Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

The Meaning Of Life

Recommended Posts

Hi Eclipse

 

You’ll have to show me where you presented references by leading scientists unless you mean those linked in the Wikipedia article you pointed me to.

 

Yes you drew a picture which, as I pointed out last time, was in the wrong time scale to be useful here but you still haven’t related your picture to the standard picture used to consider these questions nor shown any understanding of your error.

 

Maybe another timeline would help at this point.  You started this discussion by suggesting that the limits of our knowledge was 3 Planck segments after the start of inflation.  You were still referring to that timing in your post 77 to this thread.  Please check back and see if I’m right.  That's the beauty of these discussion boards, the posts stay put so anyone can read back and check what was said. I pointed out that the limits of our knowledge was the end of the Planck epoch or Planck time after the initiation of the universe but before the beginning of inflation in post 29 to this thread.  Again please check back and see if what I’m saying is true.  Now for the first time that I can see anywhere in this thread in post 96 you have correctly stated that the limits to our knowledge is the end of the Planck Epoch after reading that Wikipedia article on this subject I suspect.  The very article you linked earlier that showed the timeline I’ve been trying to get you to understand since that post 29.  It seems you are capable of learning though not in admitting your errors.

 

So that timeline again

 

  • Post 29 Russell correctly pointed out the limits to our knowledge was the end of Planck Time or the end of the Planck Epoch.
  • Post 77 Eclipse was still incorrectly stating that the limits to our knowledge was 3 Planck segments after the start of inflation.  You still haven’t defined what a Planck segment is and I’ve never been able to find any physicist who uses this terminology.
  • Post 96 Eclipse finally correctly states that the limit to our knowledge is the end of the Planck Epoch.  Please scroll back everyone, read a few posts here and see if what I’m saying is true.

 

As for put up or shut up I agree. I present post 29 from me which correctly states this limit while I’d love to see you try to support your statements, show me a physicist who supports your stated view of 3 Planck segments after the start of inflation as the limits of our knowledge.

 

It’s an interesting twisting game you’ve been playing, you’ve come around to the view I expressed in post 29 after how many weeks and 67 posts to this discussion but now you wish to claim that it is you who have knowledge in this area.  There doesn’t seem to be anything else that needs saying at this point.  Thanks Eclipse, I’ve gained some interesting insights watching you play this game.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Put up or shut up Russell . The statement was simple and clear . And don't play stupid . Enough of your facetious and  duplicitous blather .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I’m not really sure how to answer that, in post 96 you finally agreed quite specifically with the statements I first made in post 29, that we can’t know what happened before the end of the Planck Epoch.  You’ve dropped the erroneous “3 Planck segments after the start of inflation” language you were using up until post 77.  Now that you have finally agreed specifically and exactly with what I said so many posts ago what exactly does your challenge mean?  What do you want me to “put up”?  Haven’t you shown by posting the Wikipedia articles, and the attached links, which restate my case from post 29 that there’s not much to talk about now?  Which bit of this are you not understanding Eclipse?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put up or shut up Russell . * Science knows nothing of what the conditions of the Universe were before the end of the Planck Epoch *.

 

Tell me what science knows , aside from theories , conjecture  and hypotheses .  Forget the previous posts , forget your foolishness and games in your previous posts . You understand the statement . So refute it , or take your over inflated ego out of the discussion .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Sorry again, I’m not sure what you want here.  You said “Science knows nothing of what the conditions of the Universe were before the end of the Planck Epoch” but that’s what I’ve been saying since post 29 so what do you want from me now.  You were the one who insisted till at least post 77 that the limits of our knowledge was later than that at three Planck segments after the start of inflation.  Remember that inflation started around 10000000 Planck Seconds after the end of the Planck Epoch and you were insisting that our knowledge was zero until three Planck Segments, whatever they are, later still.

 

Now you ask me to present evidence that contradicts the statements I first made 67 posts before you finally agreed that the end of the Planck Epoch was the limit of our knowledge.  I’m not aware of any such evidence or theory, that’s why I told you in post 29 that that was the limit to our knowledge.

 

Sorry but if you can’t read back through our posts and refute that then there’s nothing more to say on this one, you’ve finally restated my position from so many posts ago so you can hardly ask me for evidence that contradicts it now.  I know of no such evidence that’s why I hold that position as stated in post 29 to this thread.  The very position you finally accepted, apparently, in post 96.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't accept any part of your baloney statements Russell . You know that and I know that . It is all a matter of your inability to make a refute .

Now you're saying you agree ?  To what ? I doubt you know that yourself .

 

Go to post #12 genius , I stated science knows nothing about what conditions were - "before a very short fraction of time after the event that  started inflation" .

 

That point , beyond which science knows nothing has been referred to as, three planck segments , three planck seconds , T + 10 - 43 , T+ 10- 37 , and some physicists- one planck second .Nonetheless all information beyond that is unknown , and that was what I claimed to be scientific fact .

 

You disputed that , and I merely explained what that short period of time was , what it was refered to as , and made it quite clear, what the chronological point in the history of the Universe that was being referenced , beyond which laws of physics , mathematic equations  and quantum equations break down , ergo , science has only conjecture and theories .YOU disagreed .

 

Now you say that you agreed to my first statement ? LOLOL...why now Russell ? After all your blather and wasted bandwidth , you realize the fact , that my statement was correct , and now you're trying to weasel out of an answer . That is because you have no answer . Science truly does not know anything before that time  , but you chose to lie , use deception and play word games to construct your phony arguments . But now you agree ?  What rubbish Russell .

 

 Put up or shut up Russell . But you can't do either .

 

Go home boy , you're spent .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Please read back and it’s clear who’s confused here.  You stated in Post 12 that our knowledge was limited to “a small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation [sic]” which I took to mean after the start of inflation or around 10-36 of a second.  Please note you did not say "before a very short fraction of time after the event that started inflation" as you stated in this last post, in making that statement you misspoke.  You’re actual statement was far more in line with your later statements.  You explained in more detail in Post 28 that you meant “3 Planck segments after the inflation [sic]” which is a different time, that one’s about 10-33 of a second after the start of the universe. You then move the point back to “3 Planck time segments after the Inflation started [sic]” in Post 33.  That’s 10-36 of a second after the start of the universe.  On that time scale Planck Time is basically at zero or to be exact it’s 0.0000000001% of that time interval so you are orders of magnitude off.  It’s not till post 96 that you finally, correctly, state that the limit to our knowledge is the end of the Planck Epoch which is what I said in post 29.  Haven’t I pointed all of this out to you already?

 

So to sum up you started out by stating that our knowledge limit was shortly after 10-33 of a second after the start then you moved it to 10-36 of a second after it and finally in post 96 you move it back to the correct value 10-43 of a second.  Please read back if you don’t believe me.  Now who’s confused about this?  I’ve only ever given one time for it 10-43 of a second or the end of the Planck Epoch but you keep moving it around but now you want me to present evidence that we have knowledge before that time, the time I’ve been stating from the start was the limit to our knowledge.  Sorry that’s irrational.  If I had such information I wouldn’t hold 10-43 of a second to be the limit.  I have always claimed that we have insights into what occurred before the times you gave initially, 10-33 and 10-36 (plus “3 planck segments” whatever they are) but you’ve now agreed with my timing so I have no evidence that we have knowledge of what occurred before that as I’ve stated since the beginning of this.

 

Now in your latest post you state that the time of the limit of our knowledge is “three planck segments, three planck seconds , T + 10 - 43 , T+ 10- 37 … and- one planck second” which shows us your confusion in a sentence.  Do you understand that those times are orders of magnitude different?  The commonly agreed limit among scientists is 10-43 of a second.  That time is before 10-37 of a second, it’s before three Planck seconds and it’s before the beginning of inflation so it’s before any timing such as 3 Planck segments after inflation or after the start of inflation, it’s a very long time before that in the logarithmic timescale used to discuss this stuff.  If you want to be accurate you need to actually pick a time and be consistent.  That inconsistency and failure ot understand the timescales we were discussing is at the roof of your missunderstanding here.

 

Now for a challenge, you stated that “Now you say that you (Russell) agreed to my first statement ?” but you’ll have to support that because it’s not true.  Again read back and show me where I said that?  The first time you mentioned the correct time was Post 96 while I explained it to you in post 29. I’ve always agreed to 10-43 I stated that as the end of the Planck epoch early on but you didn’t untill very recently after, I suspect, you read that wikipedia article you pointed me at and finally got it.  Now the back peddling is starting as you try to defend all of your prior wild and dramatically contraictory statments on timing.

 

Good luck with that Ecplise.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah ,blah ,blah , Russell . You have nothing any different than the verbal tap dance you've been doing for a couple of weeks now .

 Wake up Russell , there is no challenge . You either come up wit a refutation or go home . Don't try playing dumb gain , you already wore it out .   Post # 12 posed the statement I made and you disagreed , that is what lead to this discussion .

 

 What does science know about the Universe before the end of the Planck Epoch ? Either you have something or you don't . Save your repetitious B.S. 

You fully understand what the Planck Epoch is , what science calls the end of the Planck Epoch , and the different terminologies which are all synonymous for that same period , and the variances among physicists whether 10 -47 , 10 -43 , or 10 -30 . And you know what was meant ,when I stated that science knows nothing before that very small fraction of time after whatever mechanism started the inflation . A grade school  student  could understand what that means and what that refers to .

 

Put up or shut up Russell .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Yes I see you still don’t get this, you lied about what you said in post 12, your actual statement was not amenable to your current claims.  The actual claims you’ve made have now ranged over 15 orders of magnitude, that’s the equivalent of guessing that a coke bottle contains 1 litre and that it simultaneously contains 1000000000000000 litres then complaining that I won’t agree that both figures are correct.  Can you not see how foolish that is?  Please look up what those figures mean!  Maybe a little maths will help you get this straight.  10-43 and 10-32 are very different numbers.  As for your latest addition 10-47 I’ve never even heard of it in discussions on this question for very specific reasons that number is so much smaller than the Planck scale as to be impossibly irrelevant here.  That difference is critical because you have claimed now that numbers from 10-32 through to 10-47 of a second and a few in between are the correct number.  Show me where I have ever said anything other than the limit was 10-43 of a second after the initiation of the universe, or the end of the Planck Epoch in other words, as I’ve shown where you have made claims covering a huge range of numbers. 

 

What was it you said “put up or shut up” or something like that.

 

And did you notice that you are still claiming that the limit is after whatever started inflation but in the standard view there is the Planck Epoch followed by the grand unification epoch which was then followed by the initiation of inflation at 10-36 of a second after the start of the universe long after the end of the Planck Epoch.  That wikipedia article you linked even explains this if you care to read it.

 

All the best Eclipse.

 

Russell

Edited by russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , run along boy . Your ego is bigger than your IQ . You've got nothing to refute the statement . If you read the Wikipedia explanation of the Planck Epoch and then return  with another of your verbal tap dances , then you had better bone up on your reading comprehension or have yourself checked for dyslexia .

 

The more you ramble on , the more you diminish yourself , you have no idea of what you're talking about .

  

Try learning a bit about the subject before you get yourself involved in a subject that's over your head .

  Go home boy , you're done .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I’m getting used to the ad hominem, zero content posts from you.  You claim I have no idea what I’m talking about but which one of us keeps posting nothing but confused rubbish and complaints?  Who is it who does not address the specific details of the arguments posted against them?  Who is it who does not even realize that pointing to moments in time 15 orders of magnitude apart as if they are the same moment is bordering on delusional if they are not simply too ignorant to understand the implications of their own stated claims.  I gave you specific numbers with comments which you can’t address apparently because I’ve been trying to get you to face up to them since the start of this.  If you can’t understand the numbers fine just say so and I’ll phrase it differently.  If you do understand them then you need to show everyone here that you do or show them, with evidence, that the numbers I’ve posted are wrong if that is your belief.  Can you do that Eclipse?  I suspect not given how long you’ve so far failed to do so.

 

On the Wikipedia article you suggest I should read again it states in part “In physical cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10−43 seconds (Planck time).”  Remember I first mentioned Planck Time specifically in Post 29 to this thread and have referenced 10-43 of a second repeatedly since.

 

You on the other hand you first mentioned the end of the Planck Epoch in post 96 to this same thread after talking about times after inflation (10-32 of a second) and a range of others which are all incorrect.

 

So that’s a repeat of the last time you asked me to read that article, it agrees exactly with what I said in post 29 and disagrees in detail with what you said when you claimed that the limit was “after the inflation” or “after the start of the Inflation” etc.  It does agree with 10-43 of a second, the end of the Planck Epoch, which you finally mentioned after you read that article in your post 96 to this thread.  Your latest addition 10-47 of a second is absurd given that it’s so far inside the Planck Time as to be meaningless.  You probably should know that if you understood any of this at all.

 

So who was it again who didn’t understand all this and keeps referring to multiple contradictory false times and who was it again who has only ever referred to one specific time as the limit, the time the Wikipedia article you pointed me to supports?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it up Russell , you haven't given any statement regarding what you think the state of the Universe was before the end of the Planck Epoch . Plenty of blather but no relevant or any thing close to relevant statement . You have no idea of what 10 -47 means do you ? Nor a Planck Segment .  Hit the books Russell before you make further a fool of yourself . You're in over your head boy .

 

Real simple Russell, what was before the Plank epoch .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the name Eclipse.

 

It alludes to the fact that there may be something obstructing your attempts to see the light.

 

Do you have a name for the celestial body responsible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

There are really only two possibilities here, either you don’t read what I write before you complain or you don’t understand it, which is it Eclipse?

 

I stated in Post 29 to this thread that we can’t know what happened before the end of the Planck Epoch yet you keep asking me to show you my evidence for our knowledge of what happened then.  You do understand, or you should, that that is an irrational request don’t you?  You have pointed to times up to 10000000000 times that long after the start of the universe and I can present you with details of what we know before those times but then you’ve posted that info yourself so that seems pointless.  We are now, since post 96, finally agreed on that apparently.  Yes it took you a while to catch up but at least you made it.

 

10-47 of a second is 1/10000 of the length of the Planck Epoch.  It’s a time that is deep within the quantum uncertainty of the Planck Epoch so it has no real meaning or do you have some information to present on that time?  So yes I understand what that time means but you don’t appear to though I stand to be corrected if you can present some evidence.

 

No I can’t say much about a “Planck Segment” as that’s not standard phraseology and doesn’t appear in any papers on cosmology that I’ve been able to find but if you have evidence to the contrary please present it.  This thread was the first hit in Google when I searched for it so it appears in here more often than it appears anywhere else.  That doesn’t say much for its general use in science as I said.  To be honest I suspect that you either misspoke or made it up but you are using correct phraseology now much of the time.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , Russell , I don't make things up . You're just twisting in the wind , and that wind supplied by your own B.S. and blather . You are not to be taken seriously , and there are examples of your baloney on other threads , like the little Kowala bear analogy to human rape , please Russell you are a dullard with a vocabulary .

 

In addition, your little dance and pathetic attempt to back peddle ,with Di-hydrogen Mon-oxide . You got called out on both , one worse than the other , but also putting up equally pathetic excuses .

 

Now you're wasting thousands of words to worm out of giving an answer . You whine about ad hominem attacks when in reality I'm just outing you for what you are . A  B.S. artist with an over-inflated ego , ashamed now at this point to  answer to, or refute my statement .

 

 You close with " to be honest ".....??  you are incapable of that Russell , that's the biggest joke with you .  So go ahead Russell , prove you're not a buffoon and simply tell me -

 

what  does science know about the Universe before the end of the Planck Epoch ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

You really don’t read what I write before you complain about it do you.  Remember I said that the limit of our knowledge was the end of the Planck Epoch and I’ve reiterated that repeatedly since, in other words I’ve claimed since this discussion started that we don’t know what happened before then.  It was you who said the limit of our knowledge was after inflation in one thread, that’s 100000000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch and we do know a bit about what happened before that as I keep pointing out.  Sorry but if you’re not actually going to read or if you are incapable of understanding what I’m writing we are not going to make progress here are we?

 

So in answer to your question “what  does science know about the Universe before the end of the Planck Epoch ?” I’ll repeat yet again, WE DON’T KNOW!!!  WE CAN’T KNOW, SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW what happened before the end of the Planck Epoch.  I keep saying that, I first started explaining it to you in post 29 and I’ve never deviated from it.

 

Now maybe you‘d like to support the claim that you made in one thread here earlier, in post 28 you claimed in your own words that “ALL physical laws breakdown at roughly 3 Planck segments after the Inflation” - Eclipse.  The end of inflation is 100000000000 times the length of the Planck Epoch after the start of the universe but that was a claim you made.  You’ve since contradicted it when you correctly stated that the end of the Planck Epoch is the limit to our knowledge but that’s the sort of inconsistency I’ve been dealing with here from you.  I know you claim “great knowledge” in this but I’d have to suggest that your own words speak clearly against that claim.

 

OK I’ll accept that you don’t make things up so we are left with one fewer option when we try to explain your huge range of incompatible and incorrect statements.  If it is not purposeful, in other words you are not making it up then what’s left?  Ignorance maybe? A mental disorder of some kind?  How do you explain that you have now claimed times ranging over 15 orders of magnitude as the limit to our knowledge without showing any sign that you are even aware that you are doing it?  It’s like claiming that a rifle shot will take 1 second to cover a mile and simultaneously that it will take 1000 years and claiming simultaneously that both are true.  You’re claims to this thread are that wrong or at least most of them are that wrong.

 

I don’t recall a “Kowala bear analogy” I do remember pointing out how koala mating worked because it contradicts your claims about rape but that was all.  What can we expect I guess from someone who can’t spell it and who thinks they are bears.  We’ve got two of them on our property at the moment by the way but they don’t sound randy just a bit territorial.  They are amazing animals by the way and I’m privileged to share this patch of land with them.

 

You’ll have to show me where there was a back pedal on Dihydrogen Monoxide.  I suspect that you see a back pedal because you didn’t understand what was going on.  Do you understand yet that Dihydrogen Monoxide is a valid chemical description of water or are you still yet to catch up on that fact?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well , that was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that  SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING regarding conditions of the Universe BEFORE the end of the Planck Epoch , which is basically what I stated in post # 12 .

 

I stated that in simple terms without getting  into Planck Segments , thinking you actually knew what I was talking about . As it turns out you didn't, nor do you even know what you were talking about .You've never heard the term Planck segment  " in papers you've read " ??  LOLOL , what utter B.S. Russell  , you've read no papers , I doubt if you've ever picked up a book on Cosmology .You've been arguing on the fly , jumping back and forth to Wiki ,to learn what the terms I was using meant , then coming back to the discussion  obviously without an understanding of what you read .

 

To put it in  simple terms you're full of B.S.  

 

You made this statement in post#11  quote-

 

."....as the model PREDICTS , so science has made progress on this front ,and the only EVIDENCE we have at hand supports the scientific view of the universes origin "

 

- end quote

 

There is no evidence Russell . Nothing before the end of the Planck Epoch. There is only conjecture, theories and hypotheses, but no scientific view on the origin of the Universe .

 

My reply in post#12 -quote

 

"There is no scientific view on the Origin of the Universe, and yes a small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation , but NOTHING BEYOND , looking back ."

 

 

Sorry you chose to behave like a spoiled juvenile through this all , but perhaps that is who you are .

 

*At least you've learned something about the limits of science as per the subject of our discussion , even if you had to have your nose shoved down into it multiple times .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What is the meaning of life" is a nonsensical question.  It's like asking "what's the meaning of air?" or "What's the meaning of rocks?"  There are no meanings to life or anything else.  Things just are.  People who claim to have an answer to such a meaningless question are either deluded or fraudsters.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Maybe we need another timeline, if you disagree with any of this please explain in detail and include links to the specific points you’ve made.

 

I’ll number it in standard scientific fashion in seconds after the initiation of the universe.

0…

10-47 Eclipses incorrect claim for the beginning of our knowledge. (Post 108)

10-46

10-45

10-44

10-43 End of the Planck Epoch and the potential beginning of our knowledge of the universe.  My claimed start of our potential knowledge (Post 29), Eclipses claimed start of our knowledge (Post 96)

10-42 Grand Unification Epoch.

10-41

10-40

10-39

10-38

10-37 Symmetry Breaking (the event that started inflation)

- Eclipses incorrect claim for the beginning of our knowledge. (Post 12)

10-36 Inflation Begins

 + 3 Planck Segments - Eclipses incorrect claim for the beginning of our knowledge.  (Post 28)

10-35

10-34

10-33 Inflation Ends (Timing Unclear)

10-32 Inflation Ends (Timing Unclear)

Eclipses incorrect claim for the beginning of our knowledge. (Post 28)

 

If you attempted to state that the Planck Epoch was the limit to our knowledge in Post 12 then maybe your English skills let you down because that is not what you said.  You clearly stated that the limit was small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation” – Eclipse.  That time is shown on the timeline above at around 10-37 to 10-36 of a second well after the end of the Planck Epoch so you were wrong yet again in Post 12.

 

Now on to what I actually said about our view of the origin of the universe:-

 

In post 11 I said Science can’t explain the origins of the big bang at this stage though theories exist” which is a true statement, we don’t know what happened there so I didn’t claim we had knowledge of it but I correctly pointed out that we do have theories that describe what may have happened.  So that statement doesn’t contradict the idea that we ‘know’ nothing from before the Planck Epoch.

 

I did point out repeatedly that it was incorrect to claim that we knew nothing before the time’s you kept nominating but at that stage of this debate you hadn’t yet worked out that the Planck Epoch’s finish was the limit to our knowledge, or at least you hadn’t managed explain that in English here, rather you were still talking about times after the start of inflation or after the event that initiated inflation which are both much later times (see the timeline above) and to claim that they were the limits to our knowledge was wrong as I correctly pointed out.

 

You quoted me from Post 11.  Here’s the full paragraph to give context.

Science can’t explain the origins of the big bang at this stage though theories exist, a burrowing event into de-sitter space of a virtual particle triggering the expansion of this universe by creating a curvature in this ‘space’.  The key signature of such an event is that it produces zero energy and when you measure this universe the positive energy of matter / radiation etc exactly balances the negative energy of gravity producing zero in total as the model predicts so science has made progress on this front too and the only evidence we have at hand supports the scientific view of the universes origin.”

You’ll note that I never said we had Knowledge only that we have models that conform to the evidence we have today.  That is true but to claim we have knowledge that such a scenario was true is simply wrong as my words make clear.  So I’m not sure why you are complaining about this statement.  There are a number of scientists who have come up with such schemes, the scheme’s do indeed conform to the evidence we have from after the Plank Epoch even though these ideas model the universe before that time so all of that is in agreement of your statements after Post 96 when you finally discovered the correct way to frame the limits to our knowledge.

 

In reply you wrote:-

"There is no scientific view on the Origin of the Universe, and yes a small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation , but NOTHING BEYOND , looking back ."

And here we see an example of the errors I’ve been talking about all along.  You state that the limit is “a small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation[sic]” but given symmetry breaking at around 10 -37 or so of a second was the event that initiated inflation this timing is incorrect so I correctly pointed that out.

 

Ad hominem ignored.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not an error Russell  , that is a deficiency in your reading comprehension abilities. Something that has cropped up several times during this discussion. The only question is , is that deficiency real or feigned.

 

I wouldn't expect that you would admit that you've been deceptive ,so you will continue with your juvenile tactics. However in your own confusion , and seeking a way to backpeddle out of that ton of blather you have spread all over this thread , you have finally admitted  that SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING as to what the conditions existed in the Universe before the Planck Epoch , which I originally stated in post # 12 as - a small fraction of time after the initiating event which started inflation. You've understood that , or atleast now you claim to have understood it , yet you wasted dozens of posts arguing against it.

 

And as I've said before , the alleged "ad hominem "attacks as you call them , are in reality an objective observation of your deceptiveness , and attempted trickery in words.

   You are in fact a B.S. artist Russell and nothing less .

 You've pointed out nothing , but have reverted again to your tap dance with words . And in so doing express more ignorance of the subject . Whether it be 10- 43 or 10 - 37 as some physicists contend , both are enormously small segments of time , and in relation to my statement are meaningless . Nothing is known before the end of the Planck Epoch , whether it is defined  by either of those two time frames . So in your attempt to refute my statement you are splitting hairs which once split , make no difference to the import of my statement . All Physical Laws breakdown at the end of the Planck Epoch and no evidence can agree with what is not known to begin with .

 

Your post # 11 loses it's meaning after the first sentence ,as those parameters which you listed are not proven , from the burrowing  into  DeSitter space , of a virtual particle triggering expansion ..etc .*** NONE OF THAT HAS ANY BASIS IN SCIENTIFIC FACT . THEY ARE CONJECTURE , HYPOTHESES ,AND THEORIES****

 

 

 

Therefore how can there be " evidence at hand that fits the model "  ?

 

And your remarks about symmetry and  balance -negative and positive etc , just displays more ignorance on your part. If there was any symmetry why are we observing irregularity  of matter distributed in the observable Universe ?  If there was an exact balance , why does matter exist in greater proportion than anti-matter ? As far as your little list ? It is irrelevant as physicists will point out that beyond a certain point , nothing is known and the difference in estimates of  0  to 10 -43 , or 0 to 10 -47 , or 0 to 10  -37 , are arbitrary , but all are descriptions of the same limitations looking backwards in time to which any know physical or mathematical laws can be applied. 

 

And if you really understood what you were talking about , you would quickly realize why. Because calculations of mass, energy , gravity , or any other force with which to make an equation, exist in quantities approaching the infinite. Therefore no calculation will ever be possible , no information ever gleaned , no testability and no falsifiability of theories possible. 

 

If you've read anything by Kip Thorn , Einstein , Boehrs or Planck , you would realize that they disagree in exactly which of those three time estimates are the point at which all known physics breakdown , but they are all in agreement , that nothing is known beyond which is called the Planck Epoch.

So what you have been doing is, attempting to create an argument based on that discrepancy , which again proves you  have no understanding of what you've been reading, or  you unable to discern what in science is fact and what is pure conjecture and theory.

That Diagram that I drew for you , after which you came back with your own twisted and contorted version , also proved your desire to deceive  and play games , and if you look at the list in you above reply the points I listed are the same with the exception of the difference in 10 -43 and 10 -47 which is irrelevant to the original point of this discussion.

 

And like I stated, again , your are a B.S. artist.

 

I've had to school you in that , and after dozens of posts , maybe it's sinking into your thick skull , or you simply can not find anything that can refute that position , so now you will agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a chemical name for water yet? And why?

Have you found anything to support your claim of objective morality yet? And why?

Can you define LOLOL yet? And why?

 

I'm not sure you're in the position to discuss deficiencies in reading comprehension, or ignorance of any kind, do you?

 

If you have read anything by Einstein or Bohr (and understood it) which I highly doubt:

Please explain for us all, what lead to the difference of opinion regarding the two.

In your own words of course.

 

Just like with the 'other' issues. A basic understanding of each position here, will help you to see where you're going wrong.

But I won't be holding your hand and walking you through every problem that requires 100+ posts to reach a climax.

 

Eagerly awaiting your enlightened response... And thanks.

 

Remember to project the illusion of maturity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald_M ?   Russell's alter ego , and you're back again . Morality ? I'm no expert , but I'm certainly not stupid and ignorant enough to use the rape of a woman and the mating practices of Kowala 's in an analogy of morality .

 

Run along Donald_M   .Go drink some more di-hydrogen monoxide .  Both you and Russell lost all credibility after that one .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

So not really much progress there, you still don’t seem to understand that your statements are incorrect, “a small fraction of time after the initiating event which started inflation” is not a valid way to express the end of the Planck Epoch because, as I explained last time, the event that lead directly to inflation was symmetry breaking at the end of the grand unification epoch all of which occurred after the Planck Epoch.  If you wish to try to spin you words to simply mean sometime undefined really early on then that could be applied to the Planck Epoch but such wording is at least very ambiguous and so unscientific.  Add that to the other claims you made which now span 15 orders of magnitude and you have to conclude that ignorance is behind it despite your protestations to the contrary.

 

And yes I’d gathered that you don’t actually read what I write so I’m not sure it’s worth it but, one last time, I did indeed argue that we had knowledge before the times you nominated because they were all well after the end of the Planck Epoch especially the time you claimed that it was “after the inflation”.  Since then you’ve nominated times from 10-47 of a second up to after inflation at 10-32 (Plus 3 Planck segments) of a second and for most of those times it was correct to say that we have knowledge prior to the times you were discussing.

 

I’m willing to accept that poor English on your part is the issue here, that you really did mean the end of the Planck Epoch when you said so many incorrect and misleading things, is that plausible Eclipse?  Is English your second or third language?

 

You are correct that 10-43 and 10-37 of a second are both very very small periods of time but we are talking about things on very small time scales that’s why scientists revert to the logarithmic timescale when discussing it as I have done.  Your timeline is the equivalent to using radio carbon dating to work out which horse won the race, you are on the wrong scale to be useful when you apply linear time to these events.  But it gets worse because you have also included 10-47 of a second which is so far inside the Planck Epoch as to be irrelevant and even a cursory knowledge of the issues here should tell you that.

 

So yes we are talking about very small time scales when we talk about these times but the details here are critical, you need to get your figures right, you can’t just throw out any small number you like and claim that it will do Eclipse.

 

Remember also that Planck Time, the length of the Planck Epoch, was not calculated based on some dim distant history looking back to the beginning of the universe and theorizing rather it can be calculated today based on experiments and observations today but you should know that if you do actually understand any of this.  For that same reason all of those various other timings you have thrown out there as if they were all equally valid are in fact not so.  By the way, I agree that there is a specific point in there at which our ability to know what’s going on breaks down, I’m glad you have finally worked out when that was.  Post 96 was the first time you correctly stated the timing.

 

Yes I agree that our knowledge breaks down at the end of the Planck Epoch and just think how much time we could have saved if you’d known and used the correct terminology from the start here.  Not all very small fragments of time are equal.  Remember that when inflation started the universe was already 10000000 Plank Epoch’s old which is quite a large number.  Don’t be confused because you are a creature who lives in seconds not fractions of a picosecond, we are talking about quantum events and those tiny fractions of time are huge in the quantum world.

 

No my post 11 loses no meaning it’s just speculative as I pointed out, it’s a mathematically founded idea based in quantum physics that happens to conform to the universe we see around us but no one knows if it contains any truth as I said at the time. I never claimed that it was more than conjecture but I pointed out that it was conjecture based in a great deal of well tested science.  This particular idea could, because it borrows energy from the vacuum but produces none, only produce a universe that also contains zero energy in total and measurements of our universe show that it does indeed contain zero energy in totally as I’ve pointed out before so the theory comes out with a universe that looks like the one we live in in that respect and a few others.  Not proof but interesting.

 

Then your post leaps into a classic “Gish Gallop” Eclipse.  That’s a creationist tactic, used when one of their points is defeated by an opponent, of suddenly throwing out a huge range of other points to muddy the waters.  I’m going to stick to one subject at a time here Eclipse.

 

No the argument wasn’t based in “that discrepancy” rather it was based in the fact that you, until recently, didn’t seem capable of putting your mark on any given point in time for the end of the Planck Epoch.  Maybe that figure, 10-43 of a second, is wrong but at this stage that is the generally accepted point for the end of the epoch.  I’m happy to discuss reasons and evidence why that might not be the correct figure if you have any to present.  I named the epoch first then gave it a time later when it came up in this discussion.  Remember I first nominated it explicitly in Post 29 but you waited till Post 96 to agree.  Still you got there in the end so there’s no point arguing about it now.  Yes I understand that you disagree but you haven’t yet been able to support your claims of an earlier time have you.

 

I’ll skip the rest, if you really believe that your posts prior to 96 said anything that could be construed as the end of the Planck Epoch as the limit to our knowledge then you do need to brush up on your English skills but, as I said, you’ve agreed to that timing now so that argument is over.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×