Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038357 15-Jun-2018 15:34
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

nunz:

 

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

 

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

 

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

 

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married.  I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

 

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created ...

 

 

Firstly: -

 

There was only ooooooooone Ste-phen Haw-king!

 

There was only ooooooooone Ste-phen Haw-king!

 

Walking along, singing a song ...

 

Secondly, do you really think a bunch of vaguely intelligent hairless apes can figure out the origin of the universe?

 

Perhaps we can really only ever hope to understand enough to explain the phenomena we see around us.

 

Concepts like there being time before time and nothing expanding into something are obtuse and abstract.  But they are no worse than the competing explanations, which are cultural beliefs about the beginning of the universe.   Unlike most cultural beliefs, scientific theories on the origin of the universe do have some supporting evidence.

 

 

 

 

Nice troll. Considering all SH's theories are just that - theories - based on thought experiments, and considering the number of times he and others like him have changed their mind, you must admit they are throwing ideas against a wall and seeing what sticks (actually how long it takes to slide off). Every obstacle they come to they develop a new theory, spin up some maths to 'prove it' and then move on ignoring the fact the latest theory demolishes the old one - but still they cling onto them with the fervor of a drowning man grasping at straws.

 

Big bang single point. Big bang multi point. Big bang slowing down and contracting. Big bang accelerating.  Big bang where it came into existence at all places at once. Big bang yo yo theory and the list goes on.

 

 

 

Interestingly the one thing they seem to hang onto - and all agree - is that background radiation shows that all parts of the universe are moving away from our location at a similar rate - the same phenomena seen if the big bang started here on earth. They THEORISE - it will be viewed the same else where in the universe but at present the idea that God created everything and centered his attention on Earth is actually a more valid theory, based on current evidence, than the big bang else where theory.  that's not a religious argument, but one based on current observable phenomena.

 

 

 

Also interestingly - The bible stated time was created before other matter. 6-7000 years later the big bang theorists (e.g. SH) say time was created a few nano seconds into the big bang process. Wow - an old book describes the order of a big bang creation - without instruments to prove it. It almost seems they had knowledge from a greater source. That's again not a religious argument - but a provable (given textual samples and current theories) fact.

 

Oldest book in the bible - the earth is a sphere and hangs in space. Well before Galileo and others. Freaky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038358 15-Jun-2018 15:40
Send private message

Batman:

 

nunz:

 

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

 

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

 

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

 

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married.  I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

 

 

 

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created in the first few nano seconds of the big bang (say what? time was created in the first few nano seconds?? surely nano seconds are time? But that time didn't exist but it then created time ... umm Duh!!! Semantics. Lack of adequate vocabulary possibly)  Any hoo - There was nothing before as there was no before .

 

BUT  In order to have a big bang it had to come from somewhere. That some where has to exist outside our space time continuum / universe. That something could not be matter ( as we define matter in our universe) because matter did not exist until the universe started. The only thing it could be is energy - or some variant there of (I'll include spirit as a form of energy in my definition to stop the religious argument getting us off track).  

 

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum)  and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy.  It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

 

There are only two things in the universe (tai ho Christians - i said spirit = energy)  Energy and Mass. One didn't exist. The other had to in order to create Mass.

 

 

 

 

I think you should swing when you're winning. There was nothing in our known universe (to add context: before the big bang).

 

I'd like to know what else you know that nobody else knows.

 

 

please re-read. I said - no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

 

I didn't claim my knowledge against others.

 

I also said it may be lack of proper vocabulary.We have a semantics issue.

 

also I said - 'Hawking said'.  According to SH there was nothing and it exploded.  He said it, not me. go take it up with him.

 

 

 

 


 
 
 
 


chevrolux
4609 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #2038359 15-Jun-2018 15:42
Send private message

Guys lets stop arguing about "science".

 

We all know God created everything so let's just leave it at that.

 

 

 

.....

 

/sarcasm


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038360 15-Jun-2018 15:44
Send private message

jpoc:

 

nunz:

 

<snip>

 

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum)  and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy.  It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

 

<snip>

 

 

No plutonium formed at the big bang. Sorry. No theory of elements being created by alchemy either. Nothing heavier than Beryllium (which promptly decayed into Lithium) was created before we got stars and fusion.

 

Reading the wikiP pages on the big bang and related stuff would tell you a lot more about all of this.

 

 

 

 

How do we know that? - Another theory?

 

If that is the heaviest then  how did the rest get created?  alchemy was by definition committed to the creation of one substance from another. Sounds a lot like alchemy to me.


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038362 15-Jun-2018 15:48
Send private message

chevrolux:

 

Guys lets stop arguing about "science".

 

We all know God created everything so let's just leave it at that.

 

 

 

.....

 

/sarcasm

 

 

Its funny how the theist wanted to not talk religion but a-theists tend to snipe at cultural beliefs (e.g. our foundational beliefs - which are normally historically theistic ). God bugs the snot out of those who don't believe.

 

THAT is an interesting phenomena.

 

 


frankv
3936 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2038386 15-Jun-2018 16:34
Send private message

nunz:

 

 

 

 

 

Nice troll. Considering all SH's theories are just that - theories - based on thought experiments, and considering the number of times he and others like him have changed their mind, you must admit they are throwing ideas against a wall and seeing what sticks (actually how long it takes to slide off). Every obstacle they come to they develop a new theory, spin up some maths to 'prove it' and then move on ignoring the fact the latest theory demolishes the old one - but still they cling onto them with the fervor of a drowning man grasping at straws.

 

 

You just described the "Scientific Method", the best way that we know to improve our knowledge of the universe. How do *you* propose we determine whether there was a BB or not, or what was before it (if anything)?

 

 

Interestingly the one thing they seem to hang onto - and all agree - is that background radiation shows that all parts of the universe are moving away from our location at a similar rate - the same phenomena seen if the big bang started here on earth. They THEORISE - it will be viewed the same else where in the universe but at present the idea that God created everything and centered his attention on Earth is actually a more valid theory, based on current evidence, than the big bang else where theory.  that's not a religious argument, but one based on current observable phenomena.

 

 

It's certainly not true that "all parts of the universe are moving away from our location at a similar rate". Obviously, as Earth orbits the Sun elliptically, the Sun is moving *toward* the Earth twice a year. Unless you mean "the Solar System" by "our location". But that would argue against an Earth-centric creation.

 

So, can you point me to the evidence for this Earth-centric proposition? My understanding is that the Universe is expanding in relation to the Sun rather than the Earth. If the rest of the Universe does indeed move in an elliptical path relative to the Sun on a one year period, this would be a strong argument for GOd.

 

 

Also interestingly - The bible stated time was created before other matter. 6-7000 years later the big bang theorists (e.g. SH) say time was created a few nano seconds into the big bang process. Wow - an old book describes the order of a big bang creation - without instruments to prove it. It almost seems they had knowledge from a greater source. That's again not a religious argument - but a provable (given textual samples and current theories) fact.

 

Oldest book in the bible - the earth is a sphere and hangs in space. Well before Galileo and others. Freaky.

 

 

The Bible also talks about a circular pool, whose circumference is 3.0 times its diameter (1Kings 7:23). Either we have the value of pi wrong, in which case all the engineering and technology based on 3.14 is wrong so it must be miraculous to work, or the Bible is wrong. If one part of the Bible is wrong, clearly it's not 100% accurate and true.

 

Incidentally, the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere, and even knew it's diameter. Google Eratosthenes. Well before Galileo and others. Even before the Bible was written down. Freaky.

 

 


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038402 15-Jun-2018 17:43
Send private message

frankv:

 

nunz:

 

Nice troll. Considering all SH's theories are just that - theories - based on thought experiments, and considering the number of times he and others like him have changed their mind, you must admit they are throwing ideas against a wall and seeing what sticks (actually how long it takes to slide off). Every obstacle they come to they develop a new theory, spin up some maths to 'prove it' and then move on ignoring the fact the latest theory demolishes the old one - but still they cling onto them with the fervor of a drowning man grasping at straws.

 

 

You just described the "Scientific Method", the best way that we know to improve our knowledge of the universe. How do *you* propose we determine whether there was a BB or not, or what was before it (if anything)?

 

 

 

 

There is a difference between the scientific method and claiming god doesn't exist or evolution works or the universe was made this way (BASED ON YOUR CURRENT SCIENCE) - then not backing down from your position when the data you stood on was proved faulty.

 

The theory of evolution - as an example, from Darwin was somaform based. Shape and function. The tree of life was built on that basis. However genetics throws all sorts of curves and completely demolishes parts of darwinian tree of life. E.g. We are more closely related to some marsupials than we are to some mammals. People like Dawkins, who roast christians and theists using 'evidence' from Darwinistic evolutionary theory - have not gone - oh crud. our foundation has crumbled. We were so cock sure about ourselves but now our foundation is gone - we might have to rethink. Instead they switch platforms and continue their rants as if nothing changed. Ditto big bang theories.

 

My argument is that 'scientists' claim to be right - even when the foundation they claim is truth backing up their stance - changes or crumbles. There have been multiple big bang theories. Hubble's telescope threw confusion into science when it discovered something like the universe wasn't slowing down or the edge wasn't where it was expected to be. Anti theists claims got demolished (which does not prove theists correct).

 

But they then jumped on the next band wagon with the same tune. THAT is BAD SCIENCE!! I'm not against theories. I'm against the fact that people build religions based on their ideas, throw all sorts of ideas to prove they are correct, change 'facts'(sic) to prove they are correct but don't reconsider when their theories fail.

 

For example: Measuring background radiation / light shifts etc shows uniform distribution across the universe, in a way that makes it look like the earth is at the centre of the big bang - everything moving away. However rather than saying - wow that's and interesting FACT SH said things like - of course no matter where you are in the universe it will look like you were the center and everything is moving away. That's conjecture. Not fact. But he makes claims about God based on ever changing ideas. That is very unscientific

 

"That’s exactly what Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson discovered back in 1965, using the Holmdel Horn Antenna, shown above. They saw a uniform amount of microwave radiation coming from all directions in the sky, hovering right around 3 Kelvin, with no apparent changes in different directions." ( https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-science-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-1c61cac397fc )

 

Ironically Christians look more scientific as their 'fact' doesn't change. "They point at the bible and go - revelation of God. There has been no credible work that faults it."

 

 

 

Again - take your argument - diameter of 10 doesn't produce a circumference of 30 - (it produces a circumference of 31.41 )  That's a bad argument. if you want me to think the bible is fallible you will have to do far better than that. Why?

 

1 - Bible has different genre in it (historical, documentary, prophesy, poetry, prescriptive instruction etc) The piece you quote is not God sayeth stuff. It is an historical book with an historical account.  Recently some said the bible was bad as it records that Jacob wanted his daughter in law burnt at the stake. Same faulty argument - mistaking historical record of actions taken by a person with law and pronouncement stuff.  This is historical record. not God speaketh.

 

2 - The words 'about' are used in that passage. The circumference was about 30 cubits if the diameter was 10 cubits. Also it was roundish in shape - not a perfect circle.

 

3 - The passage describes a laymans description. Even today if you asked what size circumference a swimming pool of 10m across would be - I'ld say about 30m. Unless of course I was an A type personality with some kind of disorder at which point i would say, the circumference would be  31.4159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 ... meters and bore you to death. If you want the bible to be accurate  maybe it should be a book with unlimited pages spelling out the perfect circumference of 10 x pi which has no end. Think about it. your argument makes no sense. historically, practically or literally.

 

 

It's certainly not true that "all parts of the universe are moving away from our location at a similar rate". Obviously, as Earth orbits the Sun elliptically, the Sun is moving *toward* the Earth twice a year. Unless you mean "the Solar System" by "our location". But that would argue against an Earth-centric creation.

 

So, can you point me to the evidence for this Earth-centric proposition? My understanding is that the Universe is expanding in relation to the Sun rather than the Earth. If the rest of the Universe does indeed move in an elliptical path relative to the Sun on a one year period, this would be a strong argument for GOd.

 

 

Nit picking. Our part of the universe looks like it is moving away from all other parts of the universe at a steady rate etc etc.  See above as a starter for ten. (Penzias and Wilson)

 

 

Incidentally, the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere, and even knew it's diameter. Google Eratosthenes. Well before Galileo and others. Even before the Bible was written down. Freaky.

 

 

Seriously? you think the Eratosthenes( 300BC ) predates the book of Job (2000bc?)  Hmm - scientific theory goes boink!!!  BTW - dont try to use wikis dates for authorship with me - most of that is utter crap from revisionists whose internal logic is so faulty as to be - well laughable. They claim the book of the law read out pre 850bc was authored after 400bc - and other such nonsense.

 

 


 
 
 
 


Batman
Mad Scientist
23064 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2038490 16-Jun-2018 08:09
Send private message

nunz:

Batman:


nunz:


no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.


Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.


There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.


That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married.  I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.


 


Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created in the first few nano seconds of the big bang (say what? time was created in the first few nano seconds?? surely nano seconds are time? But that time didn't exist but it then created time ... umm Duh!!! Semantics. Lack of adequate vocabulary possibly)  Any hoo - There was nothing before as there was no before .


BUT  In order to have a big bang it had to come from somewhere. That some where has to exist outside our space time continuum / universe. That something could not be matter ( as we define matter in our universe) because matter did not exist until the universe started. The only thing it could be is energy - or some variant there of (I'll include spirit as a form of energy in my definition to stop the religious argument getting us off track).  


According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum)  and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy.  It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.


There are only two things in the universe (tai ho Christians - i said spirit = energy)  Energy and Mass. One didn't exist. The other had to in order to create Mass.


 



I think you should swing when you're winning. There was nothing in our known universe (to add context: before the big bang).


I'd like to know what else you know that nobody else knows.



please re-read. I said - no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.


I didn't claim my knowledge against others.


I also said it may be lack of proper vocabulary.We have a semantics issue.


also I said - 'Hawking said'.  According to SH there was nothing and it exploded.  He said it, not me. go take it up with him.


 


 



Ok good, now we both agree that there was nothing, and nothing exploded into many things. Glad we're now on the same page.

PS, IMHO the sciences of the unknown universes are more science fiction than science, so let's not go there and talk about then as science. But yes, the fantasies and imaginations are fascinating.




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038637 16-Jun-2018 12:59
Send private message

Batman:
nunz:

 

Batman:

 

 

 

nunz:

 

 

 

no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

 

 

 

Seriously - take a slow look at that idea that there was nothing and it exploded. Look up nothing in a dictionary. Meditate on it for a while.

 

 

 

There was nothing (no thing) That thing that didn't exist exploded according to someone. That's ludicrous. There had to be something.

 

 

 

That's dumber than saying my imaginary girlfriend and I are getting married.  I dont have a girl friend so I cant get married. I got shot dead by a bullet that doesn't exist. My trillion imaginary dollars and I are going to buy the whole of planet earth. My gi-normous brain, whose IQ is 1 billion - just proved it doesn't exist and so I've just disappeared.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawkings thought that there was no 'before time' as time was created in the first few nano seconds of the big bang (say what? time was created in the first few nano seconds?? surely nano seconds are time? But that time didn't exist but it then created time ... umm Duh!!! Semantics. Lack of adequate vocabulary possibly)  Any hoo - There was nothing before as there was no before .

 

 

 

BUT  In order to have a big bang it had to come from somewhere. That some where has to exist outside our space time continuum / universe. That something could not be matter ( as we define matter in our universe) because matter did not exist until the universe started. The only thing it could be is energy - or some variant there of (I'll include spirit as a form of energy in my definition to stop the religious argument getting us off track).  

 

 

 

According to Hawkings that ball had to be quantum (or deeper than quantum)  and it created matter as it went. E.g. if all matter was in that ball - then critical mass would be instantly achieved as all the plutonium etc formed super critical mass. However it didn't. According to theory, elements (possibly including hydrogen) where created in some kind of alchemy.  It was achieved by energy (quantum energy?) but not mass as we know it.

 

 

 

There are only two things in the universe (tai ho Christians - i said spirit = energy)  Energy and Mass. One didn't exist. The other had to in order to create Mass.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you should swing when you're winning. There was nothing in our known universe (to add context: before the big bang).

 

 

 

I'd like to know what else you know that nobody else knows.

 

 

 

 

please re-read. I said - no - all the theories say there was nothing in our known universe.

 

 

 

I didn't claim my knowledge against others.

 

I also said it may be lack of proper vocabulary.We have a semantics issue.

 

also I said - 'Hawking said'.  According to SH there was nothing and it exploded.  He said it, not me. go take it up with him.

 



Ok good, now we both agree that there was nothing, and nothing exploded into many things. Glad we're now on the same page.

PS, IMHO the sciences of the unknown universes are more science fiction than science, so let's not go there and talk about then as science. But yes, the fantasies and imaginations are fascinating.

 

Reading some of SH latest thoughts - that we are 6 dimensional universe and our 3D universe which travels through the 4th dimension (time) was the result of interactions in the 5th and sixth dimensions.

 

It would certainly scream out the possibility that there was at least one sentient being / consciousness in the 5th and 6th dimensions who could possibly be the cause of our universe. 

 

Hawking / others are illogical at this point. They claim there must be life in other parts of our universe (the chance of a random act of the creation of life in one part part of the universe argues there must be life in other parts - the chances are too improbable there isn't if you believe in random acts of life springing up vis a vis evolution or other phenomena. ) 

 

But they then deny that 'God' / 'god' a 5th or 6th dimensional being can exist. Surely if there is life in our tiny universe that floats in 5th and 6th dimensional space (limited by time) then the chance of life in all the 5th and 6th dimensions must be hugely higher as 5d and 6d are so much more vast and varied. Also they don't have the restriction of time to hold back their infinite probability.

 

 

 

Hawking and others very logic screams out the possibility of a higher consciousness - that we might call God. But they deny their own internal logic by denying the possibility while promoting the improbability of there not being life on other planets.

 

 


frankv
3936 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2038662 16-Jun-2018 13:51
Send private message

nunz:

 

It would certainly scream out the possibility that there was at least one sentient being / consciousness in the 5th and 6th dimensions who could possibly be the cause of our universe. 

 

 

It screams out no such thing. Conceivably, there *could* be a sentient god in the other dimension. But there's no evidence either way. There could equally be a cat called Robert in the act of eating a bird called Fred, of which our universe is but one atom in a wingtip feather.

 

Hawking / others are illogical at this point. They claim there must be life in other parts of our universe (the chance of a random act of the creation of life in one part part of the universe argues there must be life in other parts - the chances are too improbable there isn't if you believe in random acts of life springing up vis a vis evolution or other phenomena. ) 

 

 

You're making things up, or you've absorbed some pseudo-scientific babble from some other source. SH and others of his ilk don't say that there *must* be life elsewhere in our universe. Just that it would be sensible to assume that it does, because the chances of no other life in our universe is astronomically small.

 

 

But they then deny that 'God' / 'god' a 5th or 6th dimensional being can exist. Surely if there is life in our tiny universe that floats in 5th and 6th dimensional space (limited by time) then the chance of life in all the 5th and 6th dimensions must be hugely higher as 5d and 6d are so much more vast and varied. Also they don't have the restriction of time to hold back their infinite probability.

 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if there is a god or even life in the 5th or 6th dimensions, or in other universes. If it doesn't impact our universe (i.e. we can't detect it) then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. The whole concept is completely irrelevant.

 

 


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038697 16-Jun-2018 15:26
Send private message

frankv:

 

nunz:

 

It would certainly scream out the possibility that there was at least one sentient being / consciousness in the 5th and 6th dimensions who could possibly be the cause of our universe. 

 

 

It screams out no such thing. Conceivably, there *could* be a sentient god in the other dimension. But there's no evidence either way. There could equally be a cat called Robert in the act of eating a bird called Fred, of which our universe is but one atom in a wingtip feather.

 

Hawking / others are illogical at this point. They claim there must be life in other parts of our universe (the chance of a random act of the creation of life in one part part of the universe argues there must be life in other parts - the chances are too improbable there isn't if you believe in random acts of life springing up vis a vis evolution or other phenomena. ) 

 

 

You're making things up, or you've absorbed some pseudo-scientific babble from some other source. SH and others of his ilk don't say that there *must* be life elsewhere in our universe. Just that it would be sensible to assume that it does, because the chances of no other life in our universe is astronomically small.

 

 

But they then deny that 'God' / 'god' a 5th or 6th dimensional being can exist. Surely if there is life in our tiny universe that floats in 5th and 6th dimensional space (limited by time) then the chance of life in all the 5th and 6th dimensions must be hugely higher as 5d and 6d are so much more vast and varied. Also they don't have the restriction of time to hold back their infinite probability.

 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if there is a god or even life in the 5th or 6th dimensions, or in other universes. If it doesn't impact our universe (i.e. we can't detect it) then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. The whole concept is completely irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

You say > It does not screamout there will be other life in the 5th and 6th dimensions. Then you say: "...because the chances of no other life in our universe is astronomically small."  T

 

That seems a logical contradiction.

 

If the chance of no other life in our universe is astronomically small - then it it pretty much a sure thing. Hawking once compared statistically improbable to a dead certainty. He knew that astronomically small is close enough to 'most probably'.   I would take a game of russian roulette with an astronomically small chance of dying any day.  I would be naturally dead by the time my chamber came around.

 

Apply astronomically small and multiply it by the improbably larger size of 5th / 6th dimensions and astronomically small is pretty much dead certain. The difference between the two are far to small to differentiate. no one would give you good odds against astronomically small multiplied by 5th and 6th dimensions. - or even without 5th and 6th dimensions.

 

 

 

So using YOUR logic - if the chance of life in 5th / 6th dimension is astronomically high (logical parallel to your statement ) and if that being made our universe happen (something did according to SH), then it would definitely matter if there were such a being. If it made us, if it caused us,  or if it was aware of us and is far more powerful than we are - it is vitally important to figure out the who, what and why of its interrelationships with us.  Ignoring massive power with the ability to alter us irrevocably is escapism. For our very survival we should be aware nad understand.

 

As for it not impacting our universe: something made us from the 6th dimension. that's impact. The laws of 5th / 6th dimension control us (according to SH we can only continue to expand by making space to expand into and to do that we interact with energies outside our 3/4d universe - that's impact).  

 

Even if it was a 6th / 5th dimensional random accident, we should surely want to know a 5th 6th dimensional being who can help / protect us. If it was a 5th / 6th D being that did it on purpose then it definitely had an impact on our universe. It made us after all.

 

 

 

 


Batman
Mad Scientist
23064 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2038706 16-Jun-2018 15:47
Send private message

I don't see any point in arguing fervently about the unknown. There may well be something in the unknown realms, there may well be none. You can choose to believe in either one. But please don't call theists/atheists morons and vice versa - that would be very unfair.




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


nunz
1423 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #2038712 16-Jun-2018 15:55
Send private message

Batman: I don't see any point in arguing fervently about the unknown. There may well be something in the unknown realms, there may well be none. You can choose to believe in either one. But please don't call theists/atheists morons and vice versa - that would be very unfair.

 

 

 

Never did. Said there was a logical inconsistency in their logic. Everyone has the right to their opinions - no matter how wrong I think they are :b

 

I'm equally likely to argue with some of the intelligent creationism stuff as SH and logical inconsistency.

 

 

 

I never called you or anyone else a moron - so am surprised by your response.  old school geekism actually says i am honoring you by taking time to disagree. The worst insult I can offer up is to ignore you all together.

 

 

 

Modern society seems to think disagreeing is rude some how. it's not.  It is the foundation of our freedom. Respect in diversity. Unity in difference. 

 

 


Batman
Mad Scientist
23064 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #2038724 16-Jun-2018 17:29
Send private message

Sorry didn't direct it at anyone. Was trying to prevent the thread getting out of hand. Creative discussion most welcome!




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


frankv
3936 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #2038739 16-Jun-2018 18:01
Send private message

nunz:

 

Hawking once compared statistically improbable to a dead certainty. He knew that astronomically small is close enough to 'most probably'.  

 

 

Citation? Comparing statistically improbable to a dead certainty is not saying it is the same thing.  Yes, astronomically small is close enough to 'most probably', but it is entirely different from 'certainly'.

 

 

Apply astronomically small and multiply it by the improbably larger size of 5th / 6th dimensions and astronomically small is pretty much dead certain. The difference between the two are far to small to differentiate. no one would give you good odds against astronomically small multiplied by 5th and 6th dimensions. - or even without 5th and 6th dimensions.

 

So using YOUR logic - if the chance of life in 5th / 6th dimension is astronomically high (logical parallel to your statement ) and if that being made our universe happen (something did according to SH), then it would definitely matter if there were such a being. If it made us, if it caused us,  or if it was aware of us and is far more powerful than we are - it is vitally important to figure out the who, what and why of its interrelationships with us.  Ignoring massive power with the ability to alter us irrevocably is escapism. For our very survival we should be aware nad understand.

 

 

Given that we know nothing about 5th and 6th dimensions, any discussion about whether life exists there will always down to "Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't" -- it's just speculation and pretty pointless. Speculating further that this life is sentient, and further yet that it created us, further yet that it can even sense us, and even more so that it intended to create us is sophistry.

 

 

As for it not impacting our universe: something made us from the 6th dimension. that's impact.

It's pure supposition that "something" made us. There's no evidence. It's no more credible than an explosion of nothing creating matter and time.

 

Even if it was a 6th / 5th dimensional random accident, we should surely want to know a 5th 6th dimensional being who can help / protect us. If it was a 5th / 6th D being that did it on purpose then it definitely had an impact on our universe.

 

 

Whilst it would be nice if there was a kindly benevolent 6D being who looks after us, it's just wishful thinking. There is NO evidence.

 

 

It made us after all.

 

 

You say that like it's a presupposition. There's no evidence of it, there's no evidence of "making". There's just us.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News »

Huawei introduces new features to Petal Search, Maps and Docs
Posted 26-Oct-2020 18:05


Nanoleaf enhances lighting line with launch of Triangles and Mini Triangles
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:18


Synology unveils DS16211+
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:12


Ingram Micro introduces FootfallCam to New Zealand channel
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:06


Dropbox adopts Virtual First working policy
Posted 17-Oct-2020 19:47


OPPO announces Reno4 Series 5G line-up in NZ
Posted 16-Oct-2020 08:52


Microsoft Highway to a Hundred expands to Asia Pacific
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:34


Spark turns on 5G in Auckland
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:29


AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors
Posted 9-Oct-2020 10:13


Teletrac Navman launches integrated multi-camera solution for transport and logistics industry
Posted 8-Oct-2020 10:57


Farmside hits 10,000 RBI customers
Posted 7-Oct-2020 15:32


NordVPN starts deploying colocated servers
Posted 7-Oct-2020 09:00


Google introduces Nest Wifi routers in New Zealand
Posted 7-Oct-2020 05:00


Orcon to bundle Google Nest Wifi router with new accounts
Posted 7-Oct-2020 05:00


Epay and Centrapay partner to create digital gift cards
Posted 2-Oct-2020 17:34









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.