WHY does anything exist?

[Dywyddyr]

Yes to the concept know as "osculating universe".

It gives you a big kiss now and again?
I think you'll find that the only place that "concept" exists is in your head.

light caused the big bang.

Link please. This appears to be yet another supposition (and contradicts your previous claim that it was matter/ anti-matter).

If you were to go out far beyond the universe you would see nothing but a beam of light glowing and expanding in the distance.

Supposition. And self-evidently wrong.

anti-carbon is impossible

Wrong.

You like to study nothing?

That's not what I said.
I realise now that you're incapable of reading a coherent sentence, let alone putting one together.

We aren't so different you and I.

Oh, we are so different.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Link please. This appears to be yet another supposition (and contradicts your previous claim that it was matter/ anti-matter).

Wrong direction on timeline. Your question should have been something like, "what caused light?" I guess light doesn't count as matter in your book.

Supposition. And self-evidently wrong.

Because you don't believe the universe is isotropically expanding at the same speed it was when it started. What slows light down from marking uncharted territories into being lit with the colors of the universe?

Wrong.

So we have completely learned how to synthesize any anti-atoms we want?

Oh, we are so different.

Doubtful.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Wrong direction on timeline.

That would be incorrect.
Light did not cause the Big Bang. Still waiting for a link...

Because you don't believe the universe is isotropically expanding at the same speed it was when it started.

How do you know what I do and do not believe? And your claim is still self-evidently wrong.

So we have completely learned how to synthesize any anti-atoms we want?

Huh? How does this relate to your statement that anti-carbon is impossible? It may be impracticable at the moment, and even not possible at the moment. Neither of which is the same as impossible.

Doubtful.

Hardly.

Still getting kisses from the universe?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

That would be incorrect.

Beep!!! Invalid answer. It was a question.

Light did not cause the Big Bang.

Assumption. Wrong. Without light there would be no matter to combine and form into electrons.

How do you know what I do and do not believe? And your claim is still self-evidently wrong.

Throw out extreme verbiage. With you it seems no response means correct. Assumption/ supposition means debatable in light of new propositions. "Nonsense" means it is true. Then move to the other extreme, I can narrow down your beliefs. In what manner do you believe it is wrong or is this just another assumption?

Huh? How does this relate to your statement that anti-carbon is impossible? It may be impracticable at the moment, and even not possible at the moment. Neither of which is the same as impossible.

Good try to use that type of logic more often.

Still getting kisses from the universe?

Jealous?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Beep!!! Invalid answer. It was a question.

No it wasn't:

light caused the big bang.

Post #400.

Assumption. Wrong. Without light there would be no matter to combine and form into electrons.

The assumption (and incorrectness) would be yours. Please provide a link to substantiate this assertion.

Throw out extreme verbiage. With you it seems no response means correct. Assumption/ supposition means debatable in light of new propositions. "Nonsense" means it is true. Then move to the other extreme, I can narrow down your beliefs. In what manner do you believe it is wrong or is this just another assumption?

Also incorrect. Your statement:

. If you were to go out far beyond the universe you would see nothing but a beam of light glowing and expanding in the distance.

Is an assumption (i.e. not only do you NOT know this for a fact you also cannot show it) it is also incorrect that there would be a "beam". It would, if anything, be an expanding spherical wavefront.
You're not "narrowing down my beliefs", you're simply asserting things you cannot substantiate.

Good try to use that type of logic more often.

You mean the logic that just showed your error?
You're hardly in a position to patronise considering the large holes in your own "logic".

Jealous?

Nope. Literate.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

The assumption (and incorrectness) would be yours. Please provide a link to substantiate this assertion.

Unless you intend to teach me something about the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

Is an assumption (i.e. not only do you NOT know this for a fact you also cannot show it) it is also incorrect that there would be a "beam". It would, if anything, be an expanding spherical wavefront.

Agreed. Sorry I was thinking one dimensionally. So what is the force that drives this expansion?

You mean the logic that just showed your error?
You're hardly in a position to patronise considering the large holes in your own "logic".

I would never patronize the logician who considered building a pair and having them annihilate in order to conform to my assumptions.

But what we want is a new-

"Sense of truth.-I think well of all skepticism to which I may reply, "Let us try it." But I no longer want to hear those things and questions which do not permit experiments. This is the limit of my "sense of truth": for there courage has lost its rights"- NietzscheHimself

 

[Randwolf]

Unless you intend to teach me something about the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

Well, I was hoping someone would teach me something about that which existed prior to the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

Actually, what I'd really love to know is what the previous environment was like before that which existed prior to the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

Can you help me out here, NietzscheHimself?


Oh, sorry. I forgot that you will no longer be participating in this thread since you are seeking a new

"Sense of truth.-I think well of all skepticism to which I may reply, "Let us try it." But I no longer want to hear those things and questions which do not permit experiments. This is the limit of my "sense of truth": for there courage has lost its rights"

Presumably you will be ambling off elsewhere in search of said "things and questions which do not permit experiments", being that this represents your limit of the "sense of truth", right?

Or maybe courage will, in fact, regain its rights?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Actually, what I'd really love to know is what the previous environment was like before that which existed prior to the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

This question doesn't interfere with current debate over experimentation. Very good question indeed. It is the very reason we need to push for experimentation in the proposed manner. To find the source for dark energy that gave the initial particles a start, or to find it was created in unison with the BB. As for what is "nothing" or before the BB I could propose for it to have been cyclic. Each time possibly creating new and different laws, but that would just be the very essence of our most impossible dreams. It all came from particles smaller than light, particles that are usually nothing appear for instants as waves headed for a central gravitational location.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Unless you intend to teach me something about the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.

What do you mean "unless"?
Baryogenesis has nothing to with your initial claim. Please support your claim that: light caused the big bang.

I would never patronize the logician who considered building a pair and having them annihilate in order to conform to my assumptions.

A pair of what? Logicians don't experiment.

But what we want is a new-
"Sense of truth.-I think well of all skepticism to which I may reply, "Let us try it." But I no longer want to hear those things and questions which do not permit experiments. This is the limit of my "sense of truth": for there courage has lost its rights"- NietzscheHimself

No. What you need is a new brain. One that actually works.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to answer a question I asked earlier:

You: When I said one atom of each from the periodic table of elements combine by nanotechnology would create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang. I proposed a specified experiment containing every substance known to man.

Me: Why do you think this would produce a Big Bang?
When (and why) do you think it has been performed before?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It all came from particles smaller than light, particles that are usually nothing appear for instants as waves headed for a central gravitational location.

So now we have a third claim.
Originally you stated it was matter/ anti-matter. Then it was light. And now it's "particles smaller than light".
And what, exactly, is this "central gravitational location"?
Still making things up?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

So now we have a third claim.
Originally you stated it was matter/ anti-matter.

they can.

Then it was light.

It did.

And now it's "particles smaller than light".

that is pre BB.

And what, exactly, is this "central gravitational location"?

What you assumed to be a "singularity"

 

[Dywyddyr]

they can. It did. that is pre BB.

All of which are (wild) supposition. Links please.

What you assumed to be a "singularity"

What I assumed to be a singularity?
Please point out where I referred at all to a "singularity" that is acting as a "central gravitational location" toward which "particles smaller than light" are headed.

 

[wesmorris]

Are we assuming we're not computer simulations?

 

[wynn]

And who made the computer?

The brain in a vat scenario is just a distraction.

 

[Randwolf]

“Originally Posted by Randwolf
Actually, what I'd really love to know is what the previous environment was like before that which existed prior to the formation of objects before nuclei began in baryogenesis.”

This question doesn't interfere with current debate over experimentation. Very good question indeed. It is the very reason we need to push for experimentation...

Is there some aspect of infinite regression that you don't comprehend?

Just curious. :shrug:

 

[wesmorris]

Mostly the "Why?" is "Because it can't do anything else..." but some consider that a meaningless response... which others would consider somewhat matches the question, and that any other answer would be unsubstantiated supposition.

Sarkus probably said this here already, but this is pretty much it. (and sort of the point of the question taken as distraction)

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Is there some aspect of infinite regression that you don't comprehend?

Never heard of it before now. There are lots of chains of events I don't fully understand. A gap from history missing coupled with the experiments we have never accomplished.
How to make each set of assumptions cyclic or end in the mind of another I suppose would be the one place I comprehend the least.

 

[Dywyddyr]

A gap from history missing

What gap?

coupled with the experiments we have never accomplished.

Such as?

the one place I comprehend the least.

Damn' that's a long list, ya'know?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

What gap?

The one that completes the "absolute" formation of DNA.

Such as?

If a matter-anitmatter pair in the right hands could lead to a paradigm shift of some sort

Damn' that's a long list, ya'know?

Which list is longer. The finite "known"? or the infinite unknown?

 

[Dywyddyr]

The one that completes the "absolute" formation of DNA.

Pardon? What do you mean by that?

If a matter-anitmatter pair in the right hands could lead to a paradigm shift of some sort

An explosion you mean?

Which list is longer. The finite "known"? or the infinite unknown?

Or the things you know little about.

Still waiting for answers to my previous questions...