Science is worthless

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
warpspeedpetey said:
once again, causality doesnt depend on time, if it did the BB couldnt have happened.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that causality is independent of time?
i dont get it, we see causality in motion all the time, it woould seem that all things are caused.
Click to expand...
It would also seem that when we watch television, we are seeing actual motion, but this is not the case. We are seeing many still pictures.
it doesnt matter, cause preced that effect.
Click to expand...
When do you think time started?

Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?
 
wasmit said:
Are you saying that causality is independent of time?
Click to expand...
seems to be from the example of the big bang.
Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?
Click to expand...
it depends on the context, but as i said what point are you trying to make?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
seems to be from the example of the big bang.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that causality is independent of time?
or are you saying that causality seems to be independent of time?

because in this post you say “seems to”, and earlier (119), you say “is”.

Nevertheless, causality being independent of time would mean that when A causes B, their occurance in time is irrelevant. Which would mean that roughly half of the time, B would be before A, and roughly half off the time, A would be before B. Like comparing two random length strings - About half the time string C will be longer, about half the time D will be.
Would you have a problem with saying “X event occcured 10 minutes before the BB event.” ?
Click to expand...
it depends on the context, but as i said what point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...

There is no further writing (context) surrounding this question. The full question is written above. I posed this question in response to your quote “sure you can say before and prior to time beginning, the beginning of time being your temporal reference point.”, so I think that you response might be “I have no problem with that”, I’m just confirming.

Also, would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why?
 
wasmit said:
Are you saying that causality is independent of time?
or are you saying that causality seems to be independent of time?

because in this post you say “seems to”, and earlier (119), you say “is”.

Nevertheless, causality being independent of time would mean that when A causes B, their occurance in time is irrelevant. Which would mean that roughly half of the time, B would be before A, and roughly half off the time, A would be before B. Like comparing two random length strings - About half the time string C will be longer, about half the time D will be.

There is no further writing (context) surrounding this question. The full question is written above. I posed this question in response to your quote “sure you can say before and prior to time beginning, the beginning of time being your temporal reference point.”, so I think that you response might be “I have no problem with that”, I’m just confirming.

Also, would you agree that time started at the moment of the BB event, or would you disagree? If so, why?
Click to expand...
I was have my personal thinking, 😊 I thought that- no matter evolutionishts, anti-evolutionists, “intelligent design” advocates, and even anti-Copernican geocentrists.
yes, anti-Copernican theory seems right , but truth is not,

and about causality is independent of time?

I think that big difference about Science and our Faith, is that we believe in the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth use Six Days of Creation and the Sabbath, but Science believe our solar system were created by 4.6 billion years old. and whole universe 12.5-13 billion years old, I think this no conflict between them, because when I read Bible, Christ had said He will come soon, then I always think why let us wait so long? Now I understand it in my personal thinking, but how can you know I am not in truth? I think that because in Heaven time is different count as our earth time counting, maybe a million years on earth equal = one day in Heaven, that’s why Christ did will come soon, just because one day in heaven maybe equal million days on earth, 🤷 even Einstein said that more he learn more he know he understand very little, some mystery do exist, that’s we can not understand, because Father made us in his image, he made us, how can we truly understand everything? But He promised gave us eternal life, so one day we will know it.

And here is my thought in our group:
I read that True Great scientists more they learn more they understand that something are true Mystery! I think because God made human looks like Him, and human can never truly and totally understand our Father, but one day He will give us eternal life, I thought that- at that day, maybe we can know !
Here is a link about Einstein:
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
And he said:I have second thoughts. Maybe God is malicious.
Quoted in Jamie Sayen, Einstein in America (1985). Said to Vladimir Bargmann, with the meaning that God leads people to believe they understand things that they actually are far from understanding. [The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, 2006]
Click to expand...
God bless
Love
Click to expand...
roselily
forums.catholic-questions.org/group.php?groupid=180

And about anti-Copernican geocentrists, I did not search what they believe, but I know that they think the earth is center, and one sun moving circle the earth . but Science tell us earth moving circle sun, and many suns in other universe system, that’s not conflict with our Faith, because in Genesis beginning, 1"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth." See, Bible said : heavens , not just one heaven.

I think that there is no conflict between our Faith and Science
Oh, that is true, true.:angel1:
 
wasmit said:
Are you saying that causality is

independent of time?
or are you saying that causality seems to be independent of time?

because in this post you say “seems to”, and earlier (119), you say “is”.

dont be the language police, i mean from the example of the BB
Nevertheless, causality being independent of time would mean that when A causes B, their occurance in time is irrelevant. Which would mean that roughly half of the time, B would be before A, and roughly half off the time, A would be before B. Like comparing two random length strings - About half the time string C will be longer, about half the time D will be.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
warpspeedpetey said:
absolutely not, cause must precede effect, cause is not contingent on time. that doesnt preclude a specific order in their relationship.
Click to expand...
Cause and effect are dependent on the speed of light, which defines spacetime for matter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Essentially, if you are 1 light year away from something and something happens there, you *cannot *be effected until 1 year later. Period.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i dont understand how this makes causality confined to spacetime. especially considering the evidence of the BB
Click to expand...
Well, it’s technically more complicated because you have “instantaneous” forces like gravity according to quantum mechanics… but speaking strictly with relativity the gist is that there are certain windows (defined by the light cones) where objects can interact. If you are 1 light year away from an event, say a star that goes supernova, according to general relativity you can not in any way ever ever ever feel an effect until at least 1 year because that is how long the effect takes to reach you… because the effect is limited by the speed of light, which defines spacetime. Once 1 year has passed, the effects can forever be felt, but the fact remains that you could not feel them until at least the time it took light to reach you.

As far as before the big bang… it depends on what you think was there. Without matter/energy, there was no time much less causality, so the argument is moot. The major thing to remember is that no one knows what caused the big bang (or even if it’s the real scenario, it’s just the theory according to modern cosmological observations) so we can’t really know what things or rules existed before (if any). It’s hard to imagine, but we are so used to the rules we live with every day (time, matter, causality) that it’s difficult to imagine the absence of them.
 
liquidpele said:
Well, it’s technically more complicated because you have “instantaneous” forces like gravity according to quantum mechanics… but speaking strictly with relativity the gist is that there are certain windows (defined by the light cones) where objects can interact. If you are 1 light year away from an event, say a star that goes supernova, according to general relativity you can not in any way ever ever ever feel an effect until at least 1 year because that is how long the effect takes to reach you… because the effect is limited by the speed of light, which defines spacetime. Once 1 year has passed, the effects can forever be felt, but the fact remains that you could not feel them until at least the time it took light to reach you.
Click to expand...
i get this part, i just dont see the connection with what we are talking about.
As far as before the big bang… it depends on what you think was there. Without matter/energy, there was no time much less causality, so the argument is moot.
Click to expand...
as we have already shown by way of the BB, time and causality dont seem to be contingent.
The major thing to remember is that no one knows what caused the big bang (or even if it’s the real scenario, it’s just the theory according to modern cosmological observations) so we can’t really know what things or rules existed before (if any). It’s hard to imagine, but we are so used to the rules we live with every day (time, matter, causality) that it’s difficult to imagine the absence of them.
Click to expand...
we dont have evidence tht there was anything prior to the BB, but what ever it was still follows this rule.

if something doesnt exist, it cant act to cause itself. that rule holds regardless of environment.
 
liquidpele said:
It gives basic information and provides a point to follow it’s references to more substantial sources. Don’t act like it’s not useful.
Click to expand...
If someone has no idea where to start then go to wikipedia, scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the references provided. Wiwipedia is completely useless. Show me one school teacher or college professor who will accept it as a reference. It can be edited by anyone, so while it’s references may be, and ofter are, valid it’s information cannot be trusted. Using wikipedia simply makes you look like an ineffective researcher.
 
Drawmack said:
If someone has no idea where to start then go to wikipedia, scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the references provided. Wiwipedia is completely useless. Show me one school teacher or college professor who will accept it as a reference. It can be edited by anyone, so while it’s references may be, and ofter are, valid it’s information cannot be trusted. Using wikipedia simply makes you look like an ineffective researcher.
Click to expand...
This is hardly a classroom setting, and I’m not submitting papers to you. Deal with slack sources. If you want to actually know more, you can reasearch it yourself. I’ve read books on the subjects, and typically point to wikipedia because you won’t have the book. In this case, it’s *a briefer history of time. *
 
liquidpele said:
This is hardly a classroom setting, and I’m not submitting papers to you. Deal with slack sources. If you want to actually know more, you can reasearch it yourself. I’ve read books on the subjects, and typically point to wikipedia because you won’t have the book. In this case, it’s *a briefer history of time. *
Click to expand...
First of all, I have that book. Second of all there are better resource on the web, which cite the appropriate sections of that book, than Wikipedia. You’re correct, this isn’t a classroom setting, but if you want to be taken seriously then you should use serious sources. You may persist in using poor sources and I will persist in assuming that you do this out of stupidity or laziness. In either event you’re not worth reading.
 
Drawmack said:
First of all, I have that book. Second of all there are better resource on the web, which cite the appropriate sections of that book, than Wikipedia. You’re correct, this isn’t a classroom setting, but if you want to be taken seriously then you should use serious sources. You may persist in using poor sources and I will persist in assuming that you do this out of stupidity or laziness. In either event you’re not worth reading.
Click to expand...
Oh, it’s definitely out of laziness. I don’t actually expect to be convincing anyone of anything, I just point people in a direction and they can research stuff themselves if they like. Me going to a lot of trouble on an online forum would be quite the waste of time… more so than just being on the forum 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top