Atheist walking runs his mouth on physics

[Sigma]

It appears that the infamous youtube.com video, atheist walking, has given rise to a new youtube series involving the same man and his thoughts on religion, science etc. Unfortunately it seems he has some odd ideas as to how the universe functions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyF3-mQGy2E

It makes me cringe to see someone who becomes a recognizable face in the name of atheism trying to change hundreds of years worth of modern physics on a whim. As far as my edu-ma-cation is concerned I have never heard of conceivable way to reconcile a belief in time as a constant with our current understanding of physics. Is there any validity to this guy's arguments or is he just pulling this out of his ass.

Choobus, I'm looking at you for this one.

[Ickybod]

Time spans can become matter?

[Choobus]

someone needs to explain time dilation to this fool.

Gamma ray bursts are universes? That idea has no merit whatsoever. He is suffering from MES: minimal education syndrome. He knows just enough to convince ignorant people that he is not one of them.

I await his design for a perpetual motion machine with great anticipation.

[Livingstrong]

I am not an expert on physics at all, but I can tell that this guy is full of bullshit.

It is a shame that he calls himself an Atheist.

[Choobus]

nobody said asshole and atheist were mutually exclusive. In fact, I have proved this time and time again.....

[antix]

I am not an expert on physics at all, but I can tell that this guy is full of bullshit.

It is a shame that he calls himself an Atheist.
I thought the same thing. While his ramblings about multiple universes is a fun concept for fiction writers, if these universes are completely seperate from ours and they don't/can't interact in any way with ours, then who gives a fuck if they're there or not?

[Choobus]

I am not an expert on physics at all, but I can tell that this guy is full of bullshit.

It is a shame that he calls himself an Atheist.
I thought the same thing. While his ramblings about multiple universes is a fun concept for fiction writers, if these universes are completely seperate from ours and they don't/can't interact in any way with ours, then who gives a fuck if they're there or not?
the existance of other universes could be a consequence of the structure of spacetime, so even though we cannot interact with them their existance (or non-existance) might still be relevant inasmuch as the structure of spacetime has observable consequences for us.

It's still bollocks though. This guy didn't even bother to finish Smolin's book so it is unlikely that he has any insights into quantum cosmology that have escaped Hawking et al.

[Rat Bastard]

Plus, if the guy throws out a wild-ass guess that is later proven correct, he'll be just like them effing buy-bull skollers that point to the book as yet another predictor when A thing comes out troo. Gotta guess right sometimes.

[Baphomet]

Time spans can become matter?
Time is money, money is a form of matter.

[calpurnpiso]

This guy is NO ATHEIST.....he is an atheist like C.S.Lewis. I bet he grew up on a Southern Baptist infected family. Few years later he'll be a born againer and say he "used to be an atheist"...:lol::lol:...My Idiot Detector has not failed me jet. I can see through the retard who wants to make money at ignorant people expense, and since in the US about 80% of the people are ignorant Christ-psychotics.... :)

[Rat Bastard]

Time spans can become matter?
Time is money, money is a form of matter.
Hey! I saw the math for that one somewhere......

[Baphomet]

Well even though this guy seems to have trouble explaining himself, I'm just glad he's an atheist.

[PFUNK1]

wow i love the aggressive energy here!!

i dont usually reply or have been moved to but when i found this i ran home and jumped on the computer!!

i dont believe the experiments prove time dialation. and i think that just light bending around a star should prove so much. hell i also may believe that math is no longer capable of explaining the physics of our universe. check this out, "its too precise." nothing is more pecise than math and sometimes it is capable of concepts only imaginable, but not demonstatable in this physics.

the reason we give a fuck (i love this) about other universes even though they cant interact with ours is that it may be the reality. the reality may be that there is an "almost" infinite number of universes and this may help explain a lot of our questions regarding the chances of life and fill the huge expanse of time before the big bang. oh wait, there was no time before the big bang?

im rambling. what else...


gamma ray bursts could be indications of, if not other universes or this universes interaction with other universes. the "accepted" distances and energies invovlved ("brighter than all the stars in our visible universe") put these things on that kinda scale.



and yes, time being the constant and not light would maybe overturn our thinking but it wouldnt be the first time. im thinking that the realtionships are basicly correct in that e=mc2 and space and time relationships, so its more of an adjustment than an overturn. and maybe a change like this could eliminate the cosomological constant that is used. i dont know, im rambling...


but i will say this with respect (not that the above ramblings lacked it LOL) that i was flattered by even being compared or mentioned with "someone who becomes a recognizable face in the name of atheism"



atheistic.net

[Sigma]

the reality may be that there is an "almost" infinite number of universes
How could there be an "almost" infinite number of universes. Either the number is finitie or it is infinite. There is no finitie number that is almost infinite because any and every number will still be infinitely far from reaching infinity.

:wall:

[Choobus]

i dont believe the experiments prove time dialation
what are you a fucking idiot or just a troll?


you take an atomic clock on a plane and it comes back slow; that's not good enough for you? You stupid cunt, if you had the slightest education in relativity you would realise that your previous statement is as retarded as "jesus is love".
do you do anal?

[Rat Bastard]

Man, this funky guy is wrong on so many levels....math is "too precise"?!? Give me your address, I will mail you a dollar so you can go buy a clue.

[Facehammer]

gamma ray bursts could be indications of, if not other universes or this universes interaction with other universes.
Then again, they could be the Illuminati firing nukes at stealthy alien invaders, the Stephen Hawking-esque evaporation of microscopic black holes, or any number of other things.

LOL
http://www.bordergatewayprotocol.net/jon/humor/images/lollercaust.gif

[GaryM]

i dont believe the experiments prove time dialation.
Like Choobus said, when something is shown to be the case in at least six different experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation) - what more do you want? Or rather, what is wrong with those experiments? If time dilation wasn't real, and the Global Positioning System compensates for it (which it does) shouldn't we see it getting out of sync with clocks on Earth?

the reason we give a fuck (i love this) about other universes even though they cant interact with ours is that it may be the reality. the reality may be that there is an "almost" infinite number of universes and this may help explain a lot of our questions regarding the chances of life and fill the huge expanse of time before the big bang. oh wait, there was no time before the big bang?
Again, the reality is either a finite number of universes or an infinite number of them (The Infinite Book by John Barrow is a great non-technical book about infinity). And since the matter of whether there was time before the big bang is still speculation, how do you know there was a "huge expanse" of time beforehand? Why not three minutes or 4 weeks or any other period?

and yes, time being the constant and not light would maybe overturn our thinking but it wouldnt be the first time. im thinking that the realtionships are basicly correct in that e=mc2 and space and time relationships, so its more of an adjustment than an overturn.
Really? Every experiment seems to show that time is not constant (see the experiments referenced above). How could someone show that it was?

and maybe a change like this could eliminate the cosomological constant that is used. i dont know, im rambling...
Forgive me, I have neglected my quantum field theory studies... maybe Choobus or someone will recommend some reading for me?

[Choobus]

The cosmological constant is, in terms of quantum field theory, simply a reflection of the energy density of the vacuum. Although we do not yet have a unified theory, the standard model allows us to predict an approximate value for the cosmological constant (and, it should be said, this is totally at odds with all string theories by a staggering amount) and it is not going away any time soon. It's small, positive and probably going to remain so in any useful quantum field theory. Since QCD is the most succesful theory in the history of science I put a bit more stock in it than in the rambling gibberish of some polesmoking anus ticklers like PFUNK1 and/or asshole talking atheist walking.

I refer these morons to the thread on quantum bullshitters.

[Sigma]

The cosmological constant is, in terms of quantum field theory, simply a reflection of the energy density of the vacuum. Although we do not yet have a unified theory, the standard model allows us to predict an approximate value for the cosmological constant (and, it should be said, this is totally at odds with all string theories by a staggering amount) and it is not going away any time soon. It's small, positive and probably going to remain so in any useful quantum field theory. Since QCD is the most succesful theory in the history of science I put a bit more stock in it than in the rambling gibberish of some polesmoking anus ticklers like PFUNK1 and/or asshole talking atheist walking.

I refer these morons to the thread on quantum bullshitters.
Actually I think PFUNK1 and Asshole walking are the same person.

[Choobus]

Actually I think PFUNK1 and Asshole walking are the same person.
Oh right. A double asshole.

[PFUNK1]

i think clocks slowing down and the decay of particles and the such indicate how matter behaves and "ages" relative to the speed of light. clocks slowing down indicates the slowing of the measuring device, and the mechanics of the universe, not a true time. not a measurement of time passage.

[GaryM]

i think clocks slowing down and the decay of particles and the such indicate how matter behaves and "ages" relative to the speed of light. clocks slowing down indicates the slowing of the measuring device, and the mechanics of the universe, not a true time. not a measurement of time passage.
I don't understand what you mean by a "slowing of the measuring device" that is not a slowing of time. These aren't clockwork clocks we're talking about here :D Also, what is this "true time" you speak of?

[PFUNK1]

the big bang expansion of the universe idea puts the age of the universe between 13-20 billion years. i have never had issue with this idea, but its hard for me to believe this is ALL the time that ever ever was. yes, i said ever ever. the size and complexity and magnificient scales of comparisons of the smallest to the most gigantic makes 20 billion years feel miniscule. 20 billion years? when i think of the universe im led to think in terms like a "trillion billion billion" years. (use the carl sagan cosmos voice).

fuck just thinking about this i realize "years" is just an indication. there are no "years" at this level. but ya get the drift im sure...




we funk

[GaryM]

Isn't saying "Time never really slowed down, just the clock" like saying "The water in the kettle didn't really heat up, just the thermometer"?

[GaryM]

its hard for me to believe this is ALL the time that ever ever was.
Ah, the Argument From Personal Incredulity. You know, given the data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe versus your "feelings" I'm going to have to go with the experimental data.

PS: If you are interested in knowing why humans can't truly grasp ideas like "20 billion years" there is a chapter in Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker on how our brains are evolved to deal with human-sized objects operating in human lifetimes, we just aren't made to understand things at the microscopic or astronomic level. Which isn't to say we can't explore those ideas, we just can't visualise a million years like we can a day, because we have experienced a day.

[Choobus]

i think clocks slowing down and the decay of particles and the such indicate how matter behaves and "ages" relative to the speed of light. clocks slowing down indicates the slowing of the measuring device, and the mechanics of the universe, not a true time. not a measurement of time passage.
Have you done any experiments to test your hypothesis? If your hypothesis results in the same observable consequences is it not equivalent to the standard and accepted theory?

Is it likely that someone who can't even read an entire book on the subject of cosmology has insights into the structure of space and time that have eluded some of the greatest thinkers of our time? Can you even do basic calculus?

[Sternwallow]

Time spans can become matter?
Time is money, money is a form of matter.
Time is subordinate to mind because mind is over matter.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Time spans can become matter?
Time is money, money is a form of matter.
Time is subordinate to mind because mind is over matter.
What if you've lost your mind?

[Professor Chaos]

1.) Time is money.
2.) Time flies.
3.) Therefore, money flies.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

1.) Time is money.
2.) Time flies.
3.) Therefore, money flies.
Usually, out of my wallet. :)

[The Slithy Tove]

the big bang expansion of the universe idea puts the age of the universe between 13-20 billion years. i have never had issue with this idea, but its hard for me to believe this is ALL the time that ever ever was. yes, i said ever ever. the size and complexity and magnificient scales of comparisons of the smallest to the most gigantic makes 20 billion years feel miniscule. 20 billion years? when i think of the universe im led to think in terms like a "trillion billion billion" years. (use the carl sagan cosmos voice).

fuck just thinking about this i realize "years" is just an indication. there are no "years" at this level. but ya get the drift im sure...




we funk
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the big bang necessarily means that the universe is 13-20 billion years old. But rather, this incarnation (or section) of the universe is 13-20 billion years old. The big bang doesn't address the "birth" of the universe, but the moments immediately after it started expanded.

In my mind, the law of conservation of mass/energy (mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed) suggests that the universe has always existed since its constituent parts can never be created.

Incidentally, without a creation there is no need for a creator.

[Rat Bastard]

Time is money, money is a form of matter.
Time is subordinate to mind because mind is over matter.
What if you've lost your mind?
No mind, no matter.



























Just go join lily and her congregation.

[Choobus]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the big bang necessarily means that the universe is 13-20 billion years old. But rather, this incarnation (or section) of the universe is 13-20 billion years old. The big bang doesn't address the "birth" of the universe, but the moments immediately after it started expanded.
big bang theory implicitly assumes that the observable universe all started with some sort of singularity-like event. The nature of that singularity-like event is an open question, but it is a priori true that we cannot know what happens inside a singuarity since the laws of physics break down there. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but t seems highly unlikely.

As things stand, the big bang does tell us the age of the universe, and the red shift of distant galaxies/quasars and so on is the metric. So far they all suggest that the universe is about 15 billion years old. We cannot speak to other "sections" or "incarnations" of the universe any more than we can talk about what happens in or "before" a singularity.

[Sternwallow]

Time is money, money is a form of matter.
Time is subordinate to mind because mind is over matter.
What if you've lost your mind?
Then it doesn't matter.

Edit: Mr. Rat beat me to it.

[Sternwallow]

the big bang expansion of the universe idea puts the age of the universe between 13-20 billion years. i have never had issue with this idea, but its hard for me to believe this is ALL the time that ever ever was. yes, i said ever ever. the size and complexity and magnificient scales of comparisons of the smallest to the most gigantic makes 20 billion years feel miniscule. 20 billion years? when i think of the universe im led to think in terms like a "trillion billion billion" years. (use the carl sagan cosmos voice).

fuck just thinking about this i realize "years" is just an indication. there are no "years" at this level. but ya get the drift im sure...




we funk
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the big bang necessarily means that the universe is 13-20 billion years old. But rather, this incarnation (or section) of the universe is 13-20 billion years old. The big bang doesn't address the "birth" of the universe, but the moments immediately after it started expanded.

In my mind, the law of conservation of mass/energy (mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed) suggests that the universe has always existed since its constituent parts can never be created.

Incidentally, without a creation there is no need for a creator.
Vacuum fluctuation and black holes indicate that matter and energy can indeed come into existence ex nihilo and leave it as well. The action is still without a creator.

[Sternwallow]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the big bang necessarily means that the universe is 13-20 billion years old. But rather, this incarnation (or section) of the universe is 13-20 billion years old. The big bang doesn't address the "birth" of the universe, but the moments immediately after it started expanded.
big bang theory implicitly assumes that the observable universe all started with some sort of singularity-like event. The nature of that singularity-like event is an open question, but it is a priori true that we cannot know what happens inside a singuarity since the laws of physics break down there. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but t seems highly unlikely.

As things stand, the big bang does tell us the age of the universe, and the red shift of distant galaxies/quasars and so on is the metric. So far they all suggest that the universe is about 15 billion years old. We cannot speak to other "sections" or "incarnations" of the universe any more than we can talk about what happens in or "before" a singularity.
Isn't it true also that time, being an attribute of space, can be considered as starting or coming into existence when the singularity turned into a universe? I don't think we have a way to reference a "time" prior to the breakdown of the singularity. It is not meaningful to say that the singularity could have existed for an eternity or even for a second before it exploded. Indeed, as I understand it (an outrageous claim), the singularity itself is merely an extrapolation beyond the beginning of time and is not necessarily the precurser of the universe at all. The singularity would have existed at an infinitesimally negative point in time.

What thinketh the noble Choob?

[Choobus]

negative time makes no sense. Just like negative space makes no sense unless you have a frame of reference in which a simple co-ordinate transformation can occur where some arbitrary zero is defined. In the standard big bang model time and space both came into existance as the initial singularity (about which we know almost nothing) expanded. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what purple sounds like underwater on thursdays. In essence, the singularity is simply the black box from which the universe came. If we are ever able to understand singularities (which is the realm of quantum gravity and/or string like theories) we might be able to come up with a better answer concering the origin of the universe. For now, all we can say is that choobus is fucking awesome after an initial unknown event the universe most likely expanded from a very small size to a very large size in a manner we can partially explain (and that explanation is backed up by experiments, such as the cosmic microwave background). We can also say, and with even greater certitude, that PFUCK1 or Atheist wanking or whatever he calls himself if an ignorant fool with a big mouth and a small brain.

[Sigma]

negative time makes no sense. Just like negative space makes no sense unless you have a frame of reference in which a simple co-ordinate transformation can occur where some arbitrary zero is defined. In the standard big bang model time and space both came into existance as the initial singularity (about which we know almost nothing) expanded. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what purple sounds like underwater on thursdays. In essence, the singularity is simply the black box from which the universe came. If we are ever able to understand singularities (which is the realm of quantum gravity and/or string like theories) we might be able to come up with a better answer concering the origin of the universe. For now, all we can say is that choobus is fucking awesome after an initial unknown event the universe most likely expanded from a very small size to a very large size in a manner we can partially explain (and that explanation is backed up by experiments, such as the cosmic microwave background). We can also say, and with even greater certitude, that PFUCK1 or Atheist wanking or whatever he calls himself if an ignorant fool with a big mouth and a small brain.
I'll drink to that :cheers:

[Cap'n Awesome]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.

[Professor Chaos]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.
I don't know that I'd say "more than one universe" as much as I'd say one infinite universe. I'm totally with you as far as my expertise in the realm of cosmology, but i simply believe that matter and energy have always, and always will exist.

[GaryM]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.
I don't know that I'd say "more than one universe" as much as I'd say one infinite universe. I'm totally with you as far as my expertise in the realm of cosmology, but i simply believe that matter and energy have always, and always will exist.
An infinite universe means that any event that has a non-zero chance of happening (e.g. you, me, Choobus, etc) happens infinitely often...

[Sternwallow]

negative time makes no sense. Just like negative space makes no sense unless you have a frame of reference in which a simple co-ordinate transformation can occur where some arbitrary zero is defined. In the standard big bang model time and space both came into existance as the initial singularity (about which we know almost nothing) expanded. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what purple sounds like underwater on thursdays. In essence, the singularity is simply the black box from which the universe came. If we are ever able to understand singularities (which is the realm of quantum gravity and/or string like theories) we might be able to come up with a better answer concering the origin of the universe. For now, all we can say is that choobus is fucking awesome after an initial unknown event the universe most likely expanded from a very small size to a very large size in a manner we can partially explain (and that explanation is backed up by experiments, such as the cosmic microwave background). We can also say, and with even greater certitude, that PFUCK1 or Atheist wanking or whatever he calls himself if an ignorant fool with a big mouth and a small brain.

[Sternwallow]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.
We think that the universe is all that there is because, unlike the earlier understanding that the then-known stuff was all there was, our universe is defined as all the stuff that we know about plus anything else there is. By declaring the universe to contain all of existence, we are not ruling out unknown but possibly existing stuff, we are only ruling out any stuff that does not exist.

[Sternwallow]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.
I don't know that I'd say "more than one universe" as much as I'd say one infinite universe. I'm totally with you as far as my expertise in the realm of cosmology, but i simply believe that matter and energy have always, and always will exist.
In the sense that all of the universe has existed as long as time, itself, you are right. It is just that time has not been going for an eternity, only 15 or so BYrs.

[Professor Chaos]

[bong hit]We think that the universe is all that there is because, unlike the earlier understanding that the then-known stuff was all there was, our universe is defined as all the stuff that we know about plus anything else there is. By declaring the universe to contain all of existence, we are not ruling out unknown but possibly existing stuff, we are only ruling out any stuff that does not exist.
[/bong hit]

[antix]

[bong hit]We think that the universe is all that there is because, unlike the earlier understanding that the then-known stuff was all there was, our universe is defined as all the stuff that we know about plus anything else there is. By declaring the universe to contain all of existence, we are not ruling out unknown but possibly existing stuff, we are only ruling out any stuff that does not exist.
[/bong hit]
Whoa. That's deep, man. Pass me that lighter, will yah?

[myst7426]

What about the universe being inside every single atom like a giant loop. Freaky stuff...

[calpurnpiso]

What about the universe being inside every single atom like a giant loop. Freaky stuff...
That's nothing, think of it this way. Our brains have 1 trillion neurones. Neurones consist of google amount of atoms, each atom is like an universe and ALL are talking to each other when we think!.... AHHH,, we are the true gods. We can create any deity we want...:)

[whoneedscience]

What about the universe being inside every single atom like a giant loop. Freaky stuff...
I think the word you're looking for is "New Age crap" not "freaky stuff".

[Professor Chaos]

What about the universe being inside every single atom like a giant loop. Freaky stuff...
I think the word you're looking for is "New Age crap" not "freaky stuff".
I think the words he was looking for was, "Far out, man."

[whoneedscience]

What about the universe being inside every single atom like a giant loop. Freaky stuff...
I think the word you're looking for is "New Age crap" not "freaky stuff".
I think the words he was looking for was, "Far out, man."
Whoa... you're like... blowing my mind, dude.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I think the word you're looking for is "New Age crap" not "freaky stuff".
I think the words he was looking for was, "Far out, man."
Whoa... you're like... blowing my mind, dude.
Pass the bong, dude...... :P

[calpurnpiso]

I think the words he was looking for was, "Far out, man."
Whoa... you're like... blowing my mind, dude.
Pass the bong, dude...... :P
yeah..pass it so I can sprinkle a little Bufo Alvarius on it....AHHH.....Jesus will talk to us..:lol::lol:..flaunting his penis-christ while dancing among caves of Creation....:lol:..

[Cap'n Awesome]

While you guys mostly know that Science is not my forte, I agree with Pfunk in the idea that there is more then one Universe out there. It's just a patern that seems to occur in nature and in the cosmos. Originally people thought that the world was all there was, then the Solar system, then the Galaxy, now they think the Universe is all there is. I'm not aware of any laws that prevent other big bangs from having happened elsewhere in the Multiverse, say hundreds of billions of lightyears away.

Of course it's completely unprovable as far as I know, so I would never go to the lengths of trying to support my guess in any sort of way.
I don't know that I'd say "more than one universe" as much as I'd say one infinite universe. I'm totally with you as far as my expertise in the realm of cosmology, but i simply believe that matter and energy have always, and always will exist.
In the sense that all of the universe has existed as long as time, itself, you are right. It is just that time has not been going for an eternity, only 15 or so BYrs.
I think that time has been going on forever. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but during the big bang matter wasn't neccesarily 'created' was it? It was simply compressed into a very very small space before the big bang (This is why I favor the Big Crunch, or combining black holes or such to create a big bang reaction. Since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed and time goes right along with matter/energy, doesn't that imply that time has been around forever?

I don't understand the mystique that a lot of people attach to the big bang. It's just another natural cosmic event as far as I'm concerned. Just what happens when enough matter combines in one place, enough neutron stars and black holes get together and have a compression party.

[Choobus]

I think that time has been going on forever. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong
Consider yourself corrected.

[TheAmazingPinball]

I think that time has been going on forever. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong
Consider yourself corrected.
Don't believe Choobus. He's been promising the Crapture for a year now (give or take) and still nothing.

[PFUNK1]

If your hypothesis results in the same observable consequences is it not equivalent to the standard and accepted theory?
no.



i dont doubt the validity of the experiments, so if i did them i'd get the same result. i doubt that the results of these experiments proves that light is constant.

[PFUNK1]

Ah, the Argument From Personal Incredulity. You know, given the data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe versus your "feelings" I'm going to have to go with the experimental data.
LOL
i can remember as i typed that thinking
and feeling this is my personal opinion! LOL

i totally desrved that but wanted to get the idea
out to be "proved" later as i can see it but not
quite verbalize it yet. therefore i havent had time
to research the data and find the experiments
that support such new claims. what can happen
when i go on like this is i personally "discover"
already established laws and theories and this
indicates to me im on the right track. even
though im shooting before i aim.


all this time stuff im into may be a matter of
me understanding the definition of time.

the "time" used in the space-time equations
where math is used to explain the universe

or


"time" outside of our universe or physics.
or is there such thing as "time" outside of our universe?



-most of all WE FUNK

[PFUNK1]

I don't think we have a way to reference a "time" prior to the breakdown of the singularity.
i love it here.
thats the question, thank you.




this is maybe where math is "too precise" to explain our universe.
where math breaksdown.

[Choobus]

why do you persist in speaking about things you clearly don't understand? Saying that mathematics is "too precise" is absurd. Either you are an ignoramus just spouting randon gibberish, or you are in possesion of some subtle and fundamental mathematical principle that better explains what you mean. Which is it?

[PFUNK1]

in possesion of some subtle and fundamental mathematical principle that better explains what you mean.
im learning to explain and express "it"
cause i know "it" must to be able to
stand face to face with folks just like you...


but i dont think it has to be mathematical, does it?

[Choobus]

people like me? You mean physicists?

An explanation of why mathematics is "too precise" probably should be mathematical in some way. Otherwise it might appear to be extremely fecal.

[Choobus]

If your hypothesis results in the same observable consequences is it not equivalent to the standard and accepted theory?
no.



i dont doubt the validity of the experiments, so if i did them i'd get the same result. i doubt that the results of these experiments proves that light is constant.
unless your "theory" can predict an experiment where the outcome will not be the same as that predicted by the current theory, it is, at best, a meaningless tautology, and most likely a steaming pile of excrement.

[PFUNK1]

people like me? You mean physicists?

An explanation of why mathematics is "too precise" probably should be mathematical in some way. Otherwise it might appear to be extremely fecal.
wow, yeah exactly. "people like you"


mathematics breaks down at zero, "before singularity."
if there is something before singularity then mathematics
needs to find a way to explain it. i think you may have
mentioned a kind of "tranformation coordinate system"
thingy which i took to mean the mathematics that explains
the transformation from one physics (universe) to
another. (i prolly said that wrong so be sure to call
me something foul LOL)


the "it" im attempting to visualize is the whole reality and not
just a mathematically based reality. it took me a long time
and i may still not fully understand why it is necessary to use
math to expalin everything.





if there is another universe how would math explain it
without assuming it first? math has to stop and start
at the big bang by design. i dont see math going out
and discovering something, i see discovering something
and then finding the math that supports it-
if math is needed to explain everything...





thats why i appreciate people like you
don't go soft on me

[CycloneRanger]

negative time makes no sense. Just like negative space makes no sense unless you have a frame of reference in which a simple co-ordinate transformation can occur where some arbitrary zero is defined. In the standard big bang model time and space both came into existance as the initial singularity (about which we know almost nothing) expanded. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what purple sounds like underwater on thursdays. In essence, the singularity is simply the black box from which the universe came. If we are ever able to understand singularities (which is the realm of quantum gravity and/or string like theories) we might be able to come up with a better answer concering the origin of the universe. For now, all we can say is that choobus is fucking awesome after an initial unknown event the universe most likely expanded from a very small size to a very large size in a manner we can partially explain (and that explanation is backed up by experiments, such as the cosmic microwave background). We can also say, and with even greater certitude, that PFUCK1 or Atheist wanking or whatever he calls himself if an ignorant fool with a big mouth and a small brain.
*thunderous applause*

Yes. I am so goddamn sick of how every person with a high-school degree thinks that he or she is now fit to pronounce upon the true nature of reality. I can't count the number of people I've met who can launch into "well, my personal theory is that all times are really existing at once!" No. First of all, any sentence you begin with "Well, my personal theory is..." needs an immediate and bloody abortion. I don't know when it became "cool" for everyone to have his/her own idea explaining how Einstein was wrong and all the forces of the universe can be explained by [Insert piss-poor analogy about some everyday experience here]. I don't know why people hold these worthless suppositions in some kind of privileged position beyond the reach of rationality. As a consequence of its increasing complexity, science in general (and physics in particular) is becoming more and more like religion to most people. I don't know about any of you, but this scares the hell out of me.


Also, don't take this as a personal attack, Pfunk. Choobus' post just triggered a rant that's been brewing for a few years.

[Rat Bastard]

cf http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=5567

[Rat Bastard]

people like me? You mean physicists?

An explanation of why mathematics is "too precise" probably should be mathematical in some way. Otherwise it might appear to be extremely fecal.
:lol: Well, I guess beer is a good solvent for cleaning the monitor periodically......but the keyboard is getting a little sticky.

[PFUNK1]

hey, i can go with the rant...


"cool" for everyone to have his/her own idea
i think it is important for everyone to have their own personal ideas of everything based on their own interpretation of reality (it cant be any other way). thats what makes consciousness unique. life sometimes turns out better when an event is "wrong" sometimes...


I don't know why people hold these worthless suppositions in some kind of privileged position beyond the reach of rationality..
why wouldnt one value ones own opinion or inclination?
is irrationality relative? LOL



As a consequence of its increasing complexity, science in general (and physics in particular) is becoming more and more like religion to most people. I don't know about any of you, but this scares the hell out of me...
why does it scare you?
i have a website (atheistic.net) all but based on the
idea that science will be religion, so im truly interested.

[ryu]

um...... why would you want to hold an opinion thats wrong?

LOL! i only kept reading this thread because i wanted to see what other funny insults choobus would make. lol

good luck w/your theories dude. you really really love watching your self so its all good! :thumbsup:

[ghoulslime]

in possesion of some subtle and fundamental mathematical principle that better explains what you mean.
im learning to explain and express "it"
cause i know "it" must to be able to
stand face to face with folks just like you...


but i dont think it has to be mathematical, does it?
I have a good mathematics puzzle for you:

Instead of standing face to face with Choobus, try standing with your bare ass facing him. Then try to guess how many centimeters of his cock are in your ass.

Subtle and fundamental principles of anal are the keys to your enlightenment!

[ghoulslime]

why do you persist in speaking about things you clearly don't understand? Saying that mathematics is "too precise" is absurd. Either you are an ignoramus just spouting randon gibberish, or you are in possesion of some subtle and fundamental mathematical principle that better explains what you mean. Which is it?
I think he may have been saying something entirely different from what he seemed to be saying. When he seemed to be spouting gibberish, it was because he was actually choking on jissimish spouting into his mouth - strange ejaculations none the less, very strange!

[CycloneRanger]

hey, i can go with the rant...
It's been a couple years in the making.

"cool" for everyone to have his/her own idea
i think it is important for everyone to have their own personal ideas of everything based on their own interpretation of reality (it cant be any other way). thats what makes consciousness unique. life sometimes turns out better when an event is "wrong" sometimes...
I can't even puzzle out what you mean by this. Everyone's interpretation of reality will be different on some points and similar in others. What I am saying is that all physical theories are not created equal. Most are wrong, and a very small number may be right. It isn't a matter of personal opinion; it is a matter of scientific fact.

I don't know why people hold these worthless suppositions in some kind of privileged position beyond the reach of rationality..
why wouldnt one value ones own opinion or inclination?
is irrationality relative? LOL
Again, I don't know what you are trying to say, so all I can do is rephrase what I've already said. One's own opinion has absolutely no relevance in the field of physics. Sorry. No matter how hard you believe that E = m(c^3), it still won't be true.


As a consequence of its increasing complexity, science in general (and physics in particular) is becoming more and more like religion to most people. I don't know about any of you, but this scares the hell out of me...
why does it scare you?
i have a website (atheistic.net) all but based on the
idea that science will be religion, so im truly interested.
*eyes boggle*

Wait, you like the idea that science will become like religion? Science shouldn't be some sort of mysterious magical power that acts in mysterious ways. It is a tool, something that everyone should understand and know how to use. Science gives us knowledge of our environment, and knowledge is power. Science doesn't discriminate or judge; it is perfectly egalitarian. Religion is none of these things.

I don't want a future in which the average man can't (or, more likely, won't) understand the world around him. Cars don't run on magic; there are simple physical principles behind them. Science isn't a tool of the elite "scientist" class; it is something for everyone. I really do believe that everyone should understand basic principles of physics, elementary biology (especially evolutionary theory), a decent amount of chemistry, mathematics up through calculus, and at least one programming language, among others. Everyone. The fact that we have people who actually belive in crap like homeopathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy) indicates that we have failed in a serious way.

Science isn't magic, and scientists aren't magicians. The idea that science (and in particular the fields of physics, chemistry, and biology) is some phenomenally difficult arcane topic only learned by eccentric nutters sequestered from society deters people from actually trying to understand it, and gives them an excuse to remain ignorant rather than face what difficulty does exist.

[Rat Bastard]

Hear, hear!

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Basically, I want science to be obscure enough not to convince people to compete for my future jobs, but accessible enough to where the public is willing to fund my work. Is that so much to ask?

[PFUNK1]

Wait, you like the idea that science will become like religion? Science shouldn't be some sort of mysterious magical power that acts in mysterious ways.
no, i mean science will be religion in that
our way of life (religion) will be based in
tested scientific knowledge.

science will replace religion
knowledge will replace faith
understanding will eliminate fear

[GaryM]

why are
we formatting sentences
like poetry?

[schemanista]

why are
we formatting sentances
like poetry?
I don't know, but PFUNK1's use of enjambment sucks.

[PFUNK1]

Again, I don't know what you are trying to say, so all I can do is rephrase what I've already said. One's own opinion has absolutely no relevance in the field of physics. Sorry. No matter how hard you believe that E = m(c^3), it still won't be true.
what i was getting at is that mankind
benefits from the "wrong" theories and
they are necessary. it is a benefit that
we have a diversity of consciousness'
that can see the same thing and interpet
it so many ways, even to the point of being
incredibly wrong. life needs these conscousness'
out there guessing until we know for sure
what this (the universe and everything) is
all about.

so yeah it has no revelance to the fact. but
somehow someways many times in life pondering
a "stupid" question has led to a deeper theory and
underestanding.


now if someone is going off and "being wrong" without sincerity
for maybe for political, religious or just to get attention like me
reasons, thats different.




people here (maybe not you) get angry cause
someone wonders and guesses and may be
has a wrong theory? or an opinion that disagrees
with what they have been taught all their lives?
and maybe someone hasnt had the benefit of a formal education?



hmmmmmm. like hardliners. i like it.

[GaryM]

why are
we formatting sentences
like poetry?
I don't know, but PFUNK1's use of enjambment sucks.
Maybe prose is "too precise" to describe PFUNK1's awesome ideas :D

[PFUNK1]

why are
we formatting sentences
like poetry?
FUNK. personal style.

and now im bringing it to physics! LOL


had to wikipedia that enjambment word-
very cool!
wikipedia detailed a style that i have been doing for years and
feel i invented. now i hear shakespeare used it too?
cool.

[Facehammer]

FUNK. personal style.

and now im bringing it to physics! LOL
Oh dear. You're like one of my old teachers, who tried to be down wit' da kids, despite looking (and acting, for that matter) exactly like Indiana Jones' dad.

[Choobus]

I'll tell you what Pfunk, in order to show that you are not just some loudmouthed fool, why don't you answer a few simple questions about classical mechanics, electromagnetism and optics. These subjects are the basis for the advanced concepts you are chalenging so it stands to reason that you will have mastered them. Are you willing to do this? I'm going to guess that you are not, that notonly have you not mastered them but you only just heard about them while reading this post, and that your knowledge of actual science is second only to that of Paris Hilton.

the only thing you are bringing to physics is a case study on why it is important to read. You are like someone who has turned up at sothebys with a bottle of mountain dew on which you have written (and mispelled) "old wine" in crayon, and are attempting to sell it as a 1787 Chateau Lafite.

[ryu]

Basically, I want science to be obscure enough not to convince people to compete for my future jobs, but accessible enough to where the public is willing to fund my work. Is that so much to ask?
lol!

what the hell is wrong w/some poeple? pfunkyface, i dont know much about physics and stuff, but its obvious your a total moron. you'er not making theories or stimulating any type of progress. nobody like you will make a actual theory of anything (theories arnt shit you just make up or guess dude. it takes data, testing and all kinds of other crap i have no idea about) your approach is all wrong! you dont just make up shit!
:rolleyes:

i just dont understand this guy! if i dont know what im talking about....i would shut the fuck up and learn about it. peace & love :bird:

[inkadu]

what i was getting at is that mankind
benefits from the "wrong" theories and
they are necessary. it is a benefit that
we have a diversity of consciousness'
that can see the same thing and interpet
it so many ways, even to the point of being
incredibly wrong. life needs these conscousness'
out there guessing until we know for sure
what this (the universe and everything) is
all about.
...
now if someone is going off and "being wrong" without sincerity
for maybe for political, religious or just to get attention like me
reasons, thats different.
...
people here (maybe not you) get angry cause
someone wonders and guesses and may be
has a wrong theory? or an opinion that disagrees
with what they have been taught all their lives?
and maybe someone hasnt had the benefit of a formal education?
emphasis mine

I think we're concerned because we like to be able to evaluate "right" from "wrong." According to your scheme, the only thing that is "wrong" is if it's "insincere." Even wrong theories are valuable, sometimes more valuable than right theories. While there is some validity to your theory from a history of science perspective, I'm pretty sure you don't have it. The way you talk about "consciousness" makes me think you belong to a new age cult of tapiocca-brained thinkers, who believe you can affect reality with your thoughts. You could scientifically test that theory, of course, but that would be uncool, because even wrong theories are valid, and why are you shitting on Jim's theory, man? It makes him happy.

So, really, what you are about has nothing to do with science. In fact, if science had never gotten past Newtownian physics, you would have no interest in it. It is only because it has progressed to encompass fucked up shit like string theory and infinite parallel dimensions (sorry to put em together, Choobs) that it now resonates with your completely flexible and LSD-fuelled world view, that you pretend to have any interest in it at all.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the movie "What the !@#$ do we know?" It sounds like you get a lot of shit-for-brained concepts from that video. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it. It will totally blow your mind.

[PFUNK1]

Out of curiosity, have you seen the movie "What the !@#$ do we know?"
yeah i saw it. made it a point to see it as soon as i heard about it.


i can understand how someone without (not saying you necessarily) the gift
of this kind of spiritualism would take a hardline approach and dismiss it as
non-sense. and i do believe that consciousness can effect the universe in
ways we do not know yet. i have seen and experinced...nevermind, no need
for us to go there. so i am kinda one of those "new age" people (one of my
fave kind of music). but check my "science" and show me where its in
error. my judgements and interpretations and theories and assumptions
are mine to have, but if my data is in error then i must be corrected.

here is my website: http://www.theoryofuniverse.com

[PFUNK1]

I'll tell you what Pfunk, in order to show that you are not just some loudmouthed fool, why don't you answer a few simple questions about classical mechanics, electromagnetism and optics. These subjects are the basis for the advanced concepts you are chalenging so it stands to reason that you will have mastered them. Are you willing to do this?
oh shit yeah, im very up to the challenge!!


now i may not use the proper terminology or be up
with the current trend, but i bet you i understand
anything you can throw at me and give a solid answer

c'mon...gimme some.



this place is better than heaven!!





dont go soft on me!!

[Professor Chaos]

Time Cube - Crazy + New Age mumbo-jumbo = www.theoryofuniverse.com

[PFUNK1]

Time Cube - Crazy + New Age mumbo-jumbo = www.theoryofuniverse.com
with some oooga booga also



show me errors in my data or reasoning

[inkadu]

i can understand how someone without (not saying you necessarily) the gift
of this kind of spiritualism would take a hardline approach and dismiss it as
non-sense. and i do believe that consciousness can effect the universe in
ways we do not know yet.
Well, you're not much of an atheist. Because I put your kind of thinking in the same category of religion -- if it could be proved, it would have been proved. The effects you think of the consciousness on the universe can be proved. They haven't. The basis of your belief is not science, because you end up thinking the same things that Hindi's and Shamans thought several hundred years ago, and they didn't think these things were theoretically possible, they thought they were actually possible. Yet no credible evidence of any psi-phenomenon has ever been proved. There are people who are good with arithematic. Amazingly good. It's easy to prove these people exist. Yet, psi-phenomenon, for someone, has been impossible to prove. I assume it is because it does not exist.

Second argument: if consciousness could effect the universe physically, then we'd be living in a different world. creatures would have evolved psi-abilitities to capture and kill prey. Crabs can crack their claws at super-sonic speeds, stunning prey. Incredibly delightful and effective poisons have been developed by predators. Predator birds can spot a mouse and swoop down on it an astonishing speeds. Yet evolution hasn't discovered psi-ability. I wonder why not? I assume it is because it does not exist.

i have seen and experinced...nevermind, no need
for us to go there. so i am kinda one of those "new age" people (one of my
fave kind of music). but check my "science" and show me where its in
error. my judgements and interpretations and theories and assumptions
are mine to have, but if my data is in error then i must be corrected.
You don't have any data, you dimwit. You have statements that begin with "I think that," Well, I can't disprove that you think anything, so keep going you can effect the material universe just by thinking about it. You are a deluded fool and I just wish you stop ass raping science to support an incorrect philosophy of the nature of consciousness.

[Choobus]

I'll tell you what Pfunk, in order to show that you are not just some loudmouthed fool, why don't you answer a few simple questions about classical mechanics, electromagnetism and optics. These subjects are the basis for the advanced concepts you are chalenging so it stands to reason that you will have mastered them. Are you willing to do this?
oh shit yeah, im very up to the challenge!!


now i may not use the proper terminology or be up
with the current trend, but i bet you i understand
anything you can throw at me and give a solid answer

c'mon...gimme some.



this place is better than heaven!!





dont go soft on me!!
all right then.

We'll start with some easy mechanics questions.

1) Under what circumstances would it be more useful to use a Lagrangian approach to a classical mechanics problem as opposed to the more common Hamiltonian?

2) Explain how the principle of least action may be derived from the conservation of energy.

3) What symmetry translations are associated with the conservation of

a) energy
b) linear momentum
c) angular momentum.

4) A dildo of mass 2 kg is fired from a cannon with a muzzle velocity of 50 m/s at time t = 0. If the trajectory is parabolic and initially has an angle of 45 degrees what is the maximum height achieved by the dildo? How long does it take to reach this height? If walking atheist is kneeling down on a skateboard at rest, and the dildo enters his rectum 1 m above the ground, what will be his speed after the anal intrusion? [neglect air resistance, assume the skateboard has no friction. A dildo entering a rectum is an inelastic collision)


I realize you can easily look all this up online, but I'm guessing you're so clueless you'll even fuck that up.

Good luck

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The dildo cannon problem at least requires application of general principles.

[Choobus]

The dildo cannon problem at least requires application of general principles.
yeah, it's a real challenge, unless you went to high school..........

[Rat Bastard]

Schweet! Is that dildo a depleted uranium round? Or can we make it a semi-jacketed hollow-point? I want his ass to be penetrated with extreme prejudice!

[Choobus]

I want his ass to be penetrated with extreme prejudice!
that's your business dude! I'm sure you to can work something out............

[Choobus]

Still waiting

[Rat Bastard]

I want his ass to be penetrated with extreme prejudice!
that's your business dude! I'm sure you to can work something out............
:o:lol: Not by any appendage of mine!

[Choobus]

oh shit yeah, im very up to the challenge!!
It would seem otherwise. I am utterly shocked.

[GaryM]

Don't you need to know the mass of the target object?

[Choobus]

Don't you need to know the mass of the target object?
I assumed that walking atheist knew his own mass.

[Philboid Studge]

A dildo entering a rectum is an inelastic collision
It is my ass!

[GaryM]

I assumed that walking atheist knew his own mass.
How generous of you :P

[Choobus]

I assumed that walking atheist knew his own mass.
How generous of you :P
?

[TheAmazingPinball]

I submit that perhaps atheist walking doesn't know his mass from a hole in the ground.

[Choobus]

I submit that perhaps atheist walking doesn't know his mass from a hole in the ground.
It looks like he doesn't know his mass from his melbow

[PFUNK1]

oh shit yeah, im very up to the challenge!!
It would seem otherwise. I am utterly shocked.
my bad i got lazy when i calculated just how much
work it would be for me to answer the questions
which were interesting as they showed me where
you were coming from which may have been my
whole point but anyways im not "giving up" and
promise not to cheat.

i read the questions a day or so ago a couple times
and kinda know where i would have to start
just to understand the question! lol

what i found about the questions and i know its just a test
and im not coping out or jabbing either is that i am not interested
in the universe at those levels. answering those questions
dont reveal anything "signifigant" about the universe
to me and no im not putting down you or the questions im
just recognizing and relishing the difference in our
interests and intentions as i use enjambments and run-on
sentences and try to get where you coming from
so i can understand why there is something signifigant in
the data and things you protect and find so precious...

from a viewpoint and style that is maybe far far far away from mine.





what kind of music do you like?
i dont like that rap crap either!! LOL

[Choobus]

cop

[Choobus]

out

[Choobus]

jabbing quotient: off scale

[Sternwallow]

I submit that perhaps atheist walking doesn't know his mass from a hole in the ground.
It looks like he doesn't know his mass from his melbow
:lol::lol::lol:

[Choobus]

I trust atheist walking will now have the decency to shut the fuck up about all things related to physics. He can't even answer high school stuff, so really his musings on relativity are as valuable as a bucket of piss on a space station.

[Eva]

how does urine behave in zero g?

just joking...i really don't care to know.......

[Choobus]

how does urine behave in zero g?
kind of like jesus: it's everywhere all the time, and gets in your eyes

[Eva]

:vomit:

ok

[Sternwallow]

I trust atheist walking will now have the decency to shut the fuck up about all things related to physics. He can't even answer high school stuff, so really his musings on relativity are as valuable as a bucket of piss on a space station.
Hey, reaction mass is reaction mass.

[Choobus]

depends: what is your reaction likely to be to getting drenched in piss?

[Rat Bastard]

I sure as fuck ain't goin' to Mass! A long, hot shower of CLEAN water would be most welcome, after that.