Sisyphus

urm.. so you agree plasma is a fire?? then, should the temperature in that glass increased?

Plasma is just ionized gas. It isn't necessarily hot, though the most straightforward way of producing it is making gas very hot. Fire is a particular chemical reaction - fuel combining with oxidizer and releasing heat, which in turn can ionize some of the gas around it, producing plasma. So no, plasma is not a fire. The entire surface of the sun is plasma (because it's so hot), but there is no fire there.

Here. In the early universe, light has only had time to travel from A to Earth (making that the perceived location of the CMBR), and everything is close together. In the present universe, light has had time to travel from D to Earth, and everything is farther apart. Where is the problem?

 

you didn't answer this one:

That galaxies were once twice the distance we are observing far away from each other. And that happened a few moments after the supposed BB. And the farther we go in observation, the more far away from each other are such galaxies. To me, it is incomprehensible. The closer we get to the BB time, the more far away are objects from each other. It should be the contrary, isn't it?

I still don't get why you think objects were farther apart in the past, so I'm not sure how to go about answering it.

Oh, I thought you knew everything.

It's a joke.

Of course.

 

UDFy-38135539 is 13,1 billions years away from the earth.

 

UDFy-38135539 is 0,6 billion year from the BB

 

The BB is 13,7 billions years away from the Earth.

 

That is what i call the BB range.

 

BTW when you say "It's everywhere at once." speaking about the BB: I don't know what you mean by that.

The BB is not 13.7 billion LY away. It happened 13.7 billion years ago, everywhere. When the universe became transparent after that, the light we call the CMBR was emitted, from everywhere. We could still see it today by looking at light that has traveled for 13.7 billion years. However, the only light that we can see that has been traveling for 13.7 billion years is from a spherical region that is currently 46 billion LY away, and was 40 million LY away at the time it was emitted.

The Big Bang has a range of 13,7 billion years.

I don't know what you mean by that.

Do it again. And again. And again.

You'll be out of range of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang would be a universal event. It doesn't have a range. It's everywhere at once.

I guess you ment billions, not millions.

No, I meant million. Light emitted at the time of the CMBR has traveled fro 13.7 billion years, and reached a point that was 40 million LY distant at the time of emission and 46 billion LY distant at the time of reception.

Take a sheet of paper and draw it.

Here.

13.7 billion years ago, when the CMBR was emitted, the two observers were 40 million LY apart.

For example, how is it possible that the CMBR has a radius in the first place?

It has a radius from our perspective. It isn't actually a sphere of stuff. An observer located at some point on our sphere of CMBR would see CMBR at our location, and also be centered inside a sphere. The BB was everywhere, not in a hollow shell around us.

Suppose that today, simultaneously in our reference frame, every star in the universe turned green. From then on, we would observe an expanding ball of green centered on ourselves, and so would every observer in the universe. Whether the metric of space increased, decreased, or stayed constant during that time would not change that fact.

I can go back in time (virtually) in several directions. I can go back in time and encounter galaxy UDFy-38135539 3,1 billions LY away. And I can go back in time through another galaxy, also 3,1 billions LY away, in the opposite direction. Those 2 galaxies are not close together, although they belong to the same past. And the further I go in the past, the further will be such galaxies.

Yes, and?

Are you claiming that if we could look at the "sphere" in an even further past, it was smaller and smaller?

I am claiming that the sphere gets bigger as much we go in the past.

The farther in the past you go, the greater the portion of the universe you are seeing. A particular portion of the universe was smaller farther in the past. The portion of the universe "inside" the CMBR has a radius of 46 billion LY. That portion at the time the CMBR was emitted had a radius of 40 million LY.

Light travels as waves, and those waves come in different wavelengths. The eye has several different kinds of receptors, which are most sensitive to different ranges of wavelength. You perceive different colors depending on the ratio of how strongly these different receptors are stimulated.

I'll tell you what i see.

This video is a travel at inimaginable speed IN THE PAST, for the first half, ant then a travel FORWARD IN TIME for the second half.

 

Back in time, what are we observing? An incommensurable sphere of about 13 10⁹ LY radius. Something big. Nothing to do with a singularity or nothing getting smaller, but something getting bigger & bigger as much we go back in time.

There is nothing contrary about this. To go "back in time" you have to go a farther distance away. There are more things far away than close, by simple geometry. We see what we would expect to see. (Which makes sense, since the theory is based on observations.)

_in order to put this "sphere" in place in only a few millions years, we need superluminal speed (according to inflation theory).

Superluminal motion isn't part of it. Objects do recede at speeds greater than C, but that would be true of any expansion whatsoever. (And it is in accordance with relativity, not contrary to it.)

_and we need suddenly to "observe" this "sphere" shrinking" (because we go backward in time) till it becomes a "singularity".

The "sphere" we observe was indeed much smaller when it emitted the light we are seeing than it is "now." The CMBR that we now see was emitted 40 million LY from us. The light has taken 13.7 billion years to reach us, and that matter is now about 46 billion LY from us.

A better approach would be to accept the two ideas independently, take them at face value and interpret them literally in context as they were intended.

 

 

 

Your argument is a straw man because you have changed the context. You neglected to use the phrases and meaning I used 1) the "process of storing information" using a computer, which has a very different meaning than "computer files" these two phrases are not interchangeable. 2) In referring to stored information I do not mean the file itself or I would have used that word. Instead it is more than the physical properties of the file and the molecular configuration of the storage media, rather it refers to the information conveyed by the low entropy memory configuration once interpreted for context and meaning.

I'm aware that you meant them differently, but you were arguing as if that wasn't the case, hence equivocation. Trace the argument:

Mr Skeptic: Perhaps you could copy memories.

cypress: You only think that because of an unreasonable faith in materialism.

Mr Skeptic: It's not faith and it's not that unreasonable, since everything we know of so far is materialistic. Like computer files.

cypress: No they're not! [metaphysical account of the physical activity of hard drives]

In context, it has to mean the same thing, or else your argument makes no sense except as pedantic contrarianism. The thread is a bit confused so I'll assume you're not doing it a purpose. If you were, it would be quite the lawyer trick!

If it isn't true or false, then what is it?

I suppose the implication is that it has to be one or the other, but it does not. For example, not every grammatically correct statement has meaning, even if it seems like it does.

You could also make the argument that it is simply false, because every statement implies its own truth. "It is true that we are on SFN," "it is a true statement that we are on SFN," or "this statement is true and we are on SFN" contains no more information than "we are on SFN." So the statement is equivalent to "this statement is true and this statement is false." This takes the form of "P and ~P," which is simply self-contradictory and false.

Wow, that's a steaming mess of a thread, and Severian was definitely treated unfairly. Only eventually did anyone get around to debating you instead of what they assumed your ulterior motives were, or what they seemed to think you said apparently without reading it.

I agree with Mr Skeptics suggestion. That thread was poisoned from the start and hopelessly confused by the time you joined it. Start a new one, nonconfrontationally as possible, and see what happens. Something like "Should the state be involved in marriage?" Don't call anyone out for behavior in the old thread, don't make it about religion/atheism, don't imply hypocrisy on the part of anyone. Just a polite, carefully laid out proposal, and see what happens.

Nobody here has any idea if this is achievable. There is no demonstrable process by which memories, ideas, thoughts or information is reducible to material so any belief that this were possible is purely metaphysical based on a prior commitment to materialism.

In a computer system, processes that store and retrieve information into memory holding material is not reducible to material nor is the stored information reducible to material. Likewise the processes and systems that store and retrieve our memories are not reducible to material, nor are the memories themselves.

These two quotes taken together seem to imply you think it is impossible to copy computer files.

You might not be able to copy a human mind because it might not be "reducible to material," but then computer files are also not "reducible to material." Since you obviously don't believe copying files is impossible, then you must mean this phrase in two different senses, and you are equivocating such that it is no longer clear what your actual point is, if anything.

How is p->q, ~q, ~p an argument?

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

I like how you use vanish/appear and hidden/revealed to distinguish materiality and experientiality. I also think it's funny that you compare quantum objects with superstition. More seriously, though, it alludes to an issue I've been think about lately which is what exactly "quantum" refers to. People sometimes use it to mean anything at the level of elementary particles, but that doesn't really make sense imo because "quantum" refers to quantification, which may refer to the fact that quantum theory deals in multiplicities of particles rather than particles individually. Originally, I think "quanta" referred to the discreet "packets" of energy that Max Planck found to occur in fixed amounts according to light frequency by studying black-body radiation. I would be curious to hear what people with more expertise in this matter have to say.

It literally means quantum. The study of physics at the level of discrete entities, as opposed to continuous values of classical physics.

Looks like a brand or stamp. Origin?

I don't know what you think I meant, but I was just saying that if you were able to look far enough in any direction, you would eventually be seeing the big bang. (And of course nothing farther than that.) You're not disagreeing with me.

 

 

In the OP, I think it is understandable that the Big Bang, if it were visible (we know it is not) should be BEHIND the UDFy-38135539 galaxy, and not in front of it.

Indeed. It would be the most distant thing in every direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539

 

The discussion (in the wiki article) is interesting.

Which part do you find interesting?

?

I assume it's a typo, and Martin meant 13.1, not 3.1.

A clone would unquestionably be a person, the way I use the word "person." That a single celled organism (zygote) could be considered a person but a fully conscious adult human could not be is a really confused philosophy, IMO.

Limited resources? Over population? When god comes he will restore all the parts of the earth we have messed up, used up, and covered up, not to mention let us live happily shoulder to shoulder and the more kids we have the greater the glory to god... Of course if he doesn't come back and restore everything we are fucked...

 

It all comes down to two basic choices, do we just let everything run to failure and wait for god to fix it or do we make long range plans to range in our population so we don't drown in our own excrement? Choose now, tomorrow maybe too late for either of them...

That does seem to be the real driver of this debate. My uncle is a Catholic priest, and he's said pretty much that. (Though the argument began while driving through a national park, with "look at all this 'overpopulated' empty space God has given us.") It's not just Catholics, obviously, or even just religious people (though it is mostly). It's between long term thinking, and short term thinking on the basis of "it's all over soon anyway." And what if we don't believe that we're going to be rescued like that? "Well, there's plenty of room in Hell too," he said.

Yes, and every living human being "has" about 6.6*10^22 cubic light years in the observable universe. The problem is that how tightly you can physically stack human bodies in a place is not the measure of whether it's overpopulated. It's how many you can sustainably support with a decent quality of life. And that's not even considering whether it is a good thing to wipe out every natural environment on Earth to support our continued existence.

I was a philosophy student and a science student, and I don't see how this could be a coherent "debate."