Mathematical Arguments

[crjmurray]

This is a thread for users to post mathematical arguments. I see a lot of posts claiming that there is mathematical evidence that disproves abiogenisis, evolution, etc. but I never see any math. So to keep other threads less cluttered, users can post their arguments here.

Reminder: ACTUAL MATH

 

[crjmurray]

 

[bhsmte]

I guess a lot of people don't like math.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a thread for users to post mathematical arguments. I see a lot of posts claiming that there is mathematical evidence that disproves abiogenisis, evolution, etc. but I never see any math. So to keep other threads less cluttered, users can post their arguments here.

Reminder: ACTUAL MATH

You can't even get to the point where spontaneous generation needs to magically come into existence..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

"According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."

So the math says your creation event is a physical impossibility. And I am not sure you could follow a discussion about energy momentum tensors and general relativity without violating the very math you want to claim to be using to describe what it fails to describe.

So why don't you post the math where it doesn't break down?

 

[RickG]

One common mathematical argument we often see is that something can't happen due to improbability. What is ignored in that argument is that "it only needs to happen once". It may be a one-in-a-gazillion probability, but if it happened once, it happened.

 

[crjmurray]

You can't even get to the point where spontaneous generation needs to magically come into existence..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

"According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths."

So the math says your creation event is a physical impossibility. And I am not sure you could follow a discussion about energy momentum tensors and general relativity without violating the very math you want to claim to be using to describe what it fails to describe.

So why don't you post the math where it doesn't break down?

This thread is for YOU to post your math.

 

[RickG]

You can't even get to the point where spontaneous generation needs to magically come into existence..

Are you suggesting that science supports spontaneous generation? It doesn't.

 

[bhsmte]

This thread is for YOU to post your math.

Good luck with that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This thread is for YOU to post your math.

I posted the math. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics breaks down. Do you understand what failure of the math to work means? So now is your opportunity to disprove the mathematicians and show how any math doesn't break down.

If you can't do that, your hypocritical.

I see a lot of posts claiming that there is mathematical evidence that disproves abiogenisis, evolution, etc. but I never see any math.

I see you claiming there is math to support the big bang, evolution, etc., but I never see any math to even get past the first claim....

Let's get that math out of the way first, since life cant evolve if there is no universe to evolve in... So what math besides general relativity or quantum mechanics are you relying on in support of the big bang? Must be some other math since both of them break down at the event.

 

[crjmurray]

I posted the math. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics breaks down. Do you understand what failure of the math to work means? So now is your opportunity to disprove the mathematicians and show how any math doesn't break down.

If you can't do that, your hypocritical.



I see you claiming there is math to support the big bang, evolution, etc., but I never see any math to even get past the first claim....

Let's get that math out of the way first, since life cant evolve if there is no universe to evolve in... So what math besides general relativity or quantum mechanics are you relying on in support of the big bang? Must be some other math since both of them break down at the event.

You've never seen me claim that there is math to support the big bang. It's out of my wheelhouse and I've said that multiple times. I've also never claimed that there is math that supports evolution. However I have seen others suggest that there is mathematical evidence that disproves these ideas. That's what I want to see. If you have some sort of mathematical argument against the big bang, then let's see it. Don't repeat the Wikipedia quote over and over. Show me how the math does not work.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you suggesting that science supports spontaneous generation? It doesn't.

Me? "I" am suggesting no such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

"Belief in the present ongoing spontaneous generation of certain forms of life from non-living matter goes back to Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy and continued to have support in Western scholarship until the 19th century. This belief was paired with a belief in heterogenesis, i.e., that one form of life derived from a different form (e.g. bees from flowers). Classical notions of spontaneous generation, which can be considered under the modern term abiogenesis,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."

I'm just curious how it isn't since you are asking living matter without decent from similar organisms are you not, when you claim life from non-life?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You've never seen me claim that there is math to support the big bang. It's out of my wheelhouse and I've said that multiple times. I've also never claimed that there is math that supports evolution. However I have seen others suggest that there is mathematical evidence that disproves these ideas. That's what I want to see. If you have some sort of mathematical argument against the big bang, then let's see it. Don't repeat the Wikipedia quote over and over. Show me how the math does not work.

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-10.PDF

Maybe something a little less technical for you?

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0045

If you don't take time to read them, then I'll know your claim about wanting the math isn't a real claim - just a strawman.

 

[The Cadet]

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Abrams1989.pdf

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-10.PDF

Maybe something a little less technical for you?

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF

http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0045

If you don't take time to read them, then I'll know your claim about wanting the math isn't a real claim - just a strawman.

And now every time you post this I'm reminded of this thread, and that you've actually gotten answers from people who know what they're talking about on this issue, who show quite clearly that you don't. The fact that our current understanding of the universe breaks down at t=0 does not somehow make evolution an impossibility.

 

[bhsmte]

And now every time you post this I'm reminded of this thread, and that you've actually gotten answers from people who know what they're talking about on this issue, who show quite clearly that you don't. The fact that our current understanding of the universe breaks down at t=0 does not somehow make evolution an impossibility.

You would think he would get tired of getting refuted over and over again, but hey, denial will do that for you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But here, you really want the math? Are you sure?

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2012/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

"This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to
the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And now every time you post this I'm reminded of this thread, and that you've actually gotten answers from people who know what they're talking about on this issue, who show quite clearly that you don't. The fact that our current understanding of the universe breaks down at t=0 does not somehow make evolution an impossibility.

Just your entire belief in how the universe came into being is on the line.

 

[The Cadet]

Just your entire belief in how the universe came into being is on the line.

And I don't particularly care. I don't care about the big bang. I don't particularly care about cosmology. My interest has to do with what happened once the earth was there, some 4.5 billion years ago. But to act like refuting the big bang somehow refutes the age of the earth or evolution is just asinine.

 

[AV1611VET]

But to act like refuting the big bang somehow refutes the age of the earth or evolution is just asinine.

Until one can come up with something better to fill the void ...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And I don't particularly care. I don't care about the big bang. I don't particularly care about cosmology. My interest has to do with what happened once the earth was there, some 4.5 billion years ago. But to act like refuting the big bang somehow refutes the age of the earth or evolution is just asinine.

So you are insisting that even if they are wrong about how it came to be, they are still right about how it came to be? That 4.5 billion years is based upon the belief in the big bang and the ability of the galaxies, solar systems and the earth to have formed in the allotted time span of 13+ billion years.

If your claims of origin are incorrect - all your theories based upon that origin are also incorrect. If you believe the Milky-Way is the entire galaxy, you are going to come to the incorrect solutions. Which just happen to be when all our current theories about galaxy and star formation were born.

So if what you say is true: "I've also never claimed that there is math that supports evolution." then you have nothing more than belief and opinion, correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Until one can come up with something better to fill the void ...

It passes time Gotta love that ability to ignore the real world in favor of Fairie Dust.