Originally posted by FabianFnasRemove the science and religion thoughts and I have no doubt KJ is an intelligent individual. Religious conditioning is hard to break.
I've met these kind of people in many occations. On girl at the street tried to convince me the christian superiority. She claimed the intelligence behind the creation: "God created sun to shine at the day to give us wormth and light, and the moon at the night so it wouldn't be too dark!" Yeah, right, I bet she didn't even knew about the copernicus revolu ...[text shortened]... ering qeustions but accusing others not to answer his silly ones. But is he ignorant?
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm sure KJ is an intelligent and smart fellow.
Remove the science and religion thoughts and I have no doubt KJ is an intelligent individual. Religious conditioning is hard to break.
But I know him only by his anti-science views and his religion, sorry to say.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
[b]…Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
. …
This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reje ...[text shortened]... did
it come from? ......[/b] (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.[/b]
To reject this would be to reject the whole of modern science. "
A little over the top don’t you think? To reject this,
“You have a finite universe without bounds” is just
like rejecting the whole of modern science, I’d narrow
that down to just rejecting you cannot go in a strait
line and end up in the same place, science would still
be intact, and not rejected. You cannot have anything
that is both finite and boundless, they contradict each
other, that would be a like saying you have a round
square, just not true.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonKelly
[b]…Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
. …
This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reje ...[text shortened]... did
it come from? ......[/b] (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.[/b]
"…You have a starting place for your singularity where the state of it
changes due to extremely high energy density and time passes and "
it changes to the Bang!…
Andrew
"No, that is not what the theory says. The rapid expansion happened right from the start.
So there was never a time the Bang was not occurring? Stop and think
about that again will you, you have an ever expanding universe that
was always expanding into places that are not there, and at no time
was there a time before the bang, and this is sound logic to you.
What was the singularity supposed to be again, before it blew up? If
what you just said was true there was never anything, because the
Bang always was that leaves no time for the singularity at all! As soon
as you have no Bang, and just the singularity you have a constant
state of a universe that has no forces or lack of forces acting upon it,
and no areas to move into, and yet some forces within the singularity
causes it to explode, this is what your saying and you want to tell me
that there was no time during that state, I say again, logic error.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…So how did it start with that? .…
[b]…Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
. …
This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reje ...[text shortened]... did
it come from? ......[/b] (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.[/b]
Are you asking here what is the “cause”? I have already answered that.
You rejected your own answer too it seems to me as I am pointed out
in my other posts.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…WHERE again did
[b]…Wow, you need to step back and look at what you wrote.
You believe you can go into a straight line and end up in the same
place, as if the universe were a buggy video game.
You have a finite universe without bounds.
. …
This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reje ...[text shortened]... did
it come from? ......[/b] (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.[/b]
it come from? ...... (my emphasis)
There was no “WHERE” and it didn’t “come from”.
If it was sitting in nothing, it was still sitting in nothing, but as soon as
you have it sitting in nothing it isn't nothing any more because some
thing is there. If it was anything at all, it changed from one state
into another, before the change (the bang) time had to pass, because
there were changes and it was. During that point before the Bang, how
long was it like that, when did it start and why?
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedI'm obtuse and arrogant, stupid, or beyond you and you get all of that
I know you claim not to be "anti-science" KJ, but seriously alot of your posts do come across that way. If you were disagreeing and questioining a new idea with logic and reason, you would actually be a good scientist! It's part of the peer review process to question peoples work. But - here and in other threads you ignore vast and varied lines of eviden ...[text shortened]... ink you are anti-science, then provide some evidence when YOU CLAIM the science is wrong.
because I disagree with you and your beliefs about how you look at
the universe. I'd say you are are the arrogant one who assumes that
you have your logic so nicely wrapped up that anyone who disagrees
with you, automatically is attacking science! You are not that important.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayHow wrong you are. This is not something I personally made up; it is a SCIENTIFIC fact and is part of modern cosmology. Therefore, it isn’t “anti-science” but actual science.
"This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reject this would be to reject the whole of modern science. "
A little over the top don’t you think? To reject this,
“You have a finite universe without bounds” is just
like rejecting the whole of modern science, I’d narrow
that down to just rej ...[text shortened]... adict each
other, that would be a like saying you have a round
square, just not true.
Kelly
I got this from:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Start of the tenth paragraph down:
“I understand that many people have a problem with the idea of our universe being finite, that it has an 'end' to it, a boundary. They ask what this boundary would be physically like, as though it were some form of partition that we couldn't get through. However, there is not a particular direction that we could set off in our warp speed space craft that would lead us to a boundary, no matter how far or fast we travelled. The explanation for this seeming impossibility is that space-time is curved, thus you would be travelling in a circle that only appears to be a straight line”
-to be more precise, (and I leaned this at university when I did my physic courses) it is a straight line in 3-dimentions but a circle in the forth dimension.
Do you still deny that this is part of modern science?
Originally posted by KellyJay…Andrew
Kelly
"…You have a starting place for your singularity where the state of it
changes due to extremely high energy density and time passes and "
it changes to the Bang!…
Andrew
"No, that is not what the theory says. The rapid expansion happened right from the start.
So there was never a time the Bang was not occurring? Stop and think
about that ...[text shortened]... u want to tell me
that there was no time during that state, I say again, logic error.
Kelly
"No, that is not what the theory says. The rapid expansion happened right from the start.
So there was never a time the Bang was not occurring?
.…
Until it stopped occurring, yes. Obviously it is not occurring at the current time but the expansion is continuing.
…you have an ever expanding universe that
was always expanding into places that are not there..…
Wrong! It is NOT “expanding into places that are NOT there”; it is expanding as a result of space itself within it expanding. There are no boundaries expanding into some kind of new territory because the universe is finite but without boundaries.
…What was the singularity supposed to be again, before it blew up? If
what you just said was true there was never anything, because the
Bang always was that leaves no time for the singularity at all! ..…
What does that mean? that last sentence above is just gobbly goop to me. I think you may have made a misprint there.
Originally posted by KellyJayMost people on this site who read your posts come to the same conclusion KJ, you don't want to learn....... just antagonise.
I'm obtuse and arrogant, stupid, or beyond you and you get all of that
because I disagree with you and your beliefs about how you look at
the universe. I'd say you are are the arrogant one who assumes that
you have your logic so nicely wrapped up that anyone who disagrees
with you, automatically is attacking science! You are not that important.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, the point about finite but unbounded has a three dimensional analogy:
"This is not a new concept I just personally invented; this has long been established scientific fact.
To reject this would be to reject the whole of modern science. "
A little over the top don’t you think? To reject this,
“You have a finite universe without bounds” is just
like rejecting the whole of modern science, I’d narrow
that down to just rej ...[text shortened]... dict each
other, that would be a like saying you have a round
square, just not true.
Kellyq
The Earth itself. You would have to agree it's finite, right? You drill a hole deep enough and you pop up on the opposite side of the earth, say you start in Kansas, go straight down, you end up in china at the other end of the hole, right?
That is a one dimensional journey showing the finiteness of the Earth. But change that dimension of travel to go along the surface, like on a road and you can if you want to bad enough, build a road all the way round the equator, long bridges over the ocean, drilling tunnels through mountains, etc., and ending up with a roadway 25,000 miles long. Well that one is boundless, it's a circular path, if you start on a quest to find the end of it, you never will, you just keep coming back to where you started because it's a circular path. The universe is exactly the same, a big circle but a 4th or 5th dimensional circle so that if you are in a spacecraft going so close to the speed of light that time for you has sped up so much you see the journey from one end of the universe go by in one minute, every minute for you shows you coming back to the same place once a minute. Of course that represents a journey in real time of billions of years since it's billions of light years "across" but it's actually slightly curved and you will under that concept in the spacecraft keep coming back to the same place once a minute. Of course you won't see the same things each time because each return puts you some 50 billion years in the future or thereabouts. But the thing is by just going in a straight line like that, you can never escape from the universe because it is in fact finite, but unbounded, a higher dimensional analogy to being on the surface of a sphere like Earth. It's just a higher dimensional curve. A bit impossible to visualize but that's how it works.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh no, I'm quite ready to accept that if you draw a straight line
How wrong you are. This is not something I personally made up; it is a SCIENTIFIC fact and is part of modern cosmology. Therefore, it isn’t “anti-science” but actual science.
I got this from:
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
Start of the tenth paragraph down:
“I understand that many people have a problem with the ide ...[text shortened]... ut a circle in the forth dimension.
Do you still deny that this is part of modern science?
according to modern science you end up in the place you started
according to what they are teaching now. I guess I'm a little old
school, to me if you draw a circle you can end up in the same place,
but a straight line you pretty much just get father away from your
starting point.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's because you are thinking too close to the vest. This line we are talking about is billions of light years long. If you go in a straight line in the solar system, it would be just like drilling a hole in the earth, you end up just at the other side of the solar system. The line we are talking about is if you go out BILLIONS of light years away, you come back to where you started.
Oh no, I'm quite ready to accept that if you draw a straight line
according to modern science you end up in the place you started
according to what they are teaching now. I guess I'm a little old
school, to me if you draw a circle you can end up in the same place,
but a straight line you pretty much just get father away from your
starting point.
Kelly
You are dissapointing me, I thought you were well aware of science in general but just a severe sceptic but it's clear you have never even studied these concepts, considering you don't think you need them in your short sighted blinded into obedience life.
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, like I said a buggy video game is how you are bending that
That's because you are thinking too close to the vest. This line we are talking about is billions of light years long. If you go in a straight line in the solar system, it would be just like drilling a hole in the earth, you end up just at the other side of the solar system. The line we are talking about is if you go out BILLIONS of light years away, you co ...[text shortened]... considering you don't think you need them in your short sighted blinded into obedience life.
straight line to make do what you want. Small wonder your logic
seems reasonable if rules only apply when you want them too.
Kelly