Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 5 of 15
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe. The universe has about as much order and design as a cloud has a face. If you're looking to see it as ordered, you'll no doubt find it so, simply by ignoring any data that don't fit your preconceived conclusion. That's very typical of ideology, and the complete antithesis of scientific inquiry.
There's order in the universe, the same as there's order in the arrangements of London Streets. The lie is comparing the order of London streets to those of a planned city. That is the order of things disparately finding equilibrium, and someone actually artificially creating it.
Thanks for clarifying, Cit. Yeah, there IS a certain "order" in certain aspects of the universe, at least to our way of thinking. Same as there's "order" to the arrangement of a starfish's legs, or a tree's branches. The fact that we see a kind of "order" there, or that such things follow laws of nature or physics, doesn't mean that they have a designer, though.
I find the whole "intelligent designer" concept a weak-minded cop-out. It's like Newton saying, "Hey, something just bonked me on me gulliver! I'll call it The God Force, and be done with it." It's like the old cartoon about doing highly complex math problems...
Sure, it makes it EASIER, but it doesn't actually help us explain or understand anything. It's a cheap way of saying, "My brain hurts" and not thinking any more.
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A singularity's DENSITY is infinite, not it's mass. It's not the mass part of the situation you're proposing that's causing the singularity, it's the VOLUME. A point has no volume. A point is a singularity.
Yeah, you're right. But it still has a stars mass. I beg a late night, an early morning and a heat wave.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If mass inside of a point is not in fact within the point because of quantum mechanical processes...
It still has a stars mass which means that it won't have a probability cloud for the singularity.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I still think you're misinterpretting that equation of yours. The particles in question in the blackhole are not the sum mass of the black hole, but in this case would be whatever particles are emitted.
So? I'm not talking about the emitted radiation, I'm talking about the singularity. The singularity still has plenty of mass to mean that it has a negligible wave length, and so will occupy a specific point for the same reason your body does.
You said Singularities can't exist because they can't have a fixed point in space. That's not true, it's a function of a misunderstanding of QM effects. Singularities are massive but small, they are subject to QM, but at the same time they have a to all intents and purposes non-existent wave length because of their huge mass.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
No one knows whether particles in a black hole have a wavelength, but the emitted ones do.
Sorry misread initially.
If Black Holes experience Quantum Effects at the Singularity, which is your basis for saying that Singularities can't exist, then there has to be wavelengths at work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, and I just said no one knows whether particles in a BLACK HOLE have a wave length... Which you have been arguing that they don't. EDIT: Looks like you fixed your post before I got here, but just keeping this up anyway. EDIT 2: Noticed and acknowledged!
I'm arguing that the particles do have wavelengths. If you plug a non-infinite number into the mass for that equation of yours, even if it's a BIG number like 3 solar masses (depending on HOW that equation is used, I don't have the context here), then the number is not zero. Only an infinite mass would make for zero wavelength.
So long as there's some wavelength, there's a possibility for some wander around the singularity... Which I say smudges it in three dimensions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yes, and I just said no one knows whether particles in a BLACK HOLE have a wave length... Which you have been arguing that they don't.
I edited my post.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm arguing that they do. Like I edited up above... If you plug a non-infinite number into the mass for that equation of yours, even if it's a BIG number like 3 solar masses (depending on HOW that equation is used, I don't have the context here), then the number is not zero. Only an infinite mass would make for zero wavelength.
You might be talking about the particles in a black hole, I am, have always been, and still am talking about the singularity. I have said this very plainly a number of times. I have made no mention of the wavelengths of particles inside a black hole, not once.
BTW, YOU have a wavelength. It's just due to your mass it's too small to have any effect, and a singularity has a mass many times larger than yours. The Singularity might have a wavelength, it's still too small to give it a probability cloud, which is what I said earlier anyway. Plus, a probability cloud says we don't know exactly where it is, NOT that it doesn't occupy a specific point. So either way you cut it, it doesn't deny it is a singularity.
It's entirely your interpretation that says singularities can't exist in QM, yours and no one elses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I got this from Stephen Hawkings... He makes a similar argument in regards to the Big Bang in The Universe in a Nutshell, which is why I brought this up... And why I was rambling with giddy abandon about "expansion and collapse" earlier in the thread. Hawkings, in the 1960s was known for being a firm supporter of an expansion-only universe, but recently changed his mind on these very grounds.
And yeah, noticed your edit, I edited to acknowledge your edit. And maybe I'll edit to acknowledge you've acknowledged I noticed and edited to acknowledge your edit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I got this from Stephen Hawkings... He makes a similar argument in regards to the Big Bang in The Universe in a Nutshell, which is why I brought this up... And why I was rambling with giddy abandon about "expansion and collapse" earlier in the thread.
Could you quote Stephen Hawking saying Singularities don't exist perhaps?
EDIT:
I ran the numbers for three solar masses. The wavelength is 3.70421867×10^-73. Planck's length is ~1.616252×10^−35, more than double that. So the wavelength is zero for all intents and purposes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll have to dig out Universe in a Nutshell, but I'll try to find you something.
I don't think he's ever said specifically that singularities don't exist, as I recall he only makes the suggestion that black holes and the Big Bang weren't singularities.
So my "no singularities" stance, if it is that, is my own, but it's based on arguments that two of the most important cosmological features thought to be singularities may not be. And if the Big Bang isn't a singularity, and black holes aren't singularities, I can't think of much that could be considered such. Especially if the same quantum mechanical effects are at work.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay . . . back on topic people...
The FSM . . .
At first I thought that was something you made up, Chris, but apparently not LOL Guess yer not as creative as I thought you were 
At any rate . . .
I get the distinct impression that every now and then the FSM will catch guys oggling his meatballs and he has to say, "HEY! My eyes are up here, pal."
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's something that's LIKE what you ask for...
Quote:
Yang-Mills theory is an extension of Maxwell theory that describes interactions in two other forces called the weak and strong nuclear forces. However, ground state fluctuations have a much more serious effect in a quantum theory of gravity. Again, each wavelength would have a ground state energy. Since there is no limit to how short the wavelengths of the Maxwell field can be, there are an infinite number of different wavelengths in any region of spacetime and an infinite amount of ground state energy. Because energy density is, like matter, a source of gravity, this infinite energy density ought to mean there is enough gravitational attraction in the universe to curl spacetime into a single point, which obviously hasn’t happened.
~The Universe in a Nutshell, page 46.
I'll have to keep looking for other (better) examples.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd be surprised if he did say such a thing. Hawking once lost a bet that Singularities 'exist' only within Black Holes (his position), when computer models showed naked singularities were theoretically possible. Hell, it was Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose who came up with the Big Bang from a singularity theory. So in fact it would be Hawking saying his entire life's work is bullshit. I suspect such a statement would be big news.
Anyway, I don't see any reason why QM effects, even if they had the effect you say would negate a singularity. In fact the singularity of a rotating black hole is already known to not be a single point but a 'disc'.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME