Human - posted by watcher website

 

[Steve Petersen]

Paleeeese. That silly fairy tale is old and hairy and moldy. Baseless too of course. The fact that you say it as if there was some reality to it speaks to your credibility.

So you have no idea what you are talking about. No news there.

In your fable what was before the magic speck? Inquiring toddlers want to know.


I agree. In fact the big bang did nothing ever to anything.

Duhh


No. Infinity is more like forever, which leaves time and space time in the dirt.


Eternity is not a numbers game actually.

Relax infinity, despite what Buzz Lightyear might say, is not a mathematical concept.

Says you.
Like you know.
Because infinity is not a multiple of one.
No. Not really. Have you seen one lately???
Blather. No. It is an invention. Something used to explain what is actually not understood.


Explain? How you think quantum mechanics affects density of anything!?
They are fantasy.

What people are inclined to believe does not matter much.

A trend I notice when fundamentalists debate mainstream scientists (seen Kent Hovind do it repeatedly): Insult the opponent's intelligence or break out in a sermon, or both. No substantive rebuttal, only insult.

 

[Farinata]

One needs to know how big and how far the stars are...for starters. You do not. Unless you can quantify how time is the same, and how that might affect observation, then we're not talking science. Nope. Only what really goes on is different. What we observe science filters through earth state laws and forces to explain. The issue is what really goes on. No. It is one that colors all observations.

I suppose I could bring up things like Type 1a supernovae, the spacetime interval, and tests for variation in the fine structure constant but my guess is I'd just get more of the same.

The records of Sumer and Egypt and the bible talk of certain differences.

And what certain differences are those? Give one example. Furthermore why are any of those records trustworthy? How can you prove they weren't just created yesterday along with everything else?

Within reason of course.

The irony is palpable.

The early Christian records do exist.
"Luke was a Greco-Syrian physician who lived in the Greek city of Antioch in Ancient Syria.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_the_Evangelist#cite_note-Milligan-1

I'm sorry but you still haven't proven that the laws of the universe were same on Earth 2000 years ago. Or that Cana was a real place. Or any of the other challenges. My point isn't to refute radical skepticism but to say that it doesn't get you anywhere. You're setting up an impossible standard for science and then arbitrarily exempting your own beliefs from the same exacting inquiry. I could question you endlessly in the same fashion and you wouldn't be able to definitively prove any of what you believe.

So, if the first leaders of Egypt were considered gods and spirits, and the bible says spirits married women, then we can surmise that spirits once walked with men.

....

 

[dad]

The Bible says: "sons of God saw the daughters of men".

"many famed scholars contend that the "sons of God" are the male descendants of Seth, and that the "daughters of men" are the female descendants of Cain. According to this view, what actually happened in Genesis 6 was an early example of believers marrying unbelievers. The good sons of Seth married the bad daughters of Cain, and the result of these mixed marriages was a mongrel offspring. These later became known for their decadence and corruption; indeed, it reached such a degree that God was forced to intervene and destroy the human race. This comment of Matthew Henry could be taken as representative of those holding this view:

"The sons of Seth (that is the professors of religion) married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done. They inter- mingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain." Enoch, Nephilim, Sons of God, Daughters of Men - from Blue Resonant Human - posted by watcher website

Yeah, there are little side interpretations. Probably the prevailing one is that they were angels or spirits.

 

[dad]

A trend I notice when fundamentalists debate mainstream scientists (seen Kent Hovind do it repeatedly): Insult the opponent's intelligence or break out in a sermon, or both. No substantive rebuttal, only insult.

Maybe you are too defensive and thin skinned?

 

[dad]

I suppose I could bring up things like Type 1a supernovae, the spacetime interval, and tests for variation in the fine structure constant but my guess is I'd just get more of the same.

You would merely be looking at unknown space and laws far away, and assigning earth state reasons to what you see. But if

And what certain differences are those? Give one example. Furthermore why are any of those records trustworthy? How can you prove they weren't just created yesterday along with everything else? you have some actual specific point, give it a whirl.

I'm sorry but you still haven't proven that the laws of the universe were same on Earth 2000 years ago. Or that Cana was a real place. Or any of the other challenges. My point isn't to refute radical skepticism but to say that it doesn't get you anywhere. You're setting up an impossible standard for science and then arbitrarily exempting your own beliefs from the same exacting inquiry. I could question you endlessly in the same fashion and you wouldn't be able to definitively prove any of what you believe.



....

There is enough history to determine that trees grew at notmal rates, and people did not live 1000 years and thermodynamics and other forces and laws were intact. Don't get wild and unbalanced.

 

[Radagast]

From my understanding of the current Big Bang theory, the universe was necessarily produced from a singularity with an infinite density of matter (as in, all the mass of the universe was placed in a zero volume).

Not quite. When you run the laws of physics backward, you get a singularity. But all that means is that we can't run the laws of physics all the way back to time zero. In particular, we don't understand the physics needed to discuss the first 10^-43 seconds.

-- Radagast

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not quite. When you run the laws of physics backward, you get a singularity. But all that means is that we can't run the laws of physics all the way back to time zero. In particular, we don't understand the physics needed to discuss the first 10^-43 seconds.

-- Radagast

More accurately, we don't even know if time zero was at the moment of the singularity - who's to say that, at 10[sup]-44[sup] s, the universe begins to expand?

 

[Radagast]

More accurately, we don't even know if time zero was at the moment of the singularity...

Well, there must have been (1) a "time zero," followed by (2) a period inaccessible to current science, followed by (3) an expansion.

Nobody can prove how long (2) really was.

 

[Elendur]

Well, there must have been (1) a "time zero," followed by (2) a period inaccessible to current science, followed by (3) an expansion.

Nobody can prove how long (2) really was.

I don't agree with any of that, it doesn't have to be.

Edit: Ok, now that I've eaten I can say that I only disagree to point 1. It doesn't have to be a "time zero", depending on how you define that.

Damn me and my stomach, getting me so cranky. Sorry

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, there must have been (1) a "time zero," followed by (2) a period inaccessible to current science, followed by (3) an expansion.

Nobody can prove how long (2) really was.

'Time zero' is an arbitrary designation for the beginning of the Big Bang, the first moment the universe stopped being a singularity, the time that was 13.5 billion years ago (give or take). Modern physics can probe back to the time when the universe was a given size, but no smaller, which places a limit on how far back we can probe - and that size occurred 13.5 billion years ago. We estimate the Big Bang occurred a fraction of a second before that, which is arbirarily designated 'time zero', but, ultimately, it's not.

 

[dad]

Well, there must have been (1) a "time zero," followed by (2) a period inaccessible to current science, followed by (3) an expansion.

Nobody can prove how long (2) really was.

Applying math to imaginary time and events. How fun.

 

[Radagast]

I don't agree with any of that, it doesn't have to be.

Edit: Ok, now that I've eaten I can say that I only disagree to point 1. It doesn't have to be a "time zero", depending on how you define that.

Well, either the universe has existed eternally, or it began at a certain time. I'm calling that first moment "time zero."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, either the universe has existed eternally, or it began at a certain time. I'm calling that first moment "time zero."

If the universe is eternal, there's no first moment

And besides, it's a false dichotomy: who's to say time must be linear? Who's to say the Big Crunch doesn't cause the Big Bang that came 'before' it? In that scenario, time is finite but there's no 'time zero' (even the Big Crunch/Bang moment is no more 'time zero' than any other moment).

 

[Radagast]

If the universe is eternal, there's no first moment

Exactly: and if, conversely, if you deny an eternal universe, then you must believe there was a first moment.

And besides, it's a false dichotomy: who's to say time must be linear? Who's to say the Big Crunch doesn't cause the Big Bang that came 'before' it? In that scenario, time is finite but there's no 'time zero' (even the Big Crunch/Bang moment is no more 'time zero' than any other moment).

True, but circular time is the same as eternal time where events precisely repeat themselves -- the arrow time runs infinitely both forwards and backwards.

There is no evidence for circular time, however. Theoretically, it has problems, and available data suggests there is no Big Crunch.

 

[Lillen]

in economics we write up and down the value of the currency and after the actionthe currency is per definition worth more or less. It is a fact. Couldn't we write down the age of the universe and decrease the distances of stars and so on to make universe a more pleasant place to travell in?

Honestly I go for lion king, it is holes in the sheet up there...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Exactly: and if, conversely, if you deny an eternal universe, then you must believe there was a first moment.

True, but circular time is the same as eternal time where events precisely repeat themselves -- the arrow time runs infinitely both forwards and backwards.

Circular time isn't quite the same as eternal time. 'Eternal' means that its length in time is infinite, yet a circle is of finite length, which is an important difference between the two. both physically and philosophically.

There is no evidence for circular time, however. Theoretically, it has problems,

Such as?

and available data suggests there is no Big Crunch.

Source?

 

[Radagast]

Circular time isn't quite the same as eternal time. 'Eternal' means that its length in time is infinite, yet a circle is of finite length, which is an important difference between the two. both physically and philosophically.

A circle is of finite length, but you can travel around it forever.

Source?

Observations suggest that the universe is flat, which would suggest a continued, but slowing expansion. However, other data suggests the expansion is increasing. No data supports an eventual Big Crunch.

The theoretical problem with a cyclic universe is that the low-entropy Big Bang and the high-entropy Big Crunch are equated.