God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wrong of course. It was a focus for Stephen Hawking toward the end of his life to find a plausible mathematical solution to a cyclical universe that did not villate physical laws and allowed for the local universe to have a perceived "beginning" (of uts spacetime).

And he did. Using imaginary time.

And that's just one example.

What do you think Hawking achieved with that? what do you understand it to mean? What exactly have you read about it? where did you read it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

lol.

Ok.

You run with that.

I'll leave that to theoretical physicists

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you think Hawking achieved with that?

Pretty much exactly what I said. Not sure what you are looking for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did not.

You introduced the term "magic" in the middle of a science discussion, I ask what it means to you and you run away, refuse to tell me.

Yes, and I already said exactly why.

Your act is getting old. You ask questions that have already been answered. You consistently say false things that have to be corrected. You misrepresent other posters and even flat out lie about what they have posted.

I suggest you stop.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Pretty much exactly what I said. Not sure what you are looking for.

I'm trying to assess how much of this you understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm trying to assess how much of this you understand.

Tough shit. This section is not for your personal fetishes.

Go look up ding. He will play that game with you all day.
He lives for it.

 

[BackAgain]

I'll leave that to theoretical physicists

Why?

I’m guessing your not one.

I’m also guessing that you actually (truly) understand thing one about any equation from Hawking (with or without the use of imaginary numbers, etc.).

Therefore, it’s unclear what basis you have to “leave” it or anything related to it to theoretical physicists.

Previously, you have said that you “don’t know.” Good on you. Me neither. But that doesn’t mean that the ones to whom you are deferring necessarily do “know,” either.

That takes us back to the question. How can something have simply “always” existed without having first been created?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why?

Haha... Um, because I don't think my mechanic or plumber can pull it off?

?????????


As for your bizarre rant.. scientists write lay articles. They try to convey the general ideas that are in the mathematics.

A lowly PhD like me is far beneath these brilliant and amazing people.

So yes, that's all I got. What I read.

Instead of going after strangers on a message board, go read up on what Hawking did. You'll enjoy it.

 

[abu afak]

Sherlock Homes still smarting after being caught in his usual but Dishonest semantic Philosophizing game. In fact, he admittedly now wants to talk philosophy using the excuse it's a valid college course. LOFL.
This is the SCIENCE section dealing in links/real numbers/tangible phenomenon, Not just endlessly talk scrabble that is his Only BS game.
No/Never any meat/data/etc, at all, just philosophical rambling.
I suggest 'Religion' or 'Conspiracies' for you Boy. More appropriate for his endless BS verbosity.

He couldn't take being Humiliated in our last encounter so keeps Tagging me.
ie,

• Aug 29, 2024

​

You've simply replaced "equal" with "valid" I don't know what meaning to attach to the question.

​

I believe that God exists, I also believe the temperature of my pool is higher than it was yesterday.​

​

Are these two things "equal" well they're not the same that's for sure. When comparing different things for equality it gets tricky, we need to define how to compare them, rules.​

​

We can ask "do they have anything in common?" and then on that basis argue they are equal, is that what you mean?​

Click to expand...​

Ahhh.. a denier special I call "the everything is just a belief Fallacy."​

Your pool is measurably hotter or Not, and one can say with EVIDENCE/MSRT if it's true or Not.​

Religion/Deism is "Faith." That is, belief withOut Evidence.​

All 'beliefs' are Not equal.​

In fact I'm 90% done with all the idiots here. Especially in the Sci sections I post in, and they should be banned from.
Zero Content tease 'Toddster,'
my shadow ding-dong whose 123,000 posts (75,000 10 words or less) have had less influence on this board than, ie, THIS OP/thread alone!!!,
No content, board-wide "Lib"-baiting conspiracist BackAgain who generates even more [empty] posts a day than Ding.
Committable EMH (aka Greenland Freak) who's been thrown off all other serious boards is a fixture/'star' here, etc.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Tough shit. This section is not for your personal fetishes.

Go look up ding. He will play that game with you all day.
He lives for it.

So you don't want to tell us what Hawking said that you believe, in a thread in which you cited Hawking as a source.

 

[BackAgain]

Haha... Um, because I don't think my mechanic or plumber can pull it off?

Yeah. You’re coherent. Not.

?????????

Your posting often leaves folks asking that very thing.

As for your bizarre rant.. scientists write lay articles. They try to convey the general ideas that are in the mathematics.

as for your bizarre comment. No shit. Irrelevant to the discussion. But, I guess you’re as close as a guy like you can come to being honest.

I take it you agree that you lack the knowledge needed to formulate a decision on the rightness or wrongness of Hawking’s speculations and his equations.

A lowly PhD like me is far beneath these brilliant and amazing people.

I don’t recall asking for your credentials. Even if we believe for a moment that a schmoe like you has a Ph.D. (in something or other), that simply doesn’t mean you grasp what Hawkings wrote.

So yes, that's all I got. What I read.

Good. That’s a first step. But if what you read is — you know, incorrect — then all you have is something wrong. Cool. That’s what i was telling you.

Instead of going after strangers on a message board, go read up on what Hawking did. You'll enjoy it.

I’m not going after you, despite your dangerously thin skin. I’m challenging what you said.

While it is perhaps entertaining to try to wrestle with the notions of theoretical physicists, that doesn’t mean that you actually understand what they have claimed to “discover” or the methods by which they reached their conclusions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock Homes still smarting after being caught in his usual but Dishonest semantic Philosophizing game. In fact, he admittedly now wants to talk philosophy using the excuse it's a valid college course. LOFL.
This is the SCIENCE section dealing in links/real numbers/tangible phenomenon, Not just endlessly talk scrabble that is his Only BS game.
No/Never any meat/data/etc, at all, just philosophical rambling.
I suggest 'Religion' or 'Conspiracies' for you Boy. More appropriate for his endless BS verbosity.

He couldn't take being Humiliated in our last encounter so keeps Tagging me.

I tag you because you often do nothing more than post an emoji as a response. Flagging a post as "Fake" for example isn't much of a retort so I give you the opportunity to actually say something, but you seem reluctant to confront me much of the time.

ie,

• Aug 29, 2024

Ahhh.. a denier special I call "the everything is just a belief Fallacy."​

Your pool is measurably hotter or Not, and one can say with EVIDENCE/MSRT if it's true or Not.​

Religion/Deism is "Faith." That is, belief withOut Evidence.​

All 'beliefs' are Not equal.​

I never wrote "everything is just a belief" though, go and look, find me a post where I said that...

In fact I'm 90% done with all the idiots here. Especially in the Sci sections I post in, and they should be banned from.
Zero Content tease 'Toddster,'
my shadow ding-dong whose 123,000 posts (75,000 10 words or less) have had less influence on this board than, ie, THIS OP/thread alone!!!,
No content, board-wide "Lib"-baiting conspiracist BackAgain who generates even more [empty] posta a day than Ding.
Committable EMH (aka Greenland Freak) who's been thrown off all other serious boards is a fixture/'star' here, etc.

All those just mentioned in fact are pure TROLLS who would (and probably have been) tossed off any decent board who wasn't just interested in page views.

`

Do you have any idea what we've all been talking about even? Since I've studied general relativity (and I'm happy to give you a basic explanation of it if you'd like) I feel very much at home discussing speculative ideas like those of Hawking and Krauss.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

as for your bizarre comment. No shit. Irrelevant to the discussion.

Relevant to you being your usual self and talking g about me instead of the topic.

You're right, I should have summarily ignored this behavior by you.

Moving on...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So back to the science.

My position here is that attributing the existence of the universe/laws to something other than the universe/laws is essential if we are to honestly claim to seek an explanation for said universe.

If you think a thing can serves as its own explanation then say so - but such a thing is not a scientific explanation.

The only possible options are then 1, It has always existed and 2. It was created.

 

[abu afak]

Why?

I’m guessing your not one.

I’m also guessing that you actually (truly) understand thing one about any equation from Hawking (with or without the use of imaginary numbers, etc.).

Therefore, it’s unclear what basis you have to “leave” it or anything related to it to theoretical physicists.

Previously, you have said that you “don’t know.” Good on you. Me neither. But that doesn’t mean that the ones to whom you are deferring necessarily do “know,” either.

That takes us back to the question. How can something have simply “always” existed without having first been created?

After all this speculation and false logic, the Best answer is still ""WE DON'T KNOW .. YET."

Everyone is making assumptions that are not logical deductions but the Fallacies of Argument from Ignorance.

Do we/you all know all the laws of physics yet?
(Did we know what 'fire' Lightening, fertility were based on our knowledge then?)
Know when they can be bent/broken as others have?
ie.
Wiki: Black Holes, first up.
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, according to our current understanding of physics, black holes essentially "destroy" matter by pulling it inside their event horizon, where the gravitational forces are so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape, effectively ripping apart and compressing matter into a singularity at the center of the black hole; once inside, we cannot observe or access that matter anymore, making it appear "destroyed" from our perspective....
`...
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m not going after you, despite your dangerously thin skin. I’m challenging what you said.

No you're not. You're sitting on your ass, begging strangers for attention.

To challenge what i said, go read up on what Hawking did. Then challenge it.

Good luck. I don't see you succeeding, but give it a shot.

 

[BackAgain]

After all this speculation and false logic, the Best answer is still ""WE DON'T KNOW .. YET."

Everyone is making assumptions that are not logical deductions but the Fallacies of Argument from Ignorance.

Do we/you all know all the laws of physics yet?
(Did we know what 'fire' Lightening, fertility were based on our knowledge then?)
Know when they can be bent/broken as others have?
ie.
Wiki: Black Holes, first up.
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, according to our current understanding of physics, black holes essentially "destroy" matter by pulling it inside their event horizon, where the gravitational forces are so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape, effectively ripping apart and compressing matter into a singularity at the center of the black hole; once inside, we cannot observe or access that matter anymore, making it appear "destroyed" from our perspective....
`...
`

Listen kid. There is reason to seek out information from people who are “learned” in the field.

Maybe that’s why nobody ever comes to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My position here is that attributing the existence of the universe/laws to something other than the universe/laws is essential if we are to honestly claim to seek an explanation for said universe.

Which is an authoritarian declaration.

Okay. Maybe its true.

And maybe it isnt. Maybe the laws of our local universe apply everywhere, for example.

That's both the luxury and the downfall of such whimsical and evidence free ideas.

 

[ChemEngineer]

What?

No contradiction.

Your book exists because you created it.

The atoms and stuff of which the paper and ink was made also exist. Who created them? The claim that they “always” existed simply makes a claim without logical or scientific support.

'If stuff like matter and energy can be neither created no destroyed, then for it to exist it must have always existed. It exists. Therefore it must have always existed." - YOU

Absurd on its face. New products completed today "exist" but clearly did not "ALWAYS EXIST."

________________________________--

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

After all this speculation and false logic, the Best answer is still ""WE DON'T KNOW .. YET."

Everyone is making assumptions that are not logical deductions but the Fallacies of Argument from Ignorance.

Do we/you all know all the laws of physics yet?
(Did we know what 'fire' Lightening, fertility were based on our knowledge then?)
Know when they can be bent/broken as others have?
ie.
Wiki: Black Holes, first up.
AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

Yes, according to our current understanding of physics, black holes essentially "destroy" matter by pulling it inside their event horizon, where the gravitational forces are so intense that nothing, not even light, can escape, effectively ripping apart and compressing matter into a singularity at the center of the black hole; once inside, we cannot observe or access that matter anymore, making it appear "destroyed" from our perspective....
`...
`

Insisting on a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is like insisting that an irrational number can be represented as the ratio of two integers. But was KNOW that no amount of time will help us, no amount of "lets wait and see" can help, it is impossible to represent an irrational number as a ratio and likewise it is impossible to invoke material laws and processes to explain the presence of those same laws and processes.