Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

The Meaning Of Life

Recommended Posts

Russell posts # 11 & 12 are indicative to the heart of the argument . The term Planck segment is theory . The term Planck temperature as well as planck distance are also theory , in accordance with Planck's calculations. Many assumptions were made based on these. One of which is C as being absolute , although there are indications that C is not absolute ,and in no ways has it been established as absolute before or even after the Planck Epoch. Einstein ,Podolsky ,and Rosen , had differing Ideas ,and Hawking yet still a differing idea . There is no established "model " , as any model is based on observations . No observations have been made regarding any of the fore mentioned terms . They are simply reference points , and arbitrary ones at that, where science claims laws of Physics breakdown .Timelines and chronology of events are extrapolations based on present day observations .
My original statement was correct , although you chose to split hairs , but then eventually agreed . So as for my original statement made in Post #12 , I stand by it , as you have failed to provide any science other than conjecture as to conditions a very small fragment of time after the intiating event that started inflation .

 

As for corrections Russell , refer to your post #35 where you state " a Planck segment is not a scientific term " , and you misstated that little is known AFTER [ instead of BEFORE ]  0 - 10 -43 sec.  So do not focus on one another's mistakes in terms . The heart of the argument was and is , that science knows nothing of ,and has nothing but conjecture as to what conditions of the Universe were Before [ for the sake of agreement of terms ] the end of the Planck Epoch .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi Eclipse

 

Yes it’s all true, these timelines and the designations assigned are open to discussion and change when/if the data supports the change but the currently held view among the majority of those involved is the one I’ve been discussing and none of the view’s I’ve heard of support the idea that the limit to our knowledge is 10-47 of a second or 3 plank segments after “the inflation” [sic] or 3 plank segments after beginning of inflation etc.  The view’s you expressed up until post 96 were simply wrong compared to the majority view on this question but, as of post 96, your views are inline with the majority.  That being said of course that view may change as more evidence comes to light.

 

No it wasn’t a mistake to point out that little is known after 10-43 of a second.  I didn’t explain in detail but, of course, as time moved on we know progressively more and more after that time until we get to today when we ‘know’ quite a lot I’m sure you would agree but immediately after 10-43 of a second we know little and before that we ‘know’ basically nothing.  So that wasn’t a mistake it was just a fragment that needed more detail to flesh it out if you showed an interest.

 

I see you still haven’t faced up to the true error here.  Your various claims to this thread as to the limits of our knowledge are spread over 15 orders of magnitude.  That’s the root of the problem here.  Should I post that timeline again with your various claims spread out across it from 10-47 of a second up to 10-32 of a second?  Do you yet understand how far apart those claims are?  A little maths knowledge here might help you.  I’ve shown you where you claimed dramatically different moments for that limit, can you do the same for my position or have you realized yet that I have always claimed, in name then in figures, the exact same time from the start of this debate till now?  You are the inconsistent one and it was that inconsistency which lead to our disagreement.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. you'll do better in these debates once you realize that I have no idea who Donald is apart from what he's written here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made no error Russell , as you have still failed to bring anything forward to support you original contention that science has anything that resembles a model , based on any evidence ,  regarding conditions before the end of the planck  epoch .  You've diverted attention from that original  position you took in post #11 ,and chose instead to argue your point based on discrepencies and arbitrary time lines regarding that small fraction of time beyond which science knows nothing .

 

That was my original contention ,which you chose to obfuscate with irrelevant issues ,for anything proceeding after the end of the Plank epoch regardless of which quantity of time you wish to assign it  10 -43 , 10 -47 , or 10 -37 , is on it's face, irrelevant to the argument upon which all the discourse is based , and that is ;* Science has no knowledge of events PRECEDING the end of the Planck Epoch ,other that theory or conjecture .

 

 As for Donald_M ?   One can only assume after the utter B.S. of  "di-hydrogen monoxide " , which is simply based on a hoax which used a play on words of the letters used in the Periodic Table, the atomic description of water , to facilitate some weird conspiracy of poisoning and this , being about 20 or so years ago , that both you and Donald are one and the same, or at least equally gullible and equally unaware of that hoax . Oddly both "Donald "  and yourself , back peddled  in the same manner when the hoax was brought to your attention . Whatever the purpose of even bringing it to the fore in the course of an unrelated argument , is beyond any normal thinking . But it was in fact very telling as to the nature of the mentality I was dealing with . This is why , rather than an ad hominem , I simply used descriptive and objective observation in terming you a B.S. artist .

 

Upon realizing you were trapped in your position with no way out, except to agree with my position you did exactly that .

 REMEMBER you originally stated that the term " Planck Segment " was NOT  a scientific term . I guess you had to go and find out what it was before disagreeing on the exact quantity of time that it referred to .

 

Proof positive of your obfuscation of the argument was, when I provided a simple diagram of the segment of time beyond which science knows nothing , you then came back with your purposely and obviously skewed version of that diagram with an equally skewed explanation .

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I can see you simply can’t face up to it, I argued not that we had knowledge of what occurred before the end of the plank epoch (Remember you didn’t learn of that term till around Post 96) rather I explained that we did have theories covering times before the multiple disparate times you gave which were all well beyond that.  You pointed to times after the start of inflation (10-36 of a second or 10000000 Planck Epoch’s) and after inflation (10-32 of a second 100000000000 Planck Epoch’s).  You’ve now agreed that the limit to our knowledge is the earlier time, the end of the Planck Epoch (10-43 of a second), so you’ve agreed to the timing I’ve been discussing since the start of this you just won’t admit it or maybe you really can’t see it.  Sorry but there’s a logic gap in that thinking Eclipse.

 

As I said I can accept that you meant the end of the Planck Epoch when you made your statements in those earlier posts (before 96) but you didn’t express it and I, as an internet debater, can only answer what you actually write not what you were thinking at the time.  What you wrote was “a small fraction of time after the initiating event that started the inflation” but that is not the end of the Planck Epoch as you should realize, the event that initiated inflation was probably the symmetry breaking at the end of the grand unification epoch.  If you meant the end of the Planck Epoch you should have stated that or listed the time of that event which is currently calculated to be 10-43 of a second.  You’ll note that I was the first to name and then to number that time.  You’ve been playing catch up since fairly unsuccessfully I’d have to suggest.

 

I didn’t arbitrarily nominate times for the moments you mentioned I simply related what you said to the generally accepted timelines (the one’s shown later in that Wikipedia article you pointed me to) and pulled out the figures that the scientists involved in formulating this gave for those moments.  You were the one who kept nominating events that didn’t correspond to the end of the Planck Epoch in your claims.

 

I see you still haven’t worked out that Dihydrogen monoxide is actually the correct chemical descriptor for water.  Maybe you should do a little more reading on that one.  It’s not a play on words it is the correct chemical nomenclature for pure water.  It just sounds scary to people who don’t know chemistry like you apparently.

 

Hmm now I’m starting to get the feeling that English is a long way down on your list of languages.  Do you really believe that I back peddled on the dihydrogen monoxide story?  I for one explained that it was a hoax from the very first, you jumped on that as if the title “dihydrogen monoxide” was the hoax but that wasn’t it, what you still don’t get was that the hoax was to stir up people’s fear so that they would sign a petition against that ‘horrible chemical’ before they learned that dihydrogen monoxide was the correct chemical description of water.

 

Yes I correctly pointed out that a Planck Segment was a term that basically only turned up in a Google search in this thread, it wasn’t in any scientific publications.  Sorry what was your point on that one?  You’ve still never shown where it came from or what it means in a scientific sense.  I can guess what you mean by it by the way but let’s be scientific here.  Tie it, with evidence, to a specific meaning or use the correct terminology.

 

Haven’t we already talked about the timelines?  You introduced a timeline that had Inflation as the beginning yet the modern scientific view has two epochs before that, the Planck Epoch and the Grand Unification Epoch both of which you missed.  Given your timeline was in the wrong scale, linear not logarithmic, and was missing important details, two missing epochs, I updated it with the very timeline displayed, in graphical form, on the Wikipedia article you later linked me to as proof that I didn’t know what I was talking about.  How do I not know what I’m talking about if the very article you later claim as proof of your position reproduces the timeline I’d included earlier?  Sorry as I said logic seems to be an issue here Eclipse.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know Russell ? That's easy , I advised you to go to Google and /or Wiki . When you said that a Planck Segment is not a scientific term , I rightly surmised you didn't know what you were talking about . And in this latest blather blast of yours , you're saying that the term "planck segment " would turn up on a Google search ? Really ? Seriously Russell ? 

 

You don't even realize it when you're tripping over your own tongue do you ? ANYONE who has even superficially studied Cosmology , Cosmogony , Astronomy , Physics , or any of the related sciences regarding the  Universe , or even did cursory investigation of the subject would be familiar with the term , indeed familiar with the Scientist / Physicist, Planck himself. I'll bet you've never heard of the Planck Institute  either .

 

And YES , you did indeed back peddle on "di-hydrogen monoxide " , as you did not dispute it, or make any mention of a hoax after " Donald_M mentioned it . In fact you did not acknowledge it was a HOAX until I outted  your buddy Donald .

 

Who ya kidding here Russell ?

 

You make statements based on your ignorance of the subject , then after you get corrected , you come back and say " That's what I said " , what utter blather coming from you Russell  ! 

 

As for the rest of your blather , just more BACK PEDDLING on your part .  Your statement and argument posed in Post # 11 has been refuted , and that was accomplished way back in post #  12 .  The Diagram I drew in a later post for you, as if you were an utter, rank, novice, and amateur on this subject [and you are ]  , made it perfectly clear which period of time marked the limit to which Science could apply any physical laws and nothing but conjecture could be offered beyond that point, looking back in time . I made that so clear, that I drew you a picture a grade schooler could understand -. and you understood it , but it destroyed your position , so you came back with a purposely skewed "Russell version " ,which in and of itself proved, you had no idea of what you were talking about and likely copied it incorrectly from a webpage .

 

 

You were confused ,and that is self evident , but now you have been schooled into realizing you spoke out of ignorance . The only things you know regarding this subject are what you have been running back and forth retrieving from internet sources , you've read no "papers "  , you've read no books , you are a fraud in this discussion. And the more you come back with your back peddling pathetic explanations , the more evident that becomes . Your charade has become all the more transparent .

 

Perhaps you've been drinking too much di-hydrogen monoxide, eh Russell ?   And sharing the cup with Donald_M .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

“…in this latest blather blast of yours , you're saying that the term "planck segment " would turn up on a Google search” - Eclipse

 

What I actually pointed out was that it DIDN'T APPEAR IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS in a google search or scientific websites for that matter.  The second hit today was:-

 

The Meaning Of Life - Islamic Forum

www.gawaher.com › Islamic Forums › Refuting non-Muslims

  • Cached

Oct 16, 2015 - 20 posts - ‎3 authors

Remember what a Planck unit is - the distance light travels in a vacuum for a duration of 1 Planck segment of time . And there is uncertainty ...

 

So not a scientific paper as you’d expect if it was actually an accepted scientific term, it also appeared on a health website and in a discussion thread to a scientific web site but not in any scientific papers as I explained.  The first page of hits for “Plank Epoch” were from scientific websites discussing the beginning of the universe which is what you’d expect for a real term.

 

Planck I know, Planck Time I know, Planck Distance I know and Planck Epoch I know but not Planck segment and apparently the internet doesn’t know that term either but hey, if it’s so well known please present a real scientific paper that refers to it.

 

Actually from what I gather Donald_M was well aware of the hoax story long before you and I was part of the original online version of it years ago so I was well aware of it long before this discussion started but you made this statement which clearly shows that you weren’t.  “Tell me Donald , how did you arrive at that made -up word/chemical called Dihydrogen Monoxide ? “ - Eclipse.  That was in the thread “Islam And The Future Of Tollearnece” Post 98.  Does that really sound like someone who knew that the term was in fact perfectly valid to you?  Rather it clearly shows that you didn’t realize that it is a perfectly valid chemical description of water.  I’m not sure that you’ve caught up with that fact even now.  As I said a little reading in chemistry will sort that out for you.  You’re suggestion of visiting a physics forum was kind of off topic, it’s a chemistry question, but you can try that yourself if you think it will help, even those in a physics forum will likely know of dihydrogen monoxide.

 

What can I say about your timeline, it may well be skewed as you say but it is the standard view among scientists even though you seem incapable of even understanding it?  Do you know what a logarithmic timescale even means Eclipse?  Please explain it to show that you have some idea what you are talking about there.

 

The rest of that seemed to be empty rubbish so I’ll ignore it.  Here’s the timeline again.  Please explain in detail where the distortions are.  Be specific here Eclipse, not just more rambling and complaining, point to specific points and explain why they are wrong in your mind.  Can you do that?

 

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

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)

+ a small fraction of time - 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)

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell don't pose yourself as any kind of chemistry student , you're not .  If you were , you'd never even bring up the term di-hydrogen monoxide , and anyone who in their ignorance affords you any credibility , need only Goggle the term .

 By all means IGNORE what I have stated , you are incapable of understanding it and incapable of admitting you have misspoken on the subject .

 And again you attempt to but up another smokescreen to cover over your ignorance , Logarithmec Time Scale has nothing to do with the original position I took , and you can come back here with a hundred diversions from that fact , but will not change the fact that you are wrong in your Post #11 .

 

You continue defending your use of the term di-hydrogen monoxide , as you have no other choice, since you have committed yourself and your efforts to a known hoax, and thus backed yourself into another corner from which there is no escape .

 

    But you are a fraud to begin with, so I would imagine you would continue in your attempts at regaining any credibility . Yes people in physics forum would most definitely know of the Term Di-Hydrogen Monoxide , as they would immediately identify it with a hoax that goes back to 1992 .

 

  You're done Russell , you're a troll and nothing more .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I see you haven’t yet looked up dihydrogen monoxide.  The first two hits in Google were to the Hoax website, yes it’s still active and the next was to the Wikipedia article on it which states in part The dihydrogen monoxide hoax involves calling water by the UNFAMILIAR CHEMICAL NAME "dihydrogen monoxide"”. I’ve posted that snippet before but you apparently didn’t read it.  In simple terms it states that the term dihydrogen monoxide is an unfamiliar name, not that it is an invalid name (it’s not), not even that it is stretching the truth (it isn’t) just that it is unfamiliar. I’d have to suggest that it is only unfamiliar to those who haven’t done any chemistry such as, apparently, you.

 

Now where did you ever get the idea that I claimed to be a chemistry student?  Have I ever said anything to that effect?  Actually I’ve never discussed what my qualifications are and what I’ve studied as I don’t feel it adds anything to these discussions.  I prefer to let my words speak for themselves.

 

So nothing but denials on what your words in Post 11 mean but no actual content either so I’ll ignore that and let my prior words stand.

 

And nothing more than a repeat of your proof that you know nothing about chemistry in the rest of that.  Again I have nothing to say, your words speak volumes on that question.  Thanks Eclipse.

 

Russell

 

P.S. you really should look up what a logarithmic timescale is and why it is the one chosen by all those pesky scientists when discussing the beginning of the universe.  If you understood that you might understand better why your words in Post 11 were wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell . as I've stated before , the more you open your mouth , the deeper you sink into your own B.S.  One need not be a scientist to understand a simple concept , or translate a simple drawing .Obviously that is beyond your mental capacity .

 

What I stated stands regardless of your ridiculous attempts at a credible refute . You have been consistent in this , and your steadfast holding to the Di-hydrogen monoxide hoax proves , you're no scientist , not even a good student .

 

 Run along Russell , you're free to hold on to your fractured understanding of basic concepts in cosmogony , as you do not  possess the intellectual honesty to admit when you're wrong .

 

 Have another drink of di-hydrogen monoxide , and while you're at it , try and find just one of those "pesky scientists " who ever referred to water as anything other than H2O or ....water . But wait , you did infact find one , the perpetrator of the hoax .

 

Well Russell I've wasted enough time arguing with you , as you behaved like a thick headed juvenile or an adult that was just plain stupid .

 

 Bye , bye Russell .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is blowing my mind in a way that no drug ever could.

'try and find just one of those "pesky scientists " who ever referred to water as anything other than H2O'

Are you suggesting that nobody uses the chemical name for water? Or that one does not exist?

CO2 = Carbon Dioxide
H20 = ?

Under the 2005 revisions of IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry, there is no single correct name for every compound.
The primary function of chemical nomenclature is to ensure that each name refers, unambiguously, to a single substance.

So long as the components of the material can be accurately determined via the chemical name, all names are valid.

 

Please learn some science.

Edited by Donald_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

I think you are right, that this can’t go any further.  I have no problems understanding your timeline that’s why I pointed out that it was in the wrong scale and even presented one in the standard scale used by scientists but you have shown no sign that you understood that.  You even pointed me to an article in Wikipedia that presented the time line I used but again you claimed I was the one who didn’t know what he was talking about.  Even the term Logarithmic time scale seems beyond you.  I pointed out that you have presented multiple incorrect statements about the limits to our knowledge and even showed them to you in that same timeline but you’ve shown no sign that you understood that.  It wasn’t until post 96 that you did eventually present the correct time and yet, even though I presented it in Post 29, you still claimed that it was you who were correct from the start.

 

Now you bleat about the valid chemical description of water, dihydrogen monoxide, as if it was false and complain that I have a limited knowledge of chemistry.  Even word’s dictionary knows the terms yet apparently you don’t.  That seems to be a recurring theme here Eclipse.  Time and again I give you facts, figures and theories to open a discussion but you’ve never shown any sign that you actually understand what they mean.  Your main claim to fame here seems to be that you can complain loudly and repeatedly that I don’t know what I’m talking about yet you have never done what every other debater I’ve ever discussed these sorts of things has done, you’ve never pointed to specific facts and figures I have presented and shown how I’m wrong.  Is that, maybe, because you can’t, you don’t actually have what it takes to pull my descriptions apart and show their flaws?

 

Again, until you can show that you actually understand what’s going on here, we are probably not going to progress rather we’ll just have to put up with yet more of your complaining that I know nothing while you show no sign that you actually grasp any of this.  So I have to agree, bye bye Eclipse.

 

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


×