A Higher Enlightenment
Member
I don't need to see the previous post; this is not a good argument that time exist in only our universe.Because it's part of the universe, see previous post.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't need to see the previous post; this is not a good argument that time exist in only our universe.Because it's part of the universe, see previous post.
This does not have to be the case, you should re-read the last few posted responses I have made, the idea that all of spacetime started with the Big Bang has been addressed. I have given a good example on why this is falsifiable, based on things we know to be factual, that this would otherwise contradict.Again, statements like this just don't make sense, asking 'when' when there is no time is incoherent. Nothing can happen when there is no time because that would mean a change, but change requires time. It almost forces you to see that it all has to start simultaneously.
You claim that I am confused, I respectfully decline this statement, in return propose the same for you.What causes cold? I'm beginning to think you don't know what heat is. If there's something that, in abundance we give a name to it, and if there's a dearth of this thing, we have another name for it, that doesn't mean the lack of that thing is a thing, we just have a name for that circumstance. Heat is the kinetic energy of a bunch of particles.
First off, there's a lot of talk about the singularity at the beginning of the big bang, that singularity is in the maths, it's unknown but doubtful if there's actually one back then or in back holes, we just don't know because the maths break down.
I don't think anyone has any idea what an actual physical singularity would be or mean.
Well, you should argue with GR because that's what it says.I addressed this in a previous message, and I am not convinced this is the case.
Like I said, you're confused, so confused you don't understand I explained all of this showing what you're trying to claim is nonsense. It really isn't worth my time to talk more, you don't seem to have the capacity to grasp very simple concepts. Take 'absence of heat will allow things to freeze', that isn't really right, if these things are below the freezing point, they will be frozen [I don't want to get into the exceptions like supercooling, it's not relevant]. There is no absence of heat, they're still chock full of heat. You do realize that the steel you're surrounded by is frozen. right? As is the white hot element in any incandescent light bulb? They're all frozen. I can't answer your question because it's simply incoherent, as I already made clear and just did again. Only something at absolute zero has an 'absence of heat'. I think you don't understand the difference between temperature and heat, see previous post, even though I explained how it's a category error to use heat and cold together as if they're comparable you did it again here. You seem able to string together words in a way that sounds like you must be intelligent but you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb. I can't waste any more time on this, it's futile, you can't or won't understand so why bother?You argued shadows don't exist for the same reason coldness does not exist these are your words.
I won't Quote the entire thing to save space, but what you're saying here is not true.
You claim that I am confused, I respectfully decline this statement, in return propose the same for you.
I can demonstrate My point with a question.
How can something that does not exist, have a physical effect on the material world.
Absence of heat will allow things to Freeze, the Presence of Heat will allow frozen things to thaw.
This is just one example; they have a Physical effect on a material world.
If you can answer this, then I will accept your counter to my previous arguments.
Again, when we speak of Heat, or Cold, there is the physical aspect of each and then there is the experience of each.
Things that have physical effect, on a physical world must be physical themselves, physical things exsist period!
The experience of the feeling of Hot or Cold, is what is subjective and is not Objective Reality.
In other words, my friend, Heat and Cold are both an Objective part of Reality, they are not subjective, they do not require Conscious/Awareness to be actual,
water will freeze in the absence of heat, regardless.
Haha ad hominem won't do, you wont answer the question because it's impossible, to answer with out proving your counter argument wrong, you would have to accept that. Instead you claim im confused and use insults, thats okay have a nice day hahaI can't answer your question because it's simply incoherent, as I already made clear and just did again. You seem able to string together words in a way that sounds like you must be intelligent but you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb. I can't waste any more time on this, it's futile, you can't or won't understand so why bother?
You don't even understand what an hominem is
you don't seem to have the capacity to grasp very simple concepts.
If this was an effort to attack the subject or the position I was maintaining rather than me, this was poorly done.you're clearly unable to grasp some very simple concepts so that makes you look kinda dumb.
That looks like you finally got around to looking ad hominem up but you're still confused, I think that must be a permanent state for you. It's not an ad hominem if the attack on the person isn't an attempt to claim you're right because that person is whatever the insult was, stupid, immoral, an asshole, etc. What I did was explain, over and over again, why you're wrong, when you just keep saying the same BS over and over again, that's what motivated the insults. The argument was over many posts ago, you're just too obstinately ignorant and dim to understand that.If this was an effort to attack the subject or the position I was maintaining rather than me, this was poorly done.
Word salad, None of this is consistent none of this is the least bit a valid argument none of this is “coherent”How many oranges do I have to add to 2 to get a number greater than New York City? I'm going to keep badgering you until you answer that question. I will ignore you if you try to tell me that the question makes no sense, it does to me. If you keep insisting on not answering it and explain why it isn't answerable, I will ignore that and insist it is answerable because I say it is. What would you think of someone who did that? Or insisted oranges and New York City could be added or compared to an integer? You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem
Very Well put together I applaud youYou don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem
You have not made a single valid argument. You simply just say something is without giving any argument behind it you claim shadows don’t exist for the same reason coldness don’t exist and I have given you several reasons why your claim is demonstrably false. And when I address what you said with good Arguments that demonstrate why they are false you don’t acknowledge it but rather resort to insults. The only thing that I’ve gotten out of anything you’ve wrote is that you claim I am wrong because I am somehow confused and because I am somehow confused and you believe yourself to not be confused on the subject that you are somehow more valid that your argument the one you have yet to provide, is somehow valid.Oh FFS, I told you you don't know what an ad hominem is, insulting someone is NOT an ad hominem. Why not look the fucking term up and see what it means instead of repeating your asinine claim? You also keep repeating that I didn't answer your question but I did, numerous times, by telling you it CAN'T ne answered! How many oranges do I have to add to 2 to get a number greater than New York City? I'm going to keep badgering you until you answer that question. I will ignore you if you try to tell me that the question makes no sense, it does to me. If you keep insisting on not answering it and explain why it isn't answerable, I will ignore that and insist it is answerable because I say it is. What would you think of someone who did that? Or insisted oranges and New York City could be added or compared to an integer? You don't even have the fucking sense to find out what heat and cold are. You're a ignorant dim POS and apparently proud of it. You're not wrong because you're an ignorant dim POS, you're an ignorant dim POS because you insist on being wrong. The first half of that sentence would be an ad hominem if I tried to claim that, the 2nd part is an insult by way of a simple observation and NOT an ad hominem.
That looks like you finally got around to looking ad hominem up but you're still confused, I think that must be a permanent state for you. It's not an ad hominem if the attack on the person isn't an attempt to claim you're right because that person is whatever the insult was, stupid, immoral, an asshole, etc. What I did was explain, over and over again, why you're wrong, when you just keep saying the same BS over and over again, that's what motivated the insults. The argument was over many posts ago, you're just too obstinately ignorant and dim to understand that.
Energy Cannot Exist Without Space and Time.
B.) If Energy cannot Exist outside of space and time, but Space and Time came into existence though the Big Bang, this automatically applies to Energy too.
As energy is dependent on the existence of Space and time.
Is A Dimmer Enlightenment always like this? I honestly can't fathom how he thinks. It's like dealing with a child with a vocabulary way too large for its age but then it doesn't actually know what most of the words mean.This thread is going exactly as predicted.
I will let you have your own beliefs you definitely did insult me that’s fine I don’t care.
I don’t have time for a dumpster fires this will be my last post here for this topic.
This is true, in our universe.1.) Energy, Space and Time Exist.
Stephen Hawking would disagree. He theorized that if we could go back far enough we would find a place where there was space, but no time or energy. Inside that space was what he referred to as Nothing. Not the absence of anything, but rather undefined quantum fluctuations that could spontaneously create pairs of virtual particles from itself. Most of those virtual particles collided and annihilated themselves. Rarely, however, two particles would become so separated they became real, energetic particles. Presumably, it was this random generation of energy from nothing that eventually built into the big bang.2.) Energy Cannot Exist Without Space and Time.
B.) If Energy cannot Exist outside of space and time, but Space and Time came into existence though the Big Bang, this automatically applies to Energy too.
As energy is dependent on the existence of Space and time.
Energy cannot be created in our universe, as far as we know. But for outside the existing universe, see above. There is at least one theory that claims otherwise.3.) Energy cannot be created.
A.) It is said our Universe as well as all of space and time, had a beginning, "The Big Bang"
However, If Energy Cannot be created then it does not have a beginning, and therefore Connot be a result of the Big Bang.
Again, this is a supposition. We don't have any proof of this.4.) If Energy was not a result of the Big Bang but is dependent on the existence of Space and Time.
This means Space and time are also not a result of the Big Bang.
As I've said before, Conservation of Energy, like all natural laws, only exists within the reference frame of our universe. These "laws" do not control the universe, merely describe what we have observed and proven to be true. Indeed, there are some physicists who question whether these laws even apply across the entire universe. Conservation of Energy can be violated by Relativity at the cosmological scale.So, either Conservation of Energy is wrong, or our understanding of Space and Time is far from accurate.