fudgetusk

Members
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-1 Poor

About fudgetusk

  • Rank
    Quark
  1. Is the past infinite?

    Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you. Actually they all fall into one category: The idea that the universe has always existed. There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing. I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same. You are coming from the view that if it happens it is logical even if it goes against science and common sense. This is child logic. With an agenda. You cannot face the facts so you use semantics to try and win back the argument. All you are doing is demonstrating your fear. I have demonstrated that the universe came from nothing by the process of elimination. Again you say nothing of any substance. You are indulging in flim flam. just as most scientists do when they encounter things they cannot understand. >>The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts. Meaningless. If I can scratch SOME logic from this nonsensical statement you are saying nothing became zero energy? This is still something coming from nothing. Which is impossible and yet happened. >>They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science. If you truly understood what I am saying, which you clearly don't(won't?) then you would know I am right. Again you have failed to understand the problem. All the evidence is on this thread. There are only two options of where the universe came from. Strange is so without understanding that she/he thinks there are more. She does not get that all the theories fall into two ideas. But what can I expect from an internet forum. I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong. AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed. If you do not agree with this then PLEASE tell me the third option because nobody else has come up with one. There isn't one. We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing. FACT. But ignore all I've said and talk BS. Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.
  2. Why I am a determinist

    >>a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. We have that with QM. Hence theory is correct.
  3. Is the past infinite?

    You think you are countering my arguments...but are not. I have no idea what you think you are doing but you aren't actually saying anything. You fail to understand the basic concept of there being only two options for where we came from. Both illogical. For you to be right you need to prove that nothing can become something. The zero energy hypothesis is not nothing. It involves matter being cancelled out. The matter is still there. This is ersatz nothingness. Scientific flim flam. LOts of people fell for it. Not me. "The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]" I never said food ONLY goes in the mouth. Might I suggest a course in basic English? He was ruling out the idea of an infinite past. The other option must be true although still illogical. Ergo something insane happened. Beyond logic.illogical. I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories? Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.
  4. Is the past infinite?

    You seem to be getting hot under the collar. This always happens when I force people to see this issue. An Opinion can match logic. Therefore be logic. Logic does not have to be a fundamental law of physics. Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. einsten did not include eating food in his equations. In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.[1] In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed from one form to another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy >>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored) Which was? >>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to. http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/btbb/michio-kaku-beginning/ Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical. >>We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted. We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from. Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.
  5. Is the past infinite?

    An opinion can be logic. And the evidence backs me up. No scientist has explained where the universe came from yet. But we are straying from the point. if science says "something can come from nothing" then they are wrong. It is basic logic that something cannot come from nothing. I put across the point that science itself says you cannot create energy. Is science wrong?
  6. Is the past infinite?

    when I say nothing I mean absolute nothing. No void. No reality. No possibility of anything existing. I have a pal into physics and we have had arguments about this subject. He sees nothing illogical about the idea that the past is infinite. But he knows the only other answer is illogical. So he's backed into a corner. It's easier to believe in an infinite past because the idea boggles the mind. Then he can say "why is it illogical?" and there is no answer to give because it is just something that is obviously illogical. Like the number one being the number two.
  7. Is the past infinite?

    Science itself says that you cannot create energy. You seem to know your stuff. could you take a look at this thread please?
  8. Why I am a determinist

    hypothesis hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. theory ˈθɪəri/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Seems very similar. I of course did not provide any evidence or principles.
  9. Is the past infinite?

    When I say NOW I do not mean the now we are experiencing. Rather any NOW along the so called infinite timeline. I'm looking for examples of the universe acting illogically. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too. Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical. of course I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing." which leads us back to the other argument that the past is infinite. You can tell I've asked this question before. It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical. As for your explanation. The past cannot be found but it did exist. I do think time exists.
  10. Is the past infinite?

    Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.
  11. Why I am a determinist

    Too soon to decide what is going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.
  12. Well I've been mislead by a modern physics book then. Typical. I've been trying to understand this idea for years and the data keeps changing.
  13. A Question About the Double Split Experiment

    But why does it not collapse on the side of the screen? by being bisected it is coming into contact with the screen so it should collapse and not pass through the slits.
  14. That's physics from last year. I've started seeing new definitions . The uncertainty principle is explained by how we measure particles. By bouncing a photon off them it alters their position or speed depending on how you do it.
  15. Recommended Religious Reading

    Not a religious book so much but Michael Newton phd JOURNEY OF SOULS. He's a hypnotherapist who regresses people to points BETWEEN lives, when they were in heaven. Quasi science. good read though. gives a kind of form of religion. Nearest you'll find to being evidence based.