The Narnia Code

You have missed the point. The sphere has ended at its surface. If an ant is walking around a tennis ball it can leave the tennis ball and walk across the floor. If a fly is walking around the tennis ball it can flap its wings and leave the tennis ball.

By the way, you could have used any shape, a cube or whatever. In fact you did not use a sphere as the moon and earth are not spheres.
I am well aware that the Earth and the Moon re Spheroids. The same
principal applies. I was trying to explain it to ou in very simple terms in the vain hope you would understand the analogy.
 
I am sure there are some basic science courses in England that will help both you and Rabbie. For example, Rabbie will learn what a sphere is. In fact I believe there are some basic courses for those people taking on atheism. I think The Atheist Foundation of Australia has a course.
Mike I am well aware of what a sphere is. I doubt I would have passed A-level Maths and gone to university if I hadn't. Now stop lowering the tone of this discussion with your petty insults.
 
You are not confused. You just don't know your subject. It is out of your depth.

There is no one in the science community would say life started Millions of years ago. It is Billions.....even expressed as 3.4 or 3.8 etc.

But if you want to keep making yourself look like an idiot....then keep going. On the other hand, since you are only "millions" of years ago you could be a potential recruit for the "born agains".
I believe that in order to avoid confusion between US Billions(1000 Million) and UK Billions(1 Million Million) many scientists would use Milliard to avoid confusion.
 
Like I said, I don't believe there is a set of rules that determines a sphere, independently of spheres. Space has properties the same as does matter, but those properties are a description, not a definition that predefines them.



I'd like to clarify that I don't really know the answers to the questions I'm posing. I'm hoping someone will give me an answer I like because I haven't come up with one myself.

To continue. I understand your position that the definition of a sphere resides within the object itself. What I am asking as a result of this is, if this is true then do all the rules that define a sphere, spring into existence each and everytime a sphere is formed. This seems to fly in the face of the gazaillion attempt requirement to form a structure.

Also what of concepts like gravity. How can any one object have a property of gravity when gravity itself requires two objects. Where do the rules of gravity reside if not in any one specific object?


That doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not chemical life could have been provided the right conditions to start.

It does if you are arguing that the gazillion attempt method is a requirement for this because I am thinking that you still need concepts like arithmetic for this process to function within.
 
Mike375, Once again you miss the point of the analogy. Perhaps I should spell it out for you in simple words. The area of a sphere is finite. We can measure it. But a sphere has no edges so its surface is finite but unbounded. Now do you understand?

Rabbie, you decided to join yourself.
 
Are you serious?

Yes. I believe there are a set of properties all spheres have in common, but they're not written down somewhere as a bunch of rules that spheres must obey - they're descriptions of spheres, not prescriptions for them.
 


You have missed the point. The sphere has ended at its surface. If an ant is walking around a tennis ball it can leave the tennis ball and walk across the floor. If a fly is walking around the tennis ball it can flap its wings and leave the tennis ball.
Actually, you missed my point. The surface of a sphere (or spheroid) is finite, but endless - that things exist aside of a spherical object is entirely irrelevant to the subject we were discussing (whether the universe is infinite, or if it has an end) - my point, again, is that it is possible for things to be finite, but without ends.

By the way, you could have used any shape, a cube or whatever. In fact you did not use a sphere as the moon and earth are not spheres.
I wasn't talking about the Earth or moon, or saying that they were spheres - so I'm not sure why you even said that bit.
 
It's possible for something to be finite and endless - the surface of the earth, for example, is finite in area, but has no edges.

A missile is launched from its silo, below the surface of the earth. It reaches the surface and keeps going.

If the universe is like a sphere can something go beyond its boundary?

If the universe is expanding what is it expaninding into?
 
Yes. I believe there are a set of properties all spheres have in common, but they're not written down somewhere as a bunch of rules that spheres must obey - they're descriptions of spheres, not prescriptions for them.

My understanding of a sphere is that any and all points on its surface are the same distance from its centre.
 
I'd like to clarify that I don't really know the answers to the questions I'm posing. I'm hoping someone will give me an answer I like because I haven't come up with one myself.

To continue. I understand your position that the definition of a sphere resides within the object itself. What I am asking as a result of this is, if this is true then do all the rules that define a sphere, spring into existence each and everytime a sphere is formed. This seems to fly in the face of the gazaillion attempt requirement to form a structure.
If the 'rules' reside in the objects, as descriptive properties, why would they need to spring anywhere. When a sphere is created, there isn't automatically an accompany document describing it.

Also what of concepts like gravity. How can any one object have a property of gravity when gravity itself requires two objects. Where do the rules of gravity reside if not in any one specific object?
I think gravity is a property of spacetime (plus mass).

I might be completely wrong about all this, of course - it's just that if natural laws aren't a description of things that are (as opposed to a prescriptive recipe for them), then how do we get off the merry-go-round? - if the universe contains a recipe for spheres, where did that recipe come from? And where did the recipe for whatever made that recipe, come from, and so on.

Even if someone says God made the rules for the universe, the question doesn't go away, because that's God exhibiting behaviours - so what rules govern those behaviours, and where did they come from? - etc.
 
A missile is launched from its silo, below the surface of the earth. It reaches the surface and keeps going.

If the universe is like a sphere can something go beyond its boundary?

If the universe is expanding what is it expaninding into?
There isn't enough fuel on this planet to get a rocket anywhere near the edge of the Universe:rolleyes:
 
A missile is launched from its silo, below the surface of the earth. It reaches the surface and keeps going.

If the universe is like a sphere can something go beyond its boundary?

If the universe is expanding what is it expaninding into?

Imagine a two-dimensional universe - Flatland - there is no 'up' or 'down', only the four compass directions - objects in this universe have no height, only length and breadth. The property 'height' is meaningless - there is no direction in which to measure it.

That Flatland universe can be:
-Infinite and endless (it extends without end in all possible directions)
-Finite, with an end (it stops in one or more direction, in which case something must exist beyond the end.

But also:

-Finite and endless. The fabric of the 2D universe itself is warped so as to represent the surface of a sphere or toroid - it's still only two-dimensional, as far as the inhabitants are concerned - they can't leave the 2D surface, or see outside of it, but if they travel far enough in one direction (which they experience as a straight lne) they return to the place they started.

That's not too hard to visualise, because we live in three spatial dimensions, so can easily picture a flat surface being warped into a spherical one - but our three-dimensional perspective also makes it difficult to visualise being limited to only two dimensions - we ask what is inside and outside the sphere - but for the inhabitants of WarpedFlatland, there simply isn't any such direction as inside or outside the sphere, because those directions equate to up and down, which don't exist in a 2D world.

OK, now, the same thing is logically possible with our own universe of three spatial dimensions - it could be warped so as to join back up with itself, but not warped through any of the three spatial dimensions we can experience. Finite in size, but boundless in that it has no edges we could ever encounter.

This idea isn't new, or even slightly controversial or provocative to cosmologists, and is bread and butter to mathematicians who know anything about topology. It might be a wrong idea, but it isn't a strange one.
 
Last edited:
My understanding of a sphere is that any and all points on its surface are the same distance from its centre.

Yep, but that's just a description, unless, somewhere, it is written 'let every sphere be composed of a series of points equidistant from another point'.

In other words, I'm saying the 'rule' is derived from the sphere, not the other way around.
 
Many years ago the shape of a horse saddle was used.

But irrespective of the shape where does it "sit" or what surrounds it.
 
A simple question for the creationists! If God created the universe who created God?
 
A simple question for the creationists! If God created the universe who created God?
Funny that they reply that "he's always been there" but refuse to accept that the Universe has always been there
 
A simple question for the creationists! If God created the universe who created God?

He has always been there and will always be there. Time or any other measure that we apply is simply not applicable. Like trying to apply the rules of chemistry to a nuclear reaction.

And perhaps the universe has always been there but not in the form we know. For example, all of the materials required to make a car have always been on earth. It then takes man's technology to make a car from them. Big Bang??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom