Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Deltaville's Brief History of Time - Part 1

Page 1 of 1 [ 10 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

20 Apr 2016, 8:20 pm

This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

21 Apr 2016, 3:35 am

@Mods

Please removes - Part one from the thread title. I have decided to post the second part once it is done on the same thread.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 112
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

28 Apr 2016, 10:11 pm

Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


May I ask when you began your PhD?
I hadn't noticed that in your sig. line until recently.
All the best in your pursuit of same.



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

29 Apr 2016, 11:57 am

Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


How do you explain ever increasing entropy?


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

30 Apr 2016, 10:11 am

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


How do you explain ever increasing entropy?


I am not sure what your question is. The fact that our universe began a finite time (13.8 billion years ago) is the reason why our universe is not at maximum entropy.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

30 Apr 2016, 10:18 am

slave wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


May I ask when you began your PhD?
I hadn't noticed that in your sig. line until recently.
All the best in your pursuit of same.


This month actually (April).


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 112
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

30 Apr 2016, 12:55 pm

Deltaville wrote:
slave wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


May I ask when you began your PhD?
I hadn't noticed that in your sig. line until recently.
All the best in your pursuit of same.


This month actually (April).


Congratulations.

May I inquire, what specific aspect of Theoretical Physics will you be focusing your research on?

Also, I'm curious about your foray into Law and then back again to Physics. It is very impressive to say the least, but quite an unlikely academic path. Did you find that you did not enjoy Law as much as you had hoped?

I knew a Social Worker that became a Lawyer and went back to SW 8O ....it does happen...it's just not terribly common given the tremendous commitment involved.

Anyway, I hope that you'll find fulfillment in your present endeavor. :)



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

30 Apr 2016, 1:35 pm

Deltaville wrote:
I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor

Hawking and like-thinkers say String Theory (specifically, application of the laws of probability) provides evidence of the multiverse.

Your response is not clear if you are debunking this application of String Theory, and if you are arguing, that the laws of probability stop working at some point?

"Hawking and Mlodinow argue that modern string theory (in particular, the "M-theory" of Edward Witten) leads to a huge ensemble of universes (the multiverse), so that we should not be surprised that our particular universe is life-friendly -- however fantastic the odds, there are so many universes in this ensemble that one life-friendly universe (ours) is bound to appear somewhere (i.e., assuming the anthropic principle). They conclude, "If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3000 years. We will have found the grand design." [Hawking2010, pg. 181].
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/phi ... awking.php



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

02 May 2016, 5:52 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor

Hawking and like-thinkers say String Theory (specifically, application of the laws of probability) provides evidence of the multiverse.

Your response is not clear if you are debunking this application of String Theory, and if you are arguing, that the laws of probability stop working at some point?

"Hawking and Mlodinow argue that modern string theory (in particular, the "M-theory" of Edward Witten) leads to a huge ensemble of universes (the multiverse), so that we should not be surprised that our particular universe is life-friendly -- however fantastic the odds, there are so many universes in this ensemble that one life-friendly universe (ours) is bound to appear somewhere (i.e., assuming the anthropic principle). They conclude, "If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3000 years. We will have found the grand design." [Hawking2010, pg. 181].
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/phi ... awking.php


String landscape theory suffers from the following issues:
-> It is fundamentally untestable. Unless you have a particle accelerator the size of the Andromeda or the Milky Way.
-> When you cannot test something, it is no longer science, it is metaphysics at best.
-> The formation of new universes in itself requires higher ground meta-laws, which defeats the purpose of nullifying the anthropic principle, as you are left with even more fine tuning!
-> String theory is behind Quantum Loop Theory in amalgamating relativity and quantum physics, and it is much simpler and robust. As such, Occam's razor favors QLT.
-> "Some humbleness would be welcome here...A century or two hence...I expect that M-theory will seem as naïve to cosmologists of the future as we now find Pythagoras's cosmology of the harmony of the spheres" - Joe Silk


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

02 May 2016, 6:00 pm

slave wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
slave wrote:
Deltaville wrote:
This is a small guide to clear up some misconceptions in the thread 'Do you believe in God?' The main two arguments I have advanced are the impossibility of ex nihilo creation of the universe which I will discuss momentarily, and in the next part, why the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse is not a valid scientific endeavor. It will be divided into two parts, each given with their own thread.

PART 1

Creation from 'Nothing'

The following ideas come up very much from those who wish to eliminate God from creation in its entirety.
'
1) Myth#1 -11111+11111 or -1 + 1 = 0 = Free Universe or the Universe is the ultimate free 'lunch' nonsense/BS.

This is an idea advanced by some pseudo-intellectuals like Michio Kaku and Stephan Hawking. Unfortunately, this indicates that the two men are absolutely clueless about General Relativity. Our universe is essentially a closed system. That means Relativity tells us that it is completely impossible to determine how much energy a closed system (like our universe) contains, let alone the amount of it, or even the type of energy. Furthermore, this notion takes a further beating in the fact that a physicist will quickly run into chronological issues when confronted with idea. As energy can only be definable within an intangible length of time, it would take an infinite amount of time to generate any form of energy. That means, energy to exist within a said system, must be compeltely invariant to time, and thus such models will fail when embedded with a given time vector. Unless you use Wheeler-Dewitt which ignores time in its entirety, it will work! But of course the given notion is incorrect.

2) Myth#2 '...because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself.' - Hawking

Again Hawking ignores time variance, so essentially he defrauds his audience. If his idea was even remotely correct, our universe would already be in a heat death/big rip state and would have been eternal. BGV proves that this notion is not even remotely correct.

3) Myth#3 Quantum Flux generates universe(s) from nothing.

Again, anyone that studied quantum gravity or quantum loop theory will know the stupidity behind this notion. First and foremost, the atheist's worst enemy in physics a.k.a time variance returns, and is again confronted with the fact that for any virtual particle to emerge it must be generated from something known as a quantum vacuum. And a quantum vacuum is anything but nothing! In fact it is a pool of energy in which quantum flux can emerge from, and can form temporary virtual particles. And perhaps the most important notion to realize with this model is that translation of a quantum state to classical form is an extraordinarily difficult and misunderstood facet of theoretical physics, so it begs the question whether this 'quantum' flux model is of any use at all, for both theoretical and applied purposes in physics.


May I ask when you began your PhD?
I hadn't noticed that in your sig. line until recently.
All the best in your pursuit of same.


This month actually (April).


Congratulations.

May I inquire, what specific aspect of Theoretical Physics will you be focusing your research on?

Also, I'm curious about your foray into Law and then back again to Physics. It is very impressive to say the least, but quite an unlikely academic path. Did you find that you did not enjoy Law as much as you had hoped?

I knew a Social Worker that became a Lawyer and went back to SW 8O ....it does happen...it's just not terribly common given the tremendous commitment involved.

Anyway, I hope that you'll find fulfillment in your present endeavor. :)


My dissertation will be on the very early universe. I have decided to finish my doctorate, as my GPA was high enough to skip a Master's degree, and I had nothing better to do. :wink:


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck