The universe at the end of this sentence.

[AV1611VET]

It's called the balloon theory, you know, lots of hot air

I always liked this one:

 

[hasone]

It's called the balloon theory, you know, lots of hot air

Did you read my posts, Gracchus' post, and Freodin's posts carefully, as Freodin suggested AV1611VET should? I think the suggestion holds for more people than just AV1611VET. Did you find solid evidence to support his or your interpretations of these posts?

 

[antde2001]

Hmmm -- now something with no size is big.

Interesting.

I think you're missing the point of the explanation to your statement and consequential question. Could the universe fit into the physical space occupied by a period if its mass were converted to energy. Your question is not one of size or volume, but of relativity. Relative to the universe as we know it, the period is very small. Relative to a micro-organism, a period is quite large. If the universe were to be reduced to the size of a period, you and every other celestial being will also be reduced in size at a proportionate rate. That period would in-turn be the size of the universe and relative to you, it would be infinite in size. Any period you use afterwards would be significantly smaller than the period you were referring to before. An exclamation mark, however, may be impervious to such physics and remain larger than the universe .

 

[Gracchus]

Hmmm -- now something with no size is big.

Interesting.

Think of it this way: Any number can be thought of as a fraction. (2=2/1, 6/3, 9/4.5, ...)Any fraction can be thought of as a ratio, not necessarily a ratio of integers, but as one number divided by another. Or you could think of it as a vector, so that y/x represents the vector (x,y) a vector that has the directed line segment that represent the vector extends the length x, along one axis of a cartesian graph, and the length y, along another axis at right angles to the first. So, y/x is a slope, the rise over the run. If y=0, then the solution is all the points along the x axis, and if x=0 then the solution is all the points along the y axis. Multiplying by 0 means that the y coordinate is 0 and the solution can be any point on the x axis. So dividing or multipying by zero is just making the solution indeterminate. If there were no mass, position becomes indeterminate. and if there were no energy time becomes indeterminate. 0/0 is the vector (0, 0) and is a point and a point has no slope. That is why when a mass approaches the speed of light it becomes more "wave light" as deBroglie noted. At the speed of light it would become pure energy and its position is indeterminate. It could be anywhere. Since it could be anywhere, it has no size, and it could not be contained or even given a location.
You can insist that relativity and quantum mechanics conform to the preconceptions of you mind, but reality doesn't care what you think. Feynmann said that if anyone thinks they understand quantum mechanics, they don't understand quantum mechanics. Anything in motion relative to an observer is partially energy of indeterminate location, and any thing at rest relative to an observer contains no energy. But, of course, a stone at rest relative to an observer contains energy because its sub-atomic particles are in motion relative to that observer.
The math works, the physics has been observed. Your "common sense understanding" can take a hike.

In religious terms: You have erected an unchanging graven idol in your mind, part bible and part arrogance. It is an image, static, lifeless, an idol, and yet you insist on calling it God. God is what is real (pantheism) and maybe (probably!) a bit more (panentheism). That's why none on has ever gazed upon the face of God. God is always more than your mind can observe or comprehend. When someone says "Reality can take a hike!" they are saying "God can take a hike!"

 

[Doveaman]

And what does 'doesn't really have any size' mean?

I means it doesn't exists.

I see doubt embedded in that sentence.

I see scientists playing with silly putty.

 

[Jazer]

I need a Ph.D. or something, so I can have mental blocks too.

Phd's are so busy getting their degree that they have little time to do anything else. They are experts in their area of study, but outside of their area of study they often do not know much of anything. This can be a problem for Creation Science because Christians also can be so busy getting their degrees that they do not have time to read and study the Bible. Some people know Science, some people know the Bible. It is rare for someone to know both Science and the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I means it doesn't exists.

In their beginning, there was nothing -- then it began expanding.

I see scientists playing with silly putty.

That's about right.

 

[Doveaman]

In their beginning, there was nothing -- then it began expanding.

In the beginning nothing went bang.

 

[Gracchus]

It took me a while to compose this, so I am reposting it to the end of the thread.

Think of it this way: Any number can be thought of as a fraction. (2=2/1, 6/3, 9/4.5, ...)Any fraction can be thought of as a ratio, not necessarily a ratio of integers, but as one number divided by another. Or you could think of it as a vector, so that y/x represents the vector (x,y) a vector that has the directed line segment that represent the vector extends the length x, along one axis of a cartesian graph, and the length y, along another axis at right angles to the first. So, y/x is a slope, the rise over the run. If y=0, then the solution is all the points along the x axis, and if x=0 then the solution is all the points along the y axis. Multiplying by 0 means that the y coordinate is 0 and the solution can be any point on the x axis. So dividing or multipying by zero is just making the solution indeterminate. If there were no mass, position becomes indeterminate. and if there were no energy time becomes indeterminate. 0/0 is the vector (0, 0) and is a point and a point has no slope. That is why when a mass approaches the speed of light it becomes more "wave light" as deBroglie noted. At the speed of light it would become pure energy and its position is indeterminate. It could be anywhere. Since it could be anywhere, it has no size, and it could not be contained or even given a location.
You can insist that relativity and quantum mechanics conform to the preconceptions of you mind, but reality doesn't care what you think. Feynmann said that if anyone thinks they understand quantum mechanics, they don't understand quantum mechanics. Anything in motion relative to an observer is partially energy of indeterminate location, and any thing at rest relative to an observer contains no energy. But, of course, a stone at rest relative to an observer contains energy because its sub-atomic particles are in motion relative to that observer.
The math works, the physics has been observed. Your "common sense understanding" can take a hike.

In religious terms: You, AV1611VET, have erected an unchanging graven idol in your mind, part bible and part arrogance. It is an image, static, lifeless, an idol, and yet you insist on calling it God. God is what is real (pantheism) and maybe (probably!) a bit more (panentheism). That's why no one has ever gazed upon the face of God. God is always more than your mind can observe or comprehend. When someone says "Reality can take a hike!" they are saying "God can take a hike!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Phd's are so busy getting their degree that they have little time to do anything else. They are experts in their area of study, but outside of their area of study they often do not know much of anything. This can be a problem for Creation Science because Christians also can be so busy getting their degrees that they do not have time to read and study the Bible. Some people know Science, some people know the Bible. It is rare for someone to know both Science and the Bible.

What gets me is when you converse with a geologist here, and he says, "Read a book on geology."

Then you converse with a biologist here, and he says, "Read a book on biology."

Then you converse with a physicist here, and he say, "Read a book on physics."

What would we be like, if we read all that science?

 

[Jazer]

Could the universe fit into the physical space occupied by a period if its mass were converted to energy.

Nahmanides said over 800 years ago:

...At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.[3]

It was Max Planck around 100 years ago that took this Religious belief and turned it into a scientific theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

It took me a while to compose this, so I am reposting it to the end of the thread.

What do you want me to do with it?

 

[Doveaman]

What gets me is when you converse with a geologist here, and he says, "Read a book on geology."

Then you converse with a biologist here, and he says, "Read a book on biology."

Then you converse with a physicist here, and he say, "Read a book on physics."

What would we be like, if we read all that science?

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Gracchus]

What gets me is when you converse with a geologist here, and he says, "Read a book on geology."

Then you converse with a biologist here, and he says, "Read a book on biology."

Then you converse with a physicist here, and he say, "Read a book on physics."

What would we be like, if we read all that science?

I couldn't guess what you would be like, but you might be less arrogant, and you would have the beginnings of an education.

 

[Selmak]

I couldn't guess what you would be like, but you might be less arrogant, and you would have the beginnings of an education.

AV doesn't come off as arrogant to me, and just because a person's areas of expertise differ from your own does not make them uneducated.

 

[hasone]

What I want you to do is to read our posts carefully and try and understand the points we're trying to make so that you can come to understand the current scientific answers to your questions. There has been an attempt to present a nuanced view of what science does and does not know, as well as help delineate which statements are and are not compatible with modern scientific understanding.

I have seen no thoughtful response to these posts. In fact, it seems to me they have been either misunderstood or ignored. I, personally, tried to answer the questions in the beginning of the thread with respect, and as well as I could. I have detected no attempt from those in the thread unfamiliar with my points to try and understand them, and it seems to me that my opinions are not respected in kind.

The statements that scientists make (the scientifically valid ones) are often unintuitive and/or complex. They seem elitist. But, ultimately, they are not. They follow a trail of logic and evidence that is available to the general public, including you, and if you are willing to put in the time to understand them from a scientific perspective you will be able to do so. The time required to understand the mathematics behind general relativity is great, but the material is out there. If you avail yourself of it, the points made about singularities will be easily understood.

In this case, they will make sense even before you get to that point, because mathematical singularities, and learning about how they are undefined, occur much earlier in a mathematician's training. I, in fact, illustrated such an example on such an earlier level when I talked about the function "f(x) = x*x/x". Unless you take the time to learn more about mathematics, you will have to trust me when I say that the analogy I make between the earlier mathematics and general relativity is, in fact, very strong.

You do not have to trust me. The tools are available to you to evaluate my statements from a mathematical and scientific perspective, if you are willing to take the time to train in their use. The third choice is to effectively ignore me, as you have been, in which case I will stop wasting my time.

 

[Gracchus]

AV doesn't come off as arrogant to me, and just because a person's areas of expertise differ from your own does not make them uneducated.

I label as arrogant those who make pronouncements in areas of obvious ignorance. AV1611VET knows little or nothing of evolutionary theory and refuses to even learn. He denies the findings of physics athough he doesn't even understand E=mc^2. He is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Those with the least expertise in an area are those most likely to over-estimate their skill in that area. The real experts know how incompetent they are themselves but they tend to over-extimate how much those in the first group understand. (But everybody knows that!)

My ignorance is vast beyond his comprehension, but I am open to correction.

 

[Selmak]

I label as arrogant those who make pronouncements in areas of obvious ignorance. AV1611VET knows little or nothing of evolutionary theory and refuses to even learn. He denies the findings of physics athough he doesn't even understand E=mc^2. He is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Those with the least expertise in an area are those most likely to over-estimate their skill in that area. The real experts know how incompetent they are themselves but they tend to over-extimate how much those in the first group understand. (But everybody knows that!)

My ignorance is vast beyond his comprehension, but I am open to correction.

Then allow me to correct you. I've seen a lot of arrogance in this thread, but it hasn't been coming from AV. Reread your posts, and try to do so from an objective, disinterested 3rd party viewpoint. Now judge the tone of your posts. If you don't find them arrogant (to put it mildly) then you aren't being honest with yourself.



Edit to Add: And I don't have a dog in this fight, just passing on my observations. Do with them as you will.

 

[Skaloop]

AV doesn't come off as arrogant to me, and just because a person's areas of expertise differ from your own does not make them uneducated.

Really? He dismisses the collective scientific knowledge of thousands upon thousands of the greatest minds of the past few hundred years merely by telling it to "take a hike", all using technology that has only been developed because of that collective knowledge. That's arrogance and irony. Arrony. Or Irogance?