• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

There was no "before" before the Big Bang

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship

Intelligent design has no evidence to support it, and is hardly flawless even conceptually. Where does god come from, how does it have the power to create, etc.

Additionally, there are plenty of theories as to what came "before" the big bang (given that time didn't exist prior to that event, the idea of a prior doesn't really work). For example, there is evidence that suggests we are not in a first generation universe, but rather the result of one that moved to a lower energy state. The fact that we don't know everything doesn't make us wrong, it makes us honest.

Also, the rule that something must come from something didn't apply before the big bang, so it is quite literally possible that out of nothing came something at random. Oh, the joy of before physics. Hard to wrap one's mind around the fact that even things like gravity were a result of the big bang.
 
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

Boxing Pythagoras

Active Member
Nov 10, 2015
32
8
42
✟22,702.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
The fact that it is a mathematical concept does not preclude it from being a physical property. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts. Orthogonality is a product of geometry, and geometry is a product of attempting to describe the real world.

Physicists make use of mathematics because mathematics have been designed and refined for millennia in order to describe the world. When we've spent thousands of years developing a language by which to describe the world. We should not be surprised that it is extensively utilized for that purpose.

Physical laws are human constructs, which seek to describe the regularities observable in nature.
I quite agree! In fact, that was rather the point I was trying to make.
 
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The fact that it is a mathematical concept does not preclude it from being a physical property. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts. Orthogonality is a product of geometry, and geometry is a product of attempting to describe the real world.

Physical properties are things like mass, velocity and charge. Vectors are not part of physical reality.

Also, although the concept of orthogonality may have had its origins in geometry, the idea of a vector space has since been greatly generalised. In quantum mechanics you come across orthogonal vectors in Hilbert Space (also borrowed from mathematics). The vectors there are mathematical functions.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
XD when you interpret each day as spanning billions of years of actual time, do you really get to call yourself YEC?

Yes, since we are living today on the 6th Day/Age of Creation in God's time. God has but 7 Days or (yowm-periods of time) and the 7th is Eternity since it has no end, no evening, and God rests from ALL of His work of creating then as Gen 2:2 and Gen 2:3 Repeat. Good to see you again Sarah.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then I get to call my grandma young, as she has lived less than a day XD XD XD
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist

Amen. Jesus took some of the heaven/air, earth/dust and water, which God created or brought into the physical world from things which do not appear, BEFORE the First Day Gen 1:1-2 and inflated it on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 It cooled and formed our Cosmos. The ONLY explanation is that God wrote Genesis since NO man of the time could have possibly known this. It's Proof of the Literal God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
 
Upvote 0

Aman777

Christian
Jan 26, 2013
10,351
584
✟30,043.00
Faith
Baptist
Then I get to call my grandma young, as she has lived less than a day XD XD XD

Amen. You got it. ALL people live and die on the present 6th Day in the creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven. The 6th Day/Age began when Jesus made the beasts of the field and birds and Adam named them. Gen 2:19 This was BEFORE Eve was made. Gen 2:22

The 6th Day will end AFTER our Cosmos is burned for then ALL Christians will be present in the 3rd Heaven as the following verse shows:

Gen 2:1 ¶ Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, (brought to perfection) and ALL the host of them.

Christians are the next to the highest position of the host of heaven and destined to rule all other living creatures. Gen 1:28
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What position do angels hold then?
 
Upvote 0

Boxing Pythagoras

Active Member
Nov 10, 2015
32
8
42
✟22,702.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Physical properties are things like mass, velocity and charge. Vectors are not part of physical reality.
...velocity is a vector. You've just contradicted yourself. Angle is also a physical property, and orthogonality is a description of angle.

Also, although the concept of orthogonality may have had its origins in geometry, the idea of a vector space has since been greatly generalised.
Generalizing a concept does not make it any less a physical property.

In quantum mechanics you come across orthogonal vectors in Hilbert Space (also borrowed from mathematics). The vectors there are mathematical functions.
...and also, physical properties. Quantum Mechanics is a description of the physical world.

Also, Hilbert Space is not borrowed from mathematics. It is mathematics. Physics utilizes mathematics. These things don't cease to be mathematics when utilized by a physicist.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Intelligent design has no evidence to support it, and is hardly flawless even conceptually. Where does god come from, how does it have the power to create, etc.

Where does energy come from, how does it have the power to create, etc.?

Even in science energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but simply always existed. You have no problem with this concept - but have a problem with a being of pure energy - Mind - just always existing????

So it's ok for you not to have a first cause for energy, but you require a first cause for God? Sounds a little like refusing to apply your beliefs fairly to both sides of the equation if you ask me.


What gravity???? In GR gravity is not a force at all.

And then of course you are refusing to follow your own beliefs. The first form of matter was plasma - and after a claimed 13+ billion years - 99% of the universe is still plasma. Your conceptual flaws of the BB result from your refusal to treat plasma like plasma and attempting to apply gravitational theory to a state of matter to which it does not apply. Such is why in not one single plasma laboratory anywhere does any Plasma Physicist apply any physics but that of particle and electromagnetic theory to plasma. But we'll ignore those laboratory results, yes?

Gravitational theory applies only to solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems. That 1% of the universe that is not plasma. This is why outside of the solar system where such theory is 98% correct it suddenly becomes 96% incorrect and cosmologists require 96% ad-hoc pseudo-science in an attempt to sledgehammer gravitational theory to fit, despite claiming the same laws of physics apply everywhere.

Excuses to violate all of science are just that - excuses.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
...velocity is a vector. You've just contradicted yourself. Angle is also a physical property, and orthogonality is a description of angle.

No, a vector is used to model a physical thing called velocity, but there ar no lines with arrows on them floating around in space. For that matter, there are no coordinate axes either.


..and also, physical properties. Quantum Mechanics is a description of the physical world.

Quite right. It is a description, not the thing itself, and Hilbert Space is not part of the physical world, anymore than vectors are part of the physical world.


Also, Hilbert Space is not borrowed from mathematics. It is mathematics

Um no, mathematics is a lot more than Hilbert Space theory. Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Boxing Pythagoras

Active Member
Nov 10, 2015
32
8
42
✟22,702.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
No, a vector is used to model a physical thing called velocity, but there ar no lines with arrows on them floating around in space.
You're confusing the symbol used to represent a concept with the concept, itself. A mathematician should know better. Vectors are not "lines with arrows on them" any more than men are circles with arrows on them.

Quite right. It is a description, not the thing itself, and Hilbert Space is not part of the physical world, anymore than vectors are part of the physical world.
Right, Hilbert Space describes the physical world, just as vectors describe the physical world, just as orthogonality describes the physical world.

Um no, mathematics is a lot more than Hilbert Space theory. Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
At no point did I ever imply that Hilbert Space comprises the whole of mathematics. I said that physics makes use of mathematics.

<Staff Edit>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The problem that all of you will desperately try to avoid is that in every single equation for singularities - the energy momentum tensor is set to zero - declaring the fact that there exists no matter or source of the gravitational field outside of the singularity.

E's equations require that the energy momentum tensor be solved for every source of every gravitational field. Yet it is always set to zero - declaring there are no other sources for gravitational fields outside of the singularity.

It is this - and this only that made the BB a mathematically viable theory. Then you destroyed the theory by declaring that other singularities exist in the universe - despite all equations requiring a energy momentum tensor set to zero - declaring there is no other mass but that of the singularity.

As of this date no existence theorem nor solution for the equations have been found for two or more such masses - yet you postulate their existence by the billions - despite your math declaring their impossibility in numbers greater than 1. Singularity should of told you the answer long ago.

But because they attempted to sledgehammer gravitational theory to fit a universe that they claim started as plasma and 13+ billion years later is still 99% plasma - they required more mass because they ignored the electromagnetic force laws. So despite the math that declared they are alone in a universe devoid of all other matter, they decided to shove a singularity into the heart of every galaxy. But even with a free check to add infinite mass - rotation curves could not be explained.

And so the Fairie Dust of dark matter was born. But since so much mass had then been added - it would demand a collapsing universe - and so Fairie Dust dark energy was born to counteract the mass they had to shove in.

And all because cosmologists refuse to treat a universe 99% plasma like the plasma that it is. Treat it in opposition to every single laboratory experiment in every single plasma laboratory by plasma physicists. If you want to understand plasma behavior you go to a plasma physicist.

So the fact that they have been applying the wrong physics from the start has led them to apply ad-hoc theory after ad-hoc theory in their attempt to sledgehammer the wrong theory to the wrong states of matter. And as all of science understands - those clumps of matter can not be used to describe the behavior and charge of single particles - 99% of the universe - plasma.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."
 
Last edited:
Reactions: roasthawg
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You're confusing the symbol used to represent a concept with the concept, itself. A mathematician should know better. Vectors are not "lines with arrows on them" any more than men are circles with arrows on them.

Vectors in three space are a triple of three numbers (not to be found floating around in the air), and they only gain there meaning from a coordinate system (also not to be found floating in the air).

Right, Hilbert Space describes the physical world

What? You know what a Hilbert Space is? A field distributed over an ableism group, with a topology derived from a norm?
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others

<Staff Edit>You can't show me a single experiment where at the single particle level gravitational theory was applied - as you just admitted - not even chemically or in the atomic level or at the single particle level. And now you suddenly think that you can apply gravitational theory to plasma - which is composed of all single particles. <Staff Edit>

Stop attempting to deduce the behavior of single particles by clumps of matter - or their charge as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

Your strawman has failed and defeated you in return. You know quite well those clumps of matter - planetary systems - can not be used to deduce the behavior of single particles - but you keep trying to sledgehammer it to fit anyways - and then continuously have to propose more and more ad-hoc assumptions because you continuously attempt to apply physics for clumps of matter to single particles. When you know the science and know you can not do it.

And then want me to accept those 96% ad-hoc assumptions because you try to force single particles to behave like clumps of matter - when every single observation in every single laboratory tells you you can't do that. But they do so - you let them - and then accept their Fairie Dust excuses because they applied existing theory for clumps of matter to the wrong state of matter - those single particles.....

But I appreciate your proving my point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Boxing Pythagoras

Active Member
Nov 10, 2015
32
8
42
✟22,702.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Vectors in three space are a triple of three numbers (not to be found floating around in the air), and they only gain there meaning from a coordinate system (also not to be found floating in the air).
Again, you are confusing the symbols used to represent the concept with the actual concept.

What? You know what a Hilbert Space is? A field distributed over an ableism group, with a topology derived from a norm?
Yes, I know what a Hilbert Space is. It's fairly integral to non-Euclidean geometry, and is utilized in a number of different applications in physics. Are you attempting to imply that it does not describe the physical world?
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,654
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟119,577.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats

<Staff Edit>Nobody supposes that you have to take into account the gravitational field of every single star in the universe when using Newton's equations to calculate the Earth's orbit round the Sun. In fact you ignore all of them except one, and you get an approximation which is so close to being 100% accurate as to make no difference. The same kind of wholly sensible procedure is undertaken when doing calculations in General Relativity.

<Staff Edit>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
You're confusing the symbol used to represent a concept with the concept, itself. A mathematician should know better. Vectors are not "lines with arrows on them" any more than men are circles with arrows on them.

As a scientist would understand that field lines are not actually lines at all capable of connection and re-connection, but schematic representations of a condition existing within space indicating it's strength and direction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line

So what is a field composed of? Vectors?????
 
Upvote 0