Re: College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or
- From: Timothy Sutter <a202010@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:19:30 -0500
alright anyway, big deal, what you need
someone do is describe the state of the
"universe" at time T = 0.
all the first second bit and physical science
in general cannot rightly make a clear definition
of the situation at time T = 0 so, you have two
choices in your speculative conjecture.
either you cite the existance of some substance
that has no known physical qualities, meaning no
physical qualities that may be measured and
therefore does not exist in the normal fashion,
or, you must cite a beginning from
absolute nothing, and this second
choice amounts to a magic.
a "something from nothing,"
that is the definition of a "magic".
but, if you make any referrence to this
"substance" that has no real physically
knowable qualities, you cite a "thing"
that you can have no physical reckoning of.
for all practical purposes, "science" must
discount the "something from nothing"
possibility as a "magic"
and therefore is confined to the emanation of
physical substances _from_ a "substance" that
has no knowable physical properties of its own.
and so, in referrence to absolute origins,
"science" is "stuck" citing a "thing"
that it can never recognize as "real"
but see, i got something even funnier,
you can't even demonstrate that the universe
by necessity came about in the manner described
in the "first second" manner.
this also amounts to pure conjecture.
so, what you cannot rightly disprove is
the proposition that all things simply
popped out of some such "quantum singularity"
fully in tact. that is, that planets and
suns just blurted out of this thing
already in tact.
which leaves you with another stange thing
and that is, that at time T = 0 there was
no physical reality, and at time T = 1 there
was a star that was "apparently"
6 billion years old.
that is, something like this,
that a "black hole" or "quantum sigularity"
just sort of sneezed and blew apart into
constituent fragmentary, atomic nature,
pieces that were already completely formed.
of course, we don't cite an
uncontrolled accident as our origin.
we cite a specifically ordained
manifestation of mechanical effluence.
specifically directed intelligence made it happen.
as metastability cannot be cited
where no mechanistic forces,
as yet, exist.
that is, we cannot suggest that the
flower pot was teetering imperceptibly
on the shelf, and then fell.
as, in the unity of the All, no potential
differences can be credibly cited.
no oppositional forcework.
only Love
whatever that is.
all you can do is say, "we've never
seen anything like that happen before"
but then, you've never studies a true
quantum singularity in any lab of yours
either, and in fact, you cannot.
so, basically, given that the state of
affairs at Time T = 0 favor uncertainty
and not a certainty of nothing at all,
the idea of an eternal God hanging out in
the "midst" of all that unknowable and not
ever knowable "stuff" loses me no sleep at all.
unknowable to experimental material
physics observation knowable to -that-
"stuff" whatever it may be.
what's funny about "life" -inside- of this
nowhere land is the apparent "sequence of events"
that may take place where no seconds tick
off of any clock.
that always struck me as entirely odd.
and the whole 'place' could be tinier than
the head of a pin or larger than the andromeda
galaxy or both simultaneously and neither
because there's no spacial measurement
possible either.
id est, there's no space, no physical
measuring device can comprehend it.
but yet, something "lives" 'there'.
wherever "there" 'is'
but what it -ain't- is
"something from nothing"
something from something
i can come to grips with.
but, nothing is nothing
and what can come of nothing?
so then, there is 'substance'
to that which can never be 'touched'
now nothing can confound you, any more.
or can't, as the case may be.
anyway, materialism falls under this.
simply because there's a "substance"
that has no knowable physical attributes.
and therefore, is not "material" in any way
that you could can describe based on physical
experimentation and observation.
therefore does not "exist" to physical discovery,
but yet, must exist.
and -only- a being with
conscious intent can
'make a tree'
and speaking of genesis from singularity
and lack of any triggering mechanisms;
you have to provide as clear a description
for the state of affairs -at- Time T = 0
it's only much after that that you
can begin to speak of any sort of
atomic material, and any properties
which accompany that stuff.
properties which include heat content,
electromagnetic forces, gravitational
forces, and atomic forces, work and energy,
cannot be credibly cited as 'locked'
inside of any 'singularity' waiting
to burst forth.
no, these properties are
the -consequence- of
atomic material.
and so, in considering a genesis from
a singularity state, no triggering
mechanism can be positted and therefore,
a very absolute requirement for some
sort of concious being to speak things
into existance from nothing
at all is the consequence
with which you are stuck.
so, backtracking from the atomic world..;
you have your little atom,
and you see it like a spring.
just like a little slinky.
the slinky is wah-wah-ing back and forth.
the wah-wah-ing is what's
giving you time space
and temperature.
that is, the vibrational qualities
of the spring carry the attributes
of time space and temperature.
now, you claim you'd like to visit
a 'place' where the spring is compressed
into a void of zero space.
fine, you crush the atomic spring
into an entirely different substance.
well, now that "stuff" has no spring qualities.
you can no longer cite springlike qualities
in regards to this -other- stuff with
any degree of certainty whatsever.
so, you can't speak of concepts like
"infinite heat content" and "infinite density"
with any reasonable understanding.
no, you have vanished those 'springlike'
qualities in favor of some -other-
set of qualities.
qualities that you can never fully realize
from within the constraints of
your "physical" reality.
that is, you have, first, provided the ultimate
necessity for a "substance" that has no 'physical'
reality and now you must divorce yourself from
making a 'physical' attribution upon this "stuff"
that has no springlike qualities.
you -can- convince yourself, quite readily,
that this "stuff" has no "beginning" but you
can not make this broad leap that the qualities
understood in the atomic reality apply, in any
fashion, to this "stuff" that has
no springlike qualities.
you can't even go so far as to suggest that
this "stuff" is "consumed" into becoming
the atomic material.
but you remain stuck citing
a "stuff" that isn't 'real'.
failing to do so it tantamount to lieing.
in crushing the spring out of the atom,
you have an entirely different 'substance'
which is alien to the physical material
composition to classify.
what you can not broadly assume is that
this 'immaterial-substance' has the springlike
attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.
you are not considering a loaded spring.
you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.
energy is not present in a non-atomic state.
no mass, no energy in the material sense.
no volume no gravity, no mass.
whatever is the composition of 'it'
gravitational potential energy is lost without mass.
electromagnetic energy is lost without atomic structure.
heat energy is lost without heat content.
atomic energy is lost without atomic structure.
and you have no trigger to push over
any metastable teetering. what you have
is a definition of energy as an ability
to do work and generate heat,
outside of volume, no work
can be accomplished, and without
atomic vibrations, no heat
can be generated.
so, you cannot suggest that heat and work
were trapped, springloaded, in a singularity.
as heat and work -are- virtues of the material.
no trigger.
you can't just say;
"all energy was in the form
of heat and waiting to be
converted to work"
aside from matter you have no heat.
you need matter to generate heat.
without matter and without volume,
you have no heat or work potential.
those things come in to existance simultaneously.
i said;
"infinite heat capacity and
infinite density are unreal
concepts"
inasmuch as 'infinity'
is -not- a 'real' number.
infinity fails as a 'real' number
by additive identities,
1 plus infinity = infinity
infinity plus infinity = infinity
any real number, when you add another
nmumber to it takes to the next successor
and does not return itself.
no real number, when added
to itself, returns itself.
infinity is a "non-real" 'mathematical' concept.
therefore, 'infinite heat capacity'
and 'infinite density' are
meaningless statements.
what you have is some non-material
with no forcework acting upon it
triggered by some intelligent Hand.
physically 'at rest' with
no forcework to jostle
anything material at all.
which is why i liken it
to a matter/energy 'generator'
you can't speak of 'it' being
'consumed' to produce the material.
and you can't demonstrate that 'it'
is not still just as available
'now' as it was 'then'
this immaterial 'device'
is employed by God and
Jesus made use of 'it'
.
- Prev by Date: Re: College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or
- Next by Date: Re: College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or
- Previous by thread: Re: College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or
- Next by thread: Re: College project : Is the number of human chromosomes fixed, or
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
