Bad atheist arguments

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it does not mean there was no beginning,

Actually, from our perspective, it means precisely that. So yes, infinite regress of causal events would be reality, for us, in our timeline.

Try to stay focused on what we are talking about,ding.

And yes, there may have been a beginning of "everything". Which is to say that there may not have been a beginning. Try to keep that in mind while you are trolling.

 

[ding]

But it does not mean there was no beginning,

Actually, from our perspective, it means precisely that. So yes, infinite regress of causal events would be reality, for us, in our timeline.

Try to stay focused on what we are talking about,ding.

No. It does not. It’s a mathematical gimmick to avoid Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations yielding infinities.

It has absolutely nothing to do with space and time not being created. It doesn’t postulate a cyclical universe which oscillates between big bangs and big crunches. That model defies the SLoT.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. It does not. It’s a mathematical gimmick to avoid Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations yielding infinities.

False. It does. And your cheap parlor tricks (in this case, your characterization of a completely possible scenario, with consistent math, as a "mathematical gimmick") embarrass you and make you look childish. Furthermore, you couldn't describe or explain this "gimmick" if your life depended on it, which makes your characterization worthless.

It has absolutely nothing to do with space and time not being created.

It has to do with our real timeline beginning. To those within this timeline, there is no beginning boundary. Come on ding, try to keep up. You are back at square one.

 

[ding]

No. It does not. It’s a mathematical gimmick to avoid Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations yielding infinities.

False. It does. And your cheap parlor tricks (in this case, your characterization of a completely possible scenario, with consistent math, as a "mathematical gimmick") embarrass you and make you look childish. Furthermore, you couldn't describe or explain this "gimmick" if your life depended on it, which makes your characterization worthless.

It has absolutely nothing to do with space and time not being created.

It has to do with our real timeline beginning. To those within this timeline, there is no beginning boundary. Come on ding, try to keep up. You are back at square one.

The gimmick is imaginary time. That’s what they use to avoid the equations yielding infinities. That has no bearing on space and time being created from nothing. The authors themselves are proponents of space and time being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

No. It does not. It’s a mathematical gimmick to avoid Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations yielding infinities.

False. It does. And your cheap parlor tricks (in this case, your characterization of a completely possible scenario, with consistent math, as a "mathematical gimmick") embarrass you and make you look childish. Furthermore, you couldn't describe or explain this "gimmick" if your life depended on it, which makes your characterization worthless.

It has absolutely nothing to do with space and time not being created.

It has to do with our real timeline beginning. To those within this timeline, there is no beginning boundary. Come on ding, try to keep up. You are back at square one.

Where was this matter and energy physically before the Big Bang?

 

[ding]

No. It does not. It’s a mathematical gimmick to avoid Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations yielding infinities.

False. It does. And your cheap parlor tricks (in this case, your characterization of a completely possible scenario, with consistent math, as a "mathematical gimmick") embarrass you and make you look childish. Furthermore, you couldn't describe or explain this "gimmick" if your life depended on it, which makes your characterization worthless.

It has absolutely nothing to do with space and time not being created.

It has to do with our real timeline beginning. To those within this timeline, there is no beginning boundary. Come on ding, try to keep up. You are back at square one.

The gimmick is imaginary time. That’s what they use to avoid the equations yielding infinities. That has no bearing on space and time being created from nothing. The authors themselves are proponents of space and time being created from nothing.

What was the size of the universe before it began to expand and cool?

Where was this energy before that point?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The gimmick is imaginary time.

Except imaginary time is not a "gimmick", any more than imaginary numbers are a "gimmick". Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a gimmick, a trick, or distasteful. It just means you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That’s what they use to avoid the equations yielding infinities.

It's much more than that. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sums of infinite series also avoid infinities. Are those "gimmicks"? Funny, that quantum mechanical machine you are using to whine relies on this "gimmick".

Ding, you don't seem to have any actual argument, besides characterizing something you don't understand as a "gimmick". Of course, that childish behavior by you is the only real "gimmick", here.

 

[ding]

The gimmick is imaginary time.

Except imaginary time is not a "gimmick", any more than imaginary numbers are a "gimmick". Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a gimmick, a trick, or distasteful. It just means you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That’s what they use to avoid the equations yielding infinities.

It's much more than that. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sums of infinite series also avoid infinities. Are those "gimmicks"? Funny, that quantum mechanical machine you are using to whine relies on this "gimmick".

Ding, you don't seem to have any actual argument, besides characterizing something you don't understand as a "gimmick". Of course, that childish behavior by you is the only real "gimmick", here.

Imaginary time is most certainly a mathematical gimmick used in the same way we use other temperature scales to avoid using 0 in calculations but in the case of imaginary time it s used to avoid yielding infinities from Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations.

 

[ding]

The gimmick is imaginary time.

Except imaginary time is not a "gimmick", any more than imaginary numbers are a "gimmick". Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a gimmick, a trick, or distasteful. It just means you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That’s what they use to avoid the equations yielding infinities.

It's much more than that. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sums of infinite series also avoid infinities. Are those "gimmicks"? Funny, that quantum mechanical machine you are using to whine relies on this "gimmick".

Ding, you don't seem to have any actual argument, besides characterizing something you don't understand as a "gimmick". Of course, that childish behavior by you is the only real "gimmick", here.

Dude, you are the one who has no argument.

You can’t produce a link. You are misstating the theory. You are reaching conclusions the authors themselves don’t support and you can’t describe the process how the universe has existed forever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To All:

Let's illustrate the absurdity of ding's little fit -- calling imaginary time a "gimmick" (not an actual argument, shows no actual understanding, is a cheap fallacy in lieu of either) -- and why such concepts are useful and essential to our understanding and description of our reality.

First off, consider the imaginary number i. This is the square root of negative one. Without this concept, you would not be reading this sentence right now. There would be no transistors. There would be no nuclear power, and no x-ray machines in hospitals. The fundamental equation of quantum mechanics -- Schröedinger's equation -- contains an imaginary number:

In the case of a boundless universe, time would also be boundless. Enter: imaginary time, a concept already very useful in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. One elegant solution to maintain a boundless universe and resolve the problem of a singularity involves using imaginary time. This solution is perfectly consistent and, therefore, has not been ruled out.

No, ding is not going to rule it out by having a tantrum on the floor.

 

[ding]

To All:

Let's illustrate the absurdity of ding's little fit -- calling imaginary time a "gimmick" (not an actual argument, shows no actual understanding, is a cheap fallacy in lieu of either) -- and why such concepts are useful and essential to our understanding and description of our reality.

First off, consider the imaginary number i. This is the square root of negative one. Without this concept, you would not be reading this sentence right now. There would be no transistors. There would be no nuclear power, and no x-ray machines in hospitals. The fundamental equation of quantum mechanics -- Schröedinger's equation -- contains an imaginary number:

In the case of a boundless universe, time would also be boundless. Enter: imaginary time, a concept already very useful in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. One elegant solution to maintain a boundless universe and resolve the problem of a singularity involves using imaginary time. This solution is perfectly consistent and, therefore, has not been ruled out.

No, ding is not going to rule it out by having a tantrum on the floor.

I haven’t thrown a fit or had a tantrum.

All I did was point out that imaginary time is a mathematical gimmick used to avoid the equations yielding infinite values.

It has no real physical meaning and does not change the fact that the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

 

[ding]

To All:

Let's illustrate the absurdity of ding's little fit -- calling imaginary time a "gimmick" (not an actual argument, shows no actual understanding, is a cheap fallacy in lieu of either) -- and why such concepts are useful and essential to our understanding and description of our reality.

First off, consider the imaginary number i. This is the square root of negative one. Without this concept, you would not be reading this sentence right now. There would be no transistors. There would be no nuclear power, and no x-ray machines in hospitals. The fundamental equation of quantum mechanics -- Schröedinger's equation -- contains an imaginary number:

In the case of a boundless universe, time would also be boundless. Enter: imaginary time, a concept already very useful in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. One elegant solution to maintain a boundless universe and resolve the problem of a singularity involves using imaginary time. This solution is perfectly consistent and, therefore, has not been ruled out.

No, ding is not going to rule it out by having a tantrum on the floor.

So, what was the size of the universe before it began to expand and cool?

And where did that energy come from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All I did was point out that imaginary time is a mathematical gimmick used to avoid the equations yielding infinite values.

And that was stupid and a cheap fallacy the first time you said it, and it still is, for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

And you, in your religion-addled mind, think your "declaration from on high" (which is just a cheap characterization fallacy with no supporting argument) is an argument. It isn't. That only works in church, Shaman.

 

[ding]

All I did was point out that imaginary time is a mathematical gimmick used to avoid the equations yielding infinite values.

And that was stupid and a cheap fallacy the first time you said it, and it still is, for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

And you, in your religion-addled mind, think your "declaration from on high" (which is just a cheap characterization fallacy with no supporting argument) is an argument. It isn't. That only works in church, Shaman.

Says the guy with zero links.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All I did was point out that imaginary time is a mathematical gimmick used to avoid the equations yielding infinite values.

And that was stupid and a cheap fallacy the first time you said it, and it still is, for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

And you, in your religion-addled mind, think your "declaration from on high" (which is just a cheap characterization fallacy with no supporting argument) is an argument. It isn't. That only works in church, Shaman.

Says the guy with zero links.

Sorry, I am not your mommy, nor do I care if you take my word for anything. If you are honestly curious, you will look it up yourself. If you are not, you won't, so spoonfeeding you material would be a waste of time.

You might want to bookmark this post, so you can refer back to it, the next time the urge to re-direct your losing argument to something frivolous grabs you..

 

[ding]

All I did was point out that imaginary time is a mathematical gimmick used to avoid the equations yielding infinite values.

And that was stupid and a cheap fallacy the first time you said it, and it still is, for precisely the reasons I mentioned.

And you, in your religion-addled mind, think your "declaration from on high" (which is just a cheap characterization fallacy with no supporting argument) is an argument. It isn't. That only works in church, Shaman.

Says the guy with zero links.

Sorry, I am not your mommy, nor do I care if you take my word for anything. If you are honestly curious, you will look it up yourself. If you are not, you won't, so spoonfeeding you material would be a waste of time.

You might want to bookmark this post, so you can refer back to it, the next time the urge to re-direct your losing argument to something frivolous grabs you..

“In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted....”

The Beginning of TIme

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, to summarize:

The idea that our universe is boundless appears likely to be a fact, given what we know. This applies to spacetime. Therefore, it also applies to time.

If it is a fact:

Whether or not you accept Hawking's mathematical solution as true or just possible, you would never, not ever, run into a "first event" or "first cause", should you travel backwards in time. You can travel backwards in time forever, and never reach a boundary. there will be no "first cause", in your frame of reference (which, in this case, is the same frame of reference as our entire universe). In the boundless universe, infinite regression is not just possible, but required.

Now, the debate on the boundless condition of our universe is still active. For some great reading on this, search for articles that discuss "white holes".

 

[ding]

So, to summarize:

The idea that our universe is boundless appears likely to be a fact, given what we know. This applies to spacetime. Therefore, it also applies to time.

If it is a fact:

Whether or not you accept Hawking's mathematical solution as true or just possible, you would never, not ever, run into a "first event" or "first cause", should you travel backwards in time. You can travel backwards in time forever, and never reach a boundary. there will be no "first cause", in your frame of reference (which, in this case, is the same frame of reference as our entire universe). In the boundless universe, infinite regression is not just possible, but required.

Now, the debate on the boundless condition of our universe is still active. For some great reading on this, search for articles that discuss "white holes".

And still had a beginning.

The Beginning of TIme

 

[ding]

#winning

 

[ding]

The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point. Stephen Hawking

The Beginning of TIme