Religious

[VigorsTheGrey]

Just like a horse need a sire and a dam to exist in the world....so is each moment the offspring of the moment immediately adjacent and prior to it...there can be no present without a direct link with the past...

And each moment is the same in this respect....there ALWAYS MUST BE a preceding moment for any given present to exist...

There never was an moment that was not preceded by another moment...

To maintain that any given present arrived without a previous moment is a fallacy...even in astrophysics...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Just like a horse need a sire and a dam to exist in the world....so is each moment the offspring of the moment immediately adjacent and prior to it...there can be no present without a direct link with the past...

And each moment is the same in this respect....there ALWAYS MUST BE a preceding moment for any given present to exist...

There never was an moment that was not preceded by another moment...

To maintain that any given present arrived without a previous moment is a fallacy...even in astrophysics...

The General Theory of Relativity disagrees with this view.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Actor

The General Theory of Relativity disagrees with this view.

Are you saying that there have existed present moments that were not preceded by former moments..?

In what way does the GTR disagree with this...?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Are you saying that there have existed present moments that were not preceded by former moments..?

In what way does the GTR disagree with this...?

For one thing time stops at the event horizon of a black hole.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Actor

For one thing time stops at the event horizon of a black hole.

Time doesn't stop there...it continues on down the path beyond the event horizon...what stops is the ability of those on this side of the EH to recover /record data which is required to mark time from the source beyond the EH...

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's a philosophical view, and one that seems to me to have no value as far as predictive models go.
A consensus is an opinion. As such I do not have to accept it. It matters not whose consensus it is.

And the general consensus among astrophysicists and astronomers is not that the universe will have an end. The "heat death" hypothesis does not predict an end. It only predicts an asymptotic approach to a limit.

Good. Then no one with an IQ that is larger than his belt size should ever be expected to accept the consensus (opinion) of scientists who believe man-made global warming/climate change/climate disruption is real, right?
I never thought I'd see the day when you would be so dismissive of scientific consensus.

Also, are you suggesting that physical objects in motion need no space in which to move? I can take, for instance, a bunch of marbles and cram them very tightly into a jar, put a lid on a jar and when I go to shake the jar expect to hear the loud rattle of motion within as I shake the jar vigorously? I should be able to hear a racket inside the jar, right, since those marbles don't need any space in which to move around? Is this what you're telling us?

[boxcar]

By the way, gents, I'd just like to very briefly throw my 2.5 cents worth into this discussion about Time, and event horizons, etc. Here it is: As we all know, one of the big objections hurled against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the Starlight Problem. The argument goes along these lines: Scientists can observe galaxies billions of light years away from the earth; therefore, since a light year is the distance light can travel in one year, the earth must be bazillions of years old. So, here is my question for you two Eternal Universe Enthusiasts: If the universe is indeed eternal (having no beginning, no end -- being of infinite duration, making it much older than ancient), then wouldn't it take forever -- an eternity for the light from those galaxies to reach little ol' planet earth?

Continue on, ladies, I'm enjoying the discussion.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Good. Then no one with an IQ that is larger than his belt size should ever be expected to accept the consensus (opinion) of scientists who believe man-made global warming/climate change/climate disruption is real, right?
I never thought I'd see the day when you would be so dismissive of scientific consensus.

Dismissive is not the right word. The nature of science is to challenge consensus. Copernicus and Galileo were challenging the consensus, as were Einstein, Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, are you suggesting that physical objects in motion need no space in which to move? I can take, for instance, a bunch of marbles and cram them very tightly into a jar, put a lid on a jar and when I go to shake the jar expect to hear the loud rattle of motion within as I shake the jar vigorously? I should be able to hear a racket inside the jar, right, since those marbles don't need any space in which to move around? Is this what you're telling us?

I'm saying that your position that "without Matter (motion), there is no Time" is a philosophical one. It is unfalsifiable. It cannot be tested. It has no utility in developing predictive models. I.e., whether it is true or false will not change the result of any experiment performed in a lab.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By the way, gents, I'd just like to very briefly throw my 2.5 cents worth into this discussion about Time, and event horizons, etc. Here it is: As we all know, one of the big objections hurled against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the Starlight Problem. The argument goes along these lines: Scientists can observe galaxies billions of light years away from the earth; therefore, since a light year is the distance light can travel in one year, the earth must be bazillions of years old. So, here is my question for you two Eternal Universe Enthusiasts: If the universe is indeed eternal (having no beginning, no end -- being of infinite duration, making it much older than ancient), then wouldn't it take forever -- an eternity for the light from those galaxies to reach little ol' planet earth?

Continue on, ladies, I'm enjoying the discussion.

There is no other place for the stuff of the cosmos to go...the Universe is necessarily eternal....

....if the Universe were someday to not exist, where would all of the stuff now in the Universe go...?

What would happen to it...?

If you took everything out of this universe, you would just have to place it in another universe for storage....you see, you just can't ever get rid of the stuff completely....and if you can't ever get rid of the stuff, then it is ALWAYS GOING TO BE AROUND...

It doesn't get much simpler than this Boxcar, admit defeat Boxcar, the Universe is Eternal...

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

What would happen to it...?

For starters, someday the stars will all run out of fuel and everything will be black.
Will the masses that are left have kinetic energy from gravitational attraction and collide back together? Hmm...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If the universe is indeed eternal (having no beginning, no end -- being of infinite duration, making it much older than ancient), then wouldn't it take forever -- an eternity for the light from those galaxies to reach little ol' planet earth?

You are assuming that all the galaxies are infinitely far away.

The nearest galaxy outside our own (the Milky Way) is Andromeda which is 1,000,000 light years away, ergo, the light we see from Andromeda left there 1,000,000 years ago. The most distant galaxies observed to date are 13.2 billion light years away. Between these two extremes there are billions upon billions of observable galaxies.

Your argument has no merit. It does not refute the starlight problem.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

For starters, someday the stars will all run out of fuel and everything will be black.
Will the masses that are left have kinetic energy from gravitational attraction and collide back together? Hmm...

Black, yes, not moving, yes.... BUT THERE nevertheless, ETERNALLY....until, who knows when, maybe something might begin to move again, in this ETERNAL Universe of ours....

Admit defeat, I have won the debate..

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

For starters, someday the stars will all run out of fuel and everything will be black.
Will the masses that are left have kinetic energy from gravitational attraction and collide back together? Hmm...

At this time the answer to that question is "we don't know yet." The discovery of dark energy has complicated the issue.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Admit defeat, I have won the debate..

You've provided the " Laugh of the Month." Thank you.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

You've provided the " Laugh of the Month." Thank you.

It is I who is laughing now...and remember, He who laughs last, laughs BEST

I have outfoxed Greyfox, and outboxed Boxcar, admit it...you have met your match...