|
|
 | | From: | SDR | | Subject: | The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence of the universe] | | Date: | 22 Jan 2005 18:30:48 -0800 |
|
|
 | >From: Ralph Hertle (ralph.hertle@verizon.net)
>Subject: Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
>[vs. the eternal existence of the universe]
>Newsgroups: sci.physics, gac.physics.astronomy, sci.astro,
alt.astronomy, alt.sci.physics
>Date: 2005-01-22 09:23:50 PST
>S D Rodrian Wrote:
>"Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian"
>[clip]
>Isn't the premise of your subject one that necessitates
>that the Law of Cause and Effect is not operative.
Quite the opposite, my entire premise is that there are
no uncaused effects (I state quite plainly that existence
can NOT be all-or-nothing because there is no way for
Something to come from Nothing). I am trying to show
that never could there have been absolute Nothing (or,
that there was always Something). In other words, that
existence is not absolute but relativistic (an evolution
of a simpler form of Something into a more complex and
therefore "condensed" form of Something). Reread the
part where a higher density fills up a space with lower
density: that's how the World began (as the song says).
In other words:
Big Bang-ers are the ones who begin from nothing and
say Something came from it (although they use the smoke-
and-mirrors gimmick of making the Big Bang microscopic
so the rubes won't "see" that they're saying Something
came into existence from Nothingness--if they claimed that
the Big Bang started as a ball the size of the planet Venus
they're have something quite impossible to explain on their
hands, you see). I commend the latest "draping" of the Big
Bang as a pinhole from another dimension & other such
inventive nonsense, though... although, this falls into the
same dilemma that saying "God created man" creates: If
one is seeking the origin of it all one must now ask: "who
created God?" [Their latest rationalizations only make our
universe irrelevant in the quest for how "it all" came about
and one must now explain how all the other dimensions and
brainless branes came about.] I say chuck it all!
>In other words, if as you imply that there was nothing
>prior to the universe wouldn't it also be true that there
>would have been nothing existing that could have been
>a cause for everything.
You understand my point but assume I am arguing
against it! Goodness, where will it all end?!? Did I say
there were no Ford Fairlanes before the universe and did
you then think I meant that there were BMWs?... Read
and read again, eventually the meaning of the words will
penetrate your prejudice: Imagine YOU are the writer.
You make me feel like the peacock who is constantly asked
at parties: "Yes, but are you trying to come off as a peacock?"
> All causes are the result of the functioning properties of
> existents. There are no causes that spring from nothing.
> You logic simply doesn't follow.
Sir: I am a peacock! Perhaps if you didn't drink so much.
If I were trying to come off as a spider I'd have hairier legs.
> Nor can you prove such an origin. Where is your proof?
> You have none.
Don't all these tail feathers mean anything at all to you?
> My understanding is that the universe is. That is, that
> the universe exists having certain properties, and that it
> continues to exist. The Universe exists. That means that
> everything exists.
Look, see how I'm strutting about waving my huge tail.
See how I can make the chandelier dance just by shaking
my bootie at it... could a rat do that? Now, be reasonable!
> My definition of the universe is one that identifies the basic
> fact of the existence of everything: The universe is a
> continuing plurality of existents. That fact is provable, and
> that fact is implicit in every scientific experiment and scientific
> demonstration ever made.
I shall now black out the Sun with my technicolor tail.
Now I ask you, gov'nor: Could a mere chicken do that.... ?
> The concept is implies and identifies the continuity of existence.
> The universe is. The concept of eternity implies the continuity
> of existence. The universe is eternal in its existence. Ralph Hertle
Dear Ralphy, please visit the zoo. There will you see many,
many, many peacocks. Then please take a second look at me:
I hop about crying: Hoopteedoo! Hoopteedoo! Did you video-tape it?
The world is a funny place!
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
|
|
| | From: | Old Man | | Subject: | Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence of the universe] | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:15:50 -0600 |
|
|
|
"SDR" wrote in message
news:58087ec7.0501221830.7fd270b2@posting.google.com...
> >From: Ralph Hertle (ralph.hertle@verizon.net)
> Big Bang-ers are the ones who begin from nothing and
> say Something came from it (although they use the smoke-
> and-mirrors gimmick of making the Big Bang microscopic
> so the rubes won't "see" that they're saying Something
> came into existence from Nothingness--if they claimed that
> the Big Bang started as a ball the size of the planet Venus
> they're have something quite impossible to explain on their
> hands, you see).
Agreed. It's nonsense. Rodrian fabricates insubstantial
straw men.
The initial conditions of BBT are physically consistent
with those of the present whereof t = 0. Whereas the
"beginning", t ~ - 13.5 x 10^9 years, exists only as an
asymptote, the initial conditions of BBT are located on
the asymptotic curve.
One event follows another because causality runs no
faster than the speed of light.
The "beginning" exists on the boundaries of observable
space and time. Elsewhere and elsewhen are non-causal
to the observable Universe because they are out of space
and time.
[Old Man]
> S D Rodrian
|
|
| | From: | robert j. kolker | | Subject: | Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:31:49 -0500 |
|
|
|
SDR wrote:
>
>
> Quite the opposite, my entire premise is that there are
> no uncaused effects.
You mean that you have not seen an effect without a cause. Have you seen
every effect that ever was or will be? I doubt it. So how can you assert
that there are no effects with no cause?
It is true that when we see an effect we seek a cause, but seeking does
not guarantee either that we find what is sought or that what is sought
exists.
Bob Kolker
|
|
| | From: | Ralph Hertle | | Subject: | Re: The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian [vs. the eternal existence | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:49:22 GMT |
|
|
| SDR:
SDR wrote:
[clip all]
What can I possibly say; I have none of your gifts of polylogism, context
switching, nor obsfucation.
You use no factual, rational, or logical arguments, and instead you employ
the fallacy of the science of the errors of logic called the "appeal to
laughter".
Science replaced by humor is either incapable mysticism or inept lies and
immoral irresponsibility.
Having read all the appropriate literature and evaluated the relevant data,
I have concluded and said nothing more than the facts.
Ralph Hertle
|
|
|
