Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:121-149|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Conservation of energy

v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 5:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:47:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:43:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:36:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:24:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:03:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...
All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever.

So please help me out here, because I apparently am lacking in self awareness. What part of me listening to the theory and then deciding that the big bang is probably correct is "absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever" - ?

None of it. But frankly that is not what I was addressing.

More to the point: Why do science geeks have to be creeps?

Why do you respond with personal attacks to the pointing out of your willful ignorance?

Because it's creepy to lie about someone. You started the personal attack, so maybe you need a little self awareness, eh?

Frankly I have not done neither. You might want to open a dictionary.
Dodging, as always.

"All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever."

That's what you said. Cut and pasted. And it's a lie. I guess it could be "painfully stupid" instead of a lie, so take your pick.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 6:41:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:40:23 PM, v3nesl wrote:

A community of thinkers? No, I don't think so, in all seriousness. When somebody starts religiously defending the big bang it's pretty clear that something other than objective science is in play. You don't even know why you're pissed off, let's just be honest here, but it's more along the lines of evolved ape poo flinging than anything to do with science.

Here we have an excellent example of the trademark responses we get from trolls who have only the intellectual capacity to deny what they don't understand and behave like a petulant child having the gall to say it's honest.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fkkize
Posts: 2,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 7:57:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:58:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:47:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:43:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:36:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:24:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:03:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...
All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever.

So please help me out here, because I apparently am lacking in self awareness. What part of me listening to the theory and then deciding that the big bang is probably correct is "absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever" - ?

None of it. But frankly that is not what I was addressing.

More to the point: Why do science geeks have to be creeps?

Why do you respond with personal attacks to the pointing out of your willful ignorance?

Because it's creepy to lie about someone. You started the personal attack, so maybe you need a little self awareness, eh?

Frankly I have not done neither. You might want to open a dictionary.
Dodging, as always.

"All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever."

That's what you said. Cut and pasted. And it's a lie. I guess it could be "painfully stupid" instead of a lie, so take your pick.

What happened to that personal attack claim? Did you go to wiktionary and realized it isn't one?
You are, again, dodging with personal attacks: instead of responding with evidence to show that you are willing to look at what cosmologists and MAR actually claim, you try to insult me. You could have presented a simple argument as to why cosmology/ the big bang is not hard science or rebutted my objection to your no-lab-big-bangs drivel to prove me a liar but apparently you are not interested in an actual discussion.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 8:45:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 7:57:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:58:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:47:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:43:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:36:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:24:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:03:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...
All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever.

So please help me out here, because I apparently am lacking in self awareness. What part of me listening to the theory and then deciding that the big bang is probably correct is "absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever" - ?

None of it. But frankly that is not what I was addressing.

More to the point: Why do science geeks have to be creeps?

Why do you respond with personal attacks to the pointing out of your willful ignorance?

Because it's creepy to lie about someone. You started the personal attack, so maybe you need a little self awareness, eh?

Frankly I have not done neither. You might want to open a dictionary.
Dodging, as always.

"All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever."

That's what you said. Cut and pasted. And it's a lie. I guess it could be "painfully stupid" instead of a lie, so take your pick.

What happened to that personal attack claim? Did you go to wiktionary and realized it isn't one?

No, I gave you a "painfully stupid" alternative. But hey, why start reading my posts before you respond to them now, right?

... instead of responding with evidence to show that you are willing to look at what cosmologists and MAR actually claim,

What sort of evidence would suit you there, professor? Please tell me what I can do to gain your approval.

you try to insult me.

"Try to" - ? You mean I failed to? Just not my day.

You could have presented a simple argument as to why cosmology/ the big bang is not hard science

I did. I explained what I meant by that. And it set off a firestorm, which I'm sorry, but it just cracks me up and puts me in the mood I'm in.

or rebutted my objection to your no-lab-big-bangs drivel to prove me a liar

Einstein, I'm calling you a liar because you said I reject the big bang, and I don't. You said I won't even thing about it, and I just decided to have fun with you for that. I think there is very good evidence that our cosmos started with what is commonly known as 'the big bang'. But I'm still kind of thinking that there probably isn't a way to reproduce a big bang in the lab. But if you find another cosmos in your pocket, be sure and let me know.
This space for rent.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 9:14:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 8:45:04 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 7:57:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:58:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:47:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:43:33 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:36:22 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:24:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 5:03:32 PM, Fkkize wrote:
...
All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever.

So please help me out here, because I apparently am lacking in self awareness. What part of me listening to the theory and then deciding that the big bang is probably correct is "absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever" - ?

None of it. But frankly that is not what I was addressing.

More to the point: Why do science geeks have to be creeps?

Why do you respond with personal attacks to the pointing out of your willful ignorance?

Because it's creepy to lie about someone. You started the personal attack, so maybe you need a little self awareness, eh?

Frankly I have not done neither. You might want to open a dictionary.
Dodging, as always.

"All that you have demonstrated is your absolute unwillingness to give the idea any thought whatsoever."

That's what you said. Cut and pasted. And it's a lie. I guess it could be "painfully stupid" instead of a lie, so take your pick.

What happened to that personal attack claim? Did you go to wiktionary and realized it isn't one?

No, I gave you a "painfully stupid" alternative. But hey, why start reading my posts before you respond to them now, right?
No argument to be found.

... instead of responding with evidence to show that you are willing to look at what cosmologists and MAR actually claim,

What sort of evidence would suit you there, professor? Please tell me what I can do to gain your approval.
Why finish reading a sentence before you respond to it now, right?

you try to insult me.

"Try to" - ? You mean I failed to? Just not my day.
Sorry buddy. If you want to hurt my ego you could just demonstrate that someone like you is capable of comming up with an argument. THAT would indeed hit me like a punch in the face.

You could have presented a simple argument as to why cosmology/ the big bang is not hard science

I did. I explained what I meant by that. And it set off a firestorm, which I'm sorry, but it just cracks me up and puts me in the mood I'm in.
Frankly you did not. You kept on talking about how there are no lab big bangs, to which I have responded. But why finish a sentence if you could also split it up in three parts and respond to each as if the others don't exist?

or rebutted my objection to your no-lab-big-bangs drivel to prove me a liar

Einstein, I'm calling you a liar because you said I reject the big bang, and I don't. You said I won't even thing about it, and I just decided to have fun with you for that. I think there is very good evidence that our cosmos started with what is commonly known as 'the big bang'. But I'm still kind of thinking that there probably isn't a way to reproduce a big bang in the lab. But if you find another cosmos in your pocket, be sure and let me know.

So that's your big "gotcha"? Well, the joke is on you, because I have not said that. "The idea" does not refer to the Big Bang, it refers to the demonstration of the Big Bang by means of the methods MAR has given examples of. The fact that you still bring up this lab big bang/ pocket cosmos crap and continue to dodge my original point that started this conversation proves the claim that you so nicely cut and pasted, thank you very much.
So this is where you should gather up some spit, look square in the mirror, and just let 'er rip at that arrogant image you see before you.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 12:38:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/10/2017 5:40:23 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/10/2017 3:03:46 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 1/10/2017 1:32:58 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/9/2017 11:01:54 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

Except that you think it's speculation and isn't demonstrated and is not derived from "hard science."


I mean what I said - you can't demonstrate a big bang. Guess it's just me, but that really doesn't seem like something to choke on.

Ugh.
You can demonstrate that a nuclear bomb went off by the remaining radiation WITHOUT detonating a bomb.

Sure, but only because you observed previous bombs,

No.
We've measured observed radiation, so we could go to the spot in Hiroshima, measure the radiation, and determine the original amounts of radioactive material.

and learned about their behavior.

Radiation sir, not behavior.

Here's a thought-provoking question for you: Why do countries test bombs?

To see their total effect, not to see if they emit radiation or not.

If actually testing things is not necessary, why would anybody set off anything as dangerous as an a-bomb?

I agree they need to test for the effect in total, but they don't need to test it to see if it will eave radiation behind.
We can measure radiation sans any nuclear bomb tests.

Yer hearing voices in your head or something. All I ever said here is that you can't duplicate a big bang.

And you'd be wrong by saying that and you'd be ignorant for using that as a reason that I buy into "not hard science."

And this is blowing the mind of the faithful. Great stuff.

Because of how wrong you are, it's baffling really.

"I don't need to understand something to make conclusions on it."

You do realize you're quoting yourself and not me, right?

But this is the deep structure of what you had said.
You said that you don't pretend to understand the science, but that you know it's not "a hard science."
mirror + spit = your next move.

A community of thinkers? No, I don't think so, in all seriousness.

That's a shame.

When somebody starts religiously defending the big bang

What?
What about my defense has been religious?
I've only mentioned basic understandings of cosmology and I get the religious defender title?
Think about that.
Basic cosmology has you intensifying your irrelevant assessments.

it's pretty clear that something other than objective science is in play.

What other than the CMB radiation, the hubble constant, and the accurately predicted densities and amounts of light elements is in play?
What about those concepts isn't objective science?

You don't even know why you're pissed off, let's just be honest here,

You don't even know that I'm pissed off, because I'm not.
Also, for every time you've misrepresented solid understood science, I've had seven other religious students who have said the exact same things to me, so if it made me mad, I would have to quit my job.
Yet I stay.

but it's more along the lines of evolved ape poo flinging than anything to do with science.

Props on the humor, lol, but nothing I've said to you is along the lines of ape poo flinging, prey tell, what poo has been flung with the evidences I've provided?

What's the LHC?

WHAT'S THE LHC???
You've made conclusions on cosmology and particle physics not being "hard sciences" and you don't even know the very lab that conducts those "hard science" experiments?
I don't advocate violence, but you should punch yourself so hard in the face until you're dizzy.

It'd be like me saying "well, god is not a real concept, it's fun and games theism...what's the bible?

Are you saying you CAN do a big bang in the lab? Can you reproduce a big bang:

Yes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Yeah, it's in the "fun and games" science department.

YOU DON'T EVEN F*CKING KNOW WHAT THE LHC IS!!!!
How can you conclude fun and games when you haven't even looked at the evidence?

So why don't you rip me for that term, then maybe I'll tell you whom I first heard that from.

I don't give a sh*t who said it, what bothers me is that without knowing the very things that provide evidence for cosmological concepts you've more than willingly made egregious conclusions about them...it's bafoonish really.

Value? The main value to me is the freak show of geeks gone wild. This is like watching female mud wrestling, I hate to tell you. Give it all you got, sister!

I'm tryin' here.

What skepticism? Seriously, man, do yourself a favor and take a deep breath. I shouldn't be toying with you like this, I'm a terrible person. So take a deep breath, just listen to what I said. Calm the wild emotion, just think about what I said.

Ok, though I didn't "listen" to what you said, it is in text after all, I've read it again, and I've concluded that your type of ignorance is of the willful kind in which you refuse to look at evidence but are more than willing to make ignorant conclusions on the matter...stunningly biased.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 1:13:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 12:38:22 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
You can demonstrate that a nuclear bomb went off by the remaining radiation WITHOUT detonating a bomb.

Sure, but only because you observed previous bombs,

No.
We've measured observed radiation,

That's what I said.


and learned about their behavior.

Radiation sir, not behavior.


Radiation is one of the behaviors of an a-bomb.

Here's a thought-provoking question for you: Why do countries test bombs?

To see their total effect, not to see if they emit radiation or not.


Lots of things emit radiation.


I agree they need to test for the effect in total, but they don't need to test it to see if it will eave radiation behind.

So you could have predicted the radiation 'left behind' before the first bomb was detonated.

Yer hearing voices in your head or something. All I ever said here is that you can't duplicate a big bang.

And you'd be wrong by saying that

So tell me how you run a big bang. Just tell me, don't prattle on.


But this is the deep structure of what you had said.
You said that you don't pretend to understand the science, but that you know it's not "a hard science."

Yes, son, and how did I define "hard science", do you remember? From me or your high school science teacher?


What other than the CMB radiation, the hubble constant, and the accurately predicted densities and amounts of light elements is in play?
What about those concepts isn't objective science?


'Objective science' - ? We have a new category now? I don't know exactly what that means, but I'd guess the big bang would be considered 'objective science'.

You don't even know why you're pissed off, let's just be honest here,

You don't even know that I'm pissed off, because I'm not.

ok, lol.

Also, for every time you've misrepresented solid understood science, I've had seven other religious students who have said the exact same things to me, so if it made me mad, I would have to quit my job.

Oh wow, you're a blankety-blank teacher. I'd forgotten that. Oh shoot, I hope you're lying about that.

You've made conclusions on cosmology and particle physics not being "hard sciences" and you don't even know the very lab that conducts those "hard science" experiments?
I don't advocate violence, but you should punch yourself so hard in the face until you're dizzy.


And you definitely should not be in a classroom. You are a small minded punk.

It'd be like me saying "well, god is not a real concept, it's fun and games theism...what's the bible?


I'd say, real or not, the god concept has MAJOR effects on humanity. It's not fun and games. Fun and games science is science that has little or no practical value. Some day it might have practical value, but humanity got along pretty well without hearing the term 'big bang'.

Are you saying you CAN do a big bang in the lab? Can you reproduce a big bang:

Yes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


Yeah, but 1usec is infinitely more than time zero.

Yeah, it's in the "fun and games" science department.

YOU DON'T EVEN F*CKING KNOW WHAT THE LHC IS!!!!

Well, I do now, lol.

How can you conclude fun and games when you haven't even looked at the evidence?


I have looked at the evidence. Shoot, I had a PhD explain to me why the background radiation was just the right frequency. And I had about 3.2% understanding of what he was saying. Dude, if you would just be a normal real human, you could understand what I'm saying.


I don't give a sh*t who said it, what bothers me is that without knowing the very things that provide evidence for cosmological concepts you've more than willingly made egregious conclusions about them...it's bafoonish really.


I just said, you can't reproduce the big bang. And like I say, if you were half of an honest person with half a brain, you'd say "Well duh!"
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:37:19 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Radiation is one of the behaviors of an a-bomb.

No, radiation is a byproduct of such reactions.
You're just relabeling it a behavior.

Lots of things emit radiation.

We agree.

So you could have predicted the radiation 'left behind' before the first bomb was detonated.

Precisely.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Because we know how isotopes decay at a fixed rate.

So tell me how you run a big bang. Just tell me, don't prattle on.

By smashing atomic particles with a particle collider.
The energy produced from such activity is proportionally massive to the space in which it is occurring...it's like a big bang or something.

Yes, son, and how did I define "hard science", do you remember?

Yeah.
"By 'demonstrate' I mean "show me", not "prove to be true"...The 'hard sciences' are those sciences that can be demonstrated, by my definition of demonstrate."
http://www.debate.org...

And so I've shown you CMB, the hubble constant, and accurate predictions about the light elements, and below is the literal detection of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation that DEMONSTRATES, even with your "show me" definition, the very thing you said was not demonstrated, and therefore not a hard science.

Now, retract your statement that big bang cosmology is not one of the "hard sciences" and actually look at the evidence that has demonstrated these concepts.

From me or your high school science teacher?

I used your "show me" definition and cosmology has more than satisfied that, yet you still say it's not a hard science...how the bias intensifies ignorance...astounding.

'Objective science' - ? We have a new category now? I don't know exactly what that means...

You brought up the term "objective science" first with this little gem:

"When somebody starts religiously defending the big bang it's pretty clear that something other than objective science is in play."
http://www.debate.org...

And now you contradict yourself by pretending you don't know what was meant by objective science and now you're saying...

I'd guess the big bang would be considered 'objective science'.

So, before it was "more than objective science at play" and now the big bang, you'd guess, is objective science.

How to describe someone introducing a term to devalue the big bang, then claiming they've no idea what the term means, then completely flip-flopping and saying that in fact the big bang is an objective science.
Sheer BS.

Oh wow, you're a blankety-blank teacher. I'd forgotten that.

You seem to forget a lot actually.

Oh shoot, I hope you're lying about that.

I'm not, I'm a highly qualified, multi-certified teacher in the great educational state of Maryland, and I'm ten successful years in; nope, I'm for real.

And you definitely should not be in a classroom. You are a small minded punk.

Why should I not be in the classroom?
Because I only teach things based on evidence?

I'm also not small minded, in fact, I'm open to ANY evidence for ANYTHING supernatural EVER...It' just that I'm still waiting for that evidence.

I'd say, real or not, the god concept has MAJOR effects on humanity.

Yeah.
When people blindly believe in nonsense, they'll say, do, follow, obey, submit to, and believe in any BS.
Since our beliefs inform our actions, I totally agree...major effects on humanity.

It's not fun and games. Fun and games science is science that has little or no practical value.

Really?
Understanding the cosmos and reality on a particle-level has no practical value?
You typed that crap while in the universe while being made of particles...ungrateful really.

Some day it might have practical value, but humanity got along pretty well without hearing the term 'big bang'.

And humanity got along pretty well without hearing the term "cancer" but that doesn't negate cancer's impact on humanity or the truth of its existence or its practical value.

Yeah, but 1usec is infinitely more than time zero.

Ah, I'm glad you said this.
What's remarkable about the big bang at that time zero you speak of is the energy density of that volume of space.
That is to say the proportion of energy to space.

The energy-space proportion that the LHC produces is that very proportion, much like the proportions of energy to space one millionth of a second after the big bang.

You lack understanding about energy density.

YOU DON'T EVEN F*CKING KNOW WHAT THE LHC IS!!!!

Well, I do now, lol.

Good.
So when you wanna say that Big Bang Cosmology is not a demonstrated science, or not a hard science or some other creationist crap thinking, remember what you didn't know about the LHC...priceless!

I have looked at the evidence. Shoot, I had a PhD explain to me why the background radiation was just the right frequency.

Are you...learning something???

And I had about 3.2% understanding of what he was saying.

Yeah, some of the concepts are a bit heady...

Dude, if you would just be a normal real human, you could understand what I'm saying.

What you're saying is that you don't think that Big Bang Cosmology is practical or replicable because the exact big bang cannot be replicated.

I've pointed out to you that demonstration needs not an exact replication, in fact, the evidence which we can measure is sufficient for demonstration, and you didn't even know what the LHC was...

I just said, you can't reproduce the big bang. And like I say, if you were half of an honest person with half a brain, you'd say "Well duh!"

Well, we have reproduced the massive energy density of the big bang, so being the full honest person that I am, big bang cosmology's veracity has been demonstrated, and you're wrong.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 1:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 2:37:19 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Radiation is one of the behaviors of an a-bomb.

No, radiation is a byproduct of such reactions.
You're just relabeling it a behavior.


If you're going to be a science teacher, you should get familiar with science lingo.


So tell me how you run a big bang. Just tell me, don't prattle on.

By smashing atomic particles with a particle collider.

There were no 'atomic particles' at the beginning of the big bang.

Yes, son, and how did I define "hard science", do you remember?

Yeah.
"By 'demonstrate' I mean "show me", not "prove to be true"...The 'hard sciences' are those sciences that can be demonstrated, by my definition of demonstrate."
http://www.debate.org...

And so I've shown you CMB, the hubble constant, and accurate predictions about the light elements, and below is the literal detection of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation that DEMONSTRATES, even with your "show me" definition, the very thing you said was not demonstrated, and therefore not a hard science.


Well, this isn't even a science dispute, this is pure petulance now. I've got the think you can see that the big bang can't be rerun. Sure, you can reproduce certain things that happened after time zero, but then again, all physics is something that happened after time zero, isn't it?


I'm not, I'm a highly qualified, multi-certified teacher in the great educational state of Maryland, and I'm ten successful years in; nope, I'm for real.


Well, seriously, if you behave in the classroom like you do here, I would have had my child transferred, and we might have been in the ER together having my ankle surgically removed from your backside.

And you definitely should not be in a classroom. You are a small minded punk.

Why should I not be in the classroom?
Because I only teach things based on evidence?


Because you are small minded. Which is not necessarily something one is responsible for, but when you then bully kids who think differently - that's very bad in a teacher. Teacher's should teach kids to think, not parrot status quo doctrine like you do.

Understanding the cosmos and reality on a particle-level has no practical value?

You don't need big bang to study the atom. You're probably too young to realize that big bang is fairly new. The idea that the cosmos has a hard beginning - even Einstein choked on this, but eventually accepted it. How you get that this is somehow at odds with that great book that starts with "In the beginning..." I can't imagine.


And humanity got along pretty well without hearing the term "cancer" but that doesn't negate cancer's impact on humanity or the truth of its existence or its practical value.


Now my turn for "are you kidding" - ? Cancer has been known to humanity for a very long time.

YOU DON'T EVEN F*CKING KNOW WHAT THE LHC IS!!!!

Well, I do now, lol.

Good.

Yeah, always good to add to my cache of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms)


I've pointed out to you that demonstration needs not an exact replication,

heh, so you let slip that you DO understand that it can't be replicated...

Anyhow, I'm in a different mood now, I may not feel like continuing this schoolyard brawl. It's been fun, though, thanks for playing.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 2:23:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
If you're going to be a science teacher, you should get familiar with science lingo.

Too late, I already am a teacher, and you should get familiar with science lingo, Mr. I don't know about polyploidy or the LHC but I'm willing to make bare assertions about the two concepts.
You should change your last name.

There were no 'atomic particles' at the beginning of the big bang.

I actually agree with you, but it's not the atomic particles we're using to replicate what happened, it's the energy density from smashing the particles that matches the proportions of the big bang.

Well, this isn't even a science dispute, this is pure petulance now. I've got the think you can see that the big bang can't be rerun.

Yes it can, and it has been...energy density.

Sure, you can reproduce certain things that happened after time zero, but then again, all physics is something that happened after time zero, isn't it?

Yeah, for the most part I'm with you on this, but if we're talking about whether or not the big bang is demonstrable, showing its energy density is a reproduction of the big bang, because there is no other energy density like it, certainly not in our current universe of much more space than energy.

Well, seriously, if you behave in the classroom like you do here, I would have had my child transferred, and we might have been in the ER together having my ankle surgically removed from your backside.

Behave?
You don't understand high school.

It's hard to put your foot in someone's backside when you've been choked out and you're lifeless on the floor, but then again I'm sure there are 50-year-olds who know more jiu jitsu than I.

Because you are small minded.

Point to any time I've been small minded.
Seriously, you can't do it, because that is simply not true...you are the small minded one, because literally you have no space for actual information in your brain...doth protest too much I fear.

Which is not necessarily something one is responsible for, but when you then bully kids who think differently - that's very bad in a teacher.

First of all, how would you know if I bully kids or not?
What have I done on here that indicates bullying?
Are you saying that by pointing out your idiocy I'm therefore bullying you?
If so, you're inept at introspection.

Teacher's should teach kids to think, not parrot status quo doctrine like you do.

Status quo doctrine?
You mean to say the most current evidence within the field?
And I ONLY encourage my students to critically think, I don't try to convince any student ever, I simply present the evidence and they really appreciate it actually.
I've always said that my most staunchly religious students do the best on the tests about evolution...their refusal to accept the theory has them striving to understand it all and they do quite well.

You don't need big bang to study the atom.

Right...

You're probably too young to realize that big bang is fairly new.

The big bang is literally the oldest thing in our universe.
You meant to say that we didn't discover the CMB radiation until the 60's, but the big bang happened WAY long ago, bud; it couldn't be any less new.

The idea that the cosmos has a hard beginning - even Einstein choked on this, but eventually accepted it. How you get that this is somehow at odds with that great book that starts with "In the beginning..." I can't imagine.

Because that "great book" that starts with "in the beginning" was written by iron-age peasants who thought that stars could fall to the earth.
In the beginning mentions nothing of quantum mechanics, energy density, or radiation, so it is at great odds with reality.

Now my turn for "are you kidding" - ? Cancer has been known to humanity for a very long time.

But there was a period of time when it wasn't and up until then "we did just fine without it" as you tried to say was the case to not need the big bang understanding.

Yeah, always good to add to my cache of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms)

Good.

heh, so you let slip that you DO understand that it can't be replicated...

The energy density can be reproduced and this is incredible.

Anyhow, I'm in a different mood now, I may not feel like continuing this schoolyard brawl. It's been fun, though, thanks for playing.

I would be in a different mood if I were doing so poorly in an exchange too, but I feel fine, I could do this all day.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 3:43:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 2:23:49 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

It's hard to put your foot in someone's backside when you've been choked out and you're lifeless on the floor, but then again I'm sure there are 50-year-olds who know more jiu jitsu than I.


ok, you got me there. I've got impingements in both shoulders, I'm starting to be a cripple.

Because you are small minded.

Point to any time I've been small minded.

I think you are right here right now on this subject. You think the whole cosmos emerging from a singularity is something that can be demonstrated by "energy density". It's what I perceive as your total lack of awe and wonder that I find sad, I guess.


First of all, how would you know if I bully kids or not?

You've referred to the uniform close mindedness of your religious students. So sure, I'm making a bit of a guess here.


Teacher's should teach kids to think, not parrot status quo doctrine like you do.

Status quo doctrine?
You mean to say the most current evidence within the field?

If you think science now has the mysteries of the universe all but wrapped up, which seems to be your position - your religious zeal in defending the big bang - then yeah, it's doctrine for you. You seem to have no sense of proportion, the kind that comes from really honestly thinking about the big questions.


You don't need big bang to study the atom.

Right...

You're probably too young to realize that big bang is fairly new.

The big bang is literally the oldest thing in our universe.

oy veh! Again, WTF is your problem, with not being willing to understand me when you understand me perfectly well? You are intimidated by me, whether you'll admit that to yourself or not.

You meant to say that we didn't discover the CMB radiation until the 60's, but the big bang happened WAY long ago, bud; it couldn't be any less new.


Then again, maybe you really don't understand - the theory of big bang is fairly new.

The idea that the cosmos has a hard beginning - even Einstein choked on this, but eventually accepted it. How you get that this is somehow at odds with that great book that starts with "In the beginning..." I can't imagine.

Because that "great book" that starts with "in the beginning" was written by iron-age peasants who thought that stars could fall to the earth.
In the beginning mentions nothing of quantum mechanics, energy density, or radiation, so it is at great odds with reality.


I guess you're not aware of the competing cosmologies like steady state, oscillatory, etc? Dude, you DO mistake reciting facts for having some conceptual grasp of what is being talked about. So, yeah, it is significant that when competing cosmologies were eliminated by new data and calculations, the one compatible with the Bible remains.

Now my turn for "are you kidding" - ? Cancer has been known to humanity for a very long time.

But there was a period of time when it wasn't and up until then "we did just fine without it" as you tried to say was the case to not need the big bang understanding.


Well, an analogy here might be the microbial understanding of disease. But there's no analog of how the big bang theory has made people healthier and live longer. Nothing at all like that.


I would be in a different mood if I were doing so poorly in an exchange too, but I feel fine, I could do this all day.

You got a snow day or something?
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 5:19:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
ok, you got me there. I've got impingements in both shoulders, I'm starting to be a cripple.

All good.

Point to any time I've been small minded.

I think you are right here right now on this subject. You think the whole cosmos emerging from a singularity is something that can be demonstrated by "energy density". It's what I perceive as your total lack of awe and wonder that I find sad, I guess.

And the CMB, and the hubble constant, and gravitational waves, and the predictions of the light elements.
Yes it HAS been demonstrated, never mind your "can be" qualifier.

You've referred to the uniform close mindedness of your religious students. So sure, I'm making a bit of a guess here.

Thinking people are close minded and bullying couldn't be further from the same...how does your brain allow you to make such logical leaps?
You can't think people are close minded and not bully them?
Come on man.

If you think science now has the mysteries of the universe all but wrapped up,

When have I said all of the mysteries of the universe?
All I said was that big bang cosmology is demonstrable, not that we understand everything about the universe...in fact we have nothing on quantum gravity...yeah I said it, we know nothing of quantum gravity, yet it doesn't demote the big bang theory AT ALL!

which seems to be your position -

Nope, you straw manned me quite clearly, see above.

your religious zeal in defending the big bang - then yeah, it's doctrine for you.

Explaining evidence is not religious or zeal or doctrine...it's evidence.

You seem to have no sense of proportion, the kind that comes from really honestly thinking about the big questions.

We've reproduced mini big bangs with the LHC, there's really no dispute on this.

oy veh! Again, WTF is your problem, with not being willing to understand me when you understand me perfectly well?

Well, we're on a debate site and words matter; your word choice was less than desirable I suppose.

You are intimidated by me, whether you'll admit that to yourself or not.

Come on, all you've said is that I'm a bully, you've provided no other arguments.

Then again, maybe you really don't understand - the theory of big bang is fairly new.

Yeah I agree, relatively speaking.

I guess you're not aware of the competing cosmologies like steady state, oscillatory, etc?

Yes I am aware of those and I'm also aware of the negating evidence for a steady state (the hubble constant, inflation in general) and the oscillating universe (the cosmological constant).

But I'm sure you've researched those topics in depth, no?

Dude, you DO mistake reciting facts for having some conceptual grasp of what is being talked about.

Don't tell my department chair that, please.
Look.
I know about all the theories competing for the origins of the universe, and all this evidence coming in indicates the inflationary big bang model, not the other ones you're thinking of, including your fairy creator.

So, yeah, it is significant that when competing cosmologies were eliminated by new data and calculations, the one compatible with the Bible remains.

What about unstable quantum fluctuations-->inflating universe is compatible with "God did it" (in the tone of the line "Simpson's did it!" from South Park)?

Well, an analogy here might be the microbial understanding of disease. But there's no analog of how the big bang theory has made people healthier and live longer. Nothing at all like that.

Understanding our universe and its origins greatly increases our knowledge and overall intelligence, which leads to better brains-->better people.

You got a snow day or something?

Nah, I'm at work, it's just that we're testing, and they allowed me to proctor with my laptop.
Today is the State Biology HSA (High School Assessment).
Students must pass this to graduate; lucky them.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 5:37:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 3:43:39 PM, v3nesl wrote:

oy veh! Again, WTF is your problem, with not being willing to understand me when you understand me perfectly well? You are intimidated by me, whether you'll admit that to yourself or not.


I guess you're not aware of the competing cosmologies like steady state, oscillatory, etc? Dude, you DO mistake reciting facts for having some conceptual grasp of what is being talked about. So, yeah, it is significant that when competing cosmologies were eliminated by new data and calculations, the one compatible with the Bible remains.

LOL. You still don't get it, you're being called out on your ignorance of science, yet again, but you continue to play the religious troll.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 6:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 5:19:47 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

We've reproduced mini big bangs with the LHC, there's really no dispute on this.


Yeah, I think there's dispute on that. This is the classic hands-on guy vs ivory tower guy kind of argument. I think your level of certainty is a bit amusing. And I don't mean that as a personal insult, I really don't.


Yes I am aware of those and I'm also aware of the negating evidence for a steady state (the hubble constant, inflation in general) and the oscillating universe (the cosmological constant).

But I'm sure you've researched those topics in depth, no?


I'm just old enough to remember when it wasn't so certain as you take it to be. "A brief history of time" was only published in 1988. And I wouldn't bet that things might change before I'm dead - http://phys.org... For instance. Just saying. Really, my whole point here - you don't seem to have any sense of proportion, and no sense of relative certainties. If big bang is something you (plural) want to go to war with me over, then it's clearly a tribal sort of thing rather science per se. Especially since I'm not even disputing big bang, so it's quite entertaining.

Look.
I know about all the theories competing for the origins of the universe, and all this evidence coming in indicates the inflationary big bang model, not the other ones you're thinking of, including your fairy creator.


Ah, no, no one is proposing that the creator is a fairy.

So, yeah, it is significant that when competing cosmologies were eliminated by new data and calculations, the one compatible with the Bible remains.

What about unstable quantum fluctuations-->inflating universe is compatible with "God did it" (in the tone of the line "Simpson's did it!" from South Park)?


It's compatible with "In the beginning". What I said. You don't convince me of your open mindedness by refusing to consider simple concepts right here on the thread. You've got some beef with God, and I don't know what it is. But "the cosmos is very big and complex so therefore there can't be a God" - that seems rather illogical to me.


Understanding our universe and its origins greatly increases our knowledge and overall intelligence, which leads to better brains-->better people.


Well, ok, "big bang" as brain stretching game, it will do your brain some good. But chess or learning a musical instrument would probably be a much better use of time. I'm big on things that can be objectively tested. My only point here has been to note the difference between things that can be tested and those that can't, and I pursue the discussion because I'm fascinated by someone who doesn't want to see the difference. I know religion can cause people to commit intellectual suicide, but religion is apparently not the only thing that can do that.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 6:52:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Yeah, I think there's dispute on that.

Ok, let's hear it.

This is the classic hands-on guy vs ivory tower guy kind of argument.

Nope.
This shows that you don't understand what the big bang is...inflation from a particular energy density is what we're talking about.

I think your level of certainty is a bit amusing.

It really shouldn't be, the evidence backs up the certainty.

And I don't mean that as a personal insult, I really don't.

Great.

I'm just old enough to remember when it wasn't so certain as you take it to be.

Well, I mean you realize that our knowledge can exponentially increase with the advent of new technologies?
Were you aware of how radio telescopes worked when you were younger?
Now, if you wanted to know how they work OR how to create one, doing so is ever possible; then less so.

"A brief history of time" was only published in 1988.

So?

And I wouldn't bet that things might change before I'm dead.

Yeah well betting is for fools.

http://phys.org... For instance. Just saying. Really, my whole point here - you don't seem to have any sense of proportion, and no sense of relative certainties.

You have grossly overstated how certain I am, but when it comes to confirmed evidence, I'm totally on board.

If big bang is something you (plural) want to go to war with me over, then it's clearly a tribal sort of thing rather science per se. Especially since I'm not even disputing big bang, so it's quite entertaining.

You've said it's not a demonstrable science...this is a dispute even if you don't understand the term.

Ah, no, no one is proposing that the creator is a fairy.

Right, because *that* would be ridiculous?
But an all knowing, all powerful, supernatural entity is just f*cking reasonable.

It's compatible with "In the beginning".

Explain to me what retrofitting means.

What I said. You don't convince me of your open mindedness by refusing to consider simple concepts right here on the thread.

What simple concept am I refusing to consider?

You've got some beef with God,

Which god?
I've admitted that the god of heliolatry most certainly exists.

and I don't know what it is. But "the cosmos is very big and complex so therefore there can't be a God" - that seems rather illogical to me.

Are straw man arguments also illogical to you?
I've never uttered that sentence, ever.

Well, ok, "big bang" as brain stretching game, it will do your brain some good.

Nice.

But chess or learning a musical instrument would probably be a much better use of time.

I don't know about "better" but you're right, those activities are enriching as well.

I'm big on things that can be objectively tested.

Like the big bang?

My only point here has been to note the difference between things that can be tested and those that can't,

Noted, but you must agree that the big bang can be and has been tested...after all you learned that three letter initialism, LHC, right?

and I pursue the discussion because I'm fascinated by someone who doesn't want to see the difference.

If the difference were there between the big bang science and demonstrable science, i'd be right there with you.
But all of the testable evidence flies in the face of that idea...why can't *you* see that?

I know religion can cause people to commit intellectual suicide, but religion is apparently not the only thing that can do that.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but I've been very clear...the big bang is a demonstrable fact of existence, and until you get there, all of the things you have accused me of are actually inadequacies you have with yourself.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2017 8:16:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 6:52:22 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...
This shows that you don't understand what the big bang is...inflation from a particular energy density is what we're talking about.


It's a little more than that.


Well, I mean you realize that our knowledge can exponentially increase with the advent of new technologies?

Probably not, actually. Our brains remain the same size. If you're filling your brain with esoteric trivia that (lets be honest) you don't really understand a word of, you're not filling it with the sorts of things previous generations filled their minds with.


You've said it's not a demonstrable science...this is a dispute even if you don't understand the term.


No, that's not what I said, is it? And the subtle change of terminology says it all, in my opinion.

Ah, no, no one is proposing that the creator is a fairy.

Right, because *that* would be ridiculous?

Ridiculous? I don't know, I'm just not aware of any evidence pointing that way.

But an all knowing, all powerful, supernatural entity is just f*cking reasonable.


Well, yeah. If the cosmos had a beginning, for instance... Do the math, as they say.

You've got some beef with God,

Which god?

Oh, now that's clever! So you'll attempt to deny the existence of any God by suggesting there might be more than one.

and I don't know what it is. But "the cosmos is very big and complex so therefore there can't be a God" - that seems rather illogical to me.

Are straw man arguments also illogical to you?
I've never uttered that sentence, ever.


No, you haven't. I don't think you've ever attempted any rational refutation of God, so I have to guess.


Noted, but you must agree that the big bang can be and has been tested...


Eh, I'm just flunking you on that one. I'll try to think up some homework if you decide you want to try to understand.

But all of the testable evidence flies in the face of that idea...why can't *you* see that?


For the record: "testable evidence" is your thing, not mine. I haven't disputed a single piece of your evidence. That's not the issue here.

I know religion can cause people to commit intellectual suicide, but religion is apparently not the only thing that can do that.

I don't know what you're talking about here,

Yeah, I'm sure you don't. The dead are unaware.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 2:22:34 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 8:16:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/11/2017 6:52:22 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...
This shows that you don't understand what the big bang is...inflation from a particular energy density is what we're talking about.


It's a little more than that.

Such as?

Probably not, actually. Our brains remain the same size.

Ah, you mistake size with ability and memory efficiency.
Sperm whales' brains are much larger than ours, but guess what...we got the edge.
Size argument, rejected!

If you're filling your brain with esoteric trivia that (lets be honest) you don't really understand a word of,

Woah, what am I not understanding about it?
Is there a concept you want me to explain to you?

you're not filling it with the sorts of things previous generations filled their minds with.

Yeah, I'm also not eating the sorts of things that previous generations filled their stomachs with...so the f what?
Are you just making an appeal to antiquity?
If so that's lame.

No, that's not what I said, is it? And the subtle change of terminology says it all, in my opinion.

I've already quoted you as claiming that big bang cosmology is "not hard science" and your reasoning was that it can't be demonstrated or shown.
There's no subtle changes except for when you've back pedaled what you think the big bang should be considered as far as science goes.

Ah, no, no one is proposing that the creator is a fairy.

Right, because *that* would be ridiculous?

Ridiculous? I don't know, I'm just not aware of any evidence pointing that way.

Apply this line of thinking to all that you believe in...please.

But an all knowing, all powerful, supernatural entity is just f*cking reasonable.

Well, yeah.

Facepalm. So close.

If the cosmos had a beginning, for instance... Do the math, as they say.

I always thought math was more logical than that.
Are you saying that if there's a beginning to the universe, therefore god did it?

Are you aware of what a bare assertion is?
When we do the math, which is what physics really is, it doesn't indicate anything supernatural at all.
Instead we know that from quantum fluctuations without particles, radiation, matter, energy, time, space, gravity or laws, energy can be expressed.

You might say, "sounds supernatural to me" but you'd only be describing an everyday occurrence on the quantum level.
Something from nothing is a basic principle of quantum mechanics and it's all perfectly natural and ubiquitous I might add.

So your "beginning therefore god" argument not only sucks, it also blows, because it's an attempt to solve a mystery (the origin of the universe) by appealing to another mystery (supernature); it's actually not an argument as much as it is a bare assertion.

And quantum fluctuations are far from barely asserted, they've been detected within that wonderful CMB...the actual truth is more interesting than Aesop's fables, i mean, the bible's rendition of the origins of the universe.

Oh, now that's clever! So you'll attempt to deny the existence of any God by suggesting there might be more than one.

I've never said I deny the existence of any god.
Each god claim should be taken separately.
The god of the bible doesn't exist, because the universe wasn't created.
However, the god of heliolatry, the sun, most certainly exists.

So each god claim that I hear, be it the muslim god, the christian god, the hindu gods or the norse gods, needs to be taken on its own merit and not on the claims of the other god claims.

Your god claim is just particularly easy to debunk.

No, you haven't. I don't think you've ever attempted any rational refutation of God, so I have to guess.

Well, it depends on which god claim your talking about.
If you're claiming the god of the bible, then by definition, your god is the creator of the universe.

Creators are titled such because they use the process of creation.

creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.

process - a SERIES of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one AFTER another.

after - in the TIME following an event.

Creation is a temporal process contingent on time.
Well spacetime originated at the universe's origin.

How could a time based process, creation, be used to originate time?
How would a creator precede its creation without time?
Precedence itself is temporal.
Can you describe the difference between a creator and its created product without time or temporal concepts?

No time, no creation, no creator.
The universe wasn't created, because of the temporal inadequacies of that claim, so there is no universe creator, therefore no biblical god.

How was that?

Noted, but you must agree that the big bang can be and has been tested...

Eh, I'm just flunking you on that one.

Well, the people at CERN would disagree, and I imagine they're slightly more qualified to make that assessment than you are, no?

I'll try to think up some homework if you decide you want to try to understand.

Ugh, your class would be so freakin' easy.
"Ok class, so god did everything and that's all you need to know here's your quiz."

1. How do cells divide?
A. God did it.

2. How do photons pop into existence in places where there were no photons?
A. God.

3. How do quantum particles exist in two places at the same time?
A. God allows it.

Notice all the questions only had one answer choice...

For the record: "testable evidence" is your thing, not mine. I haven't disputed a single piece of your evidence. That's not the issue here.

Yeah I noticed the lack of substantive refute from you, but I ignored it because your binding ignorance to these matters was much more fascinating.

Why is following evidence wrong?
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 12:23:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 2:22:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

Why is following evidence wrong?

It's what I think you should do. Follow it, don't try to lead it.
This space for rent.
Annnaxim
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/11/2017 8:16:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Well, yeah. If the cosmos had a beginning, for instance... Do the math, as they say.
Christians say THEIR God is eternal. Why? If everything had a cause, why not God?

OTH, maybe the cosmos had no beginning? Could you accept that?

You've got some beef with God,

Which god?

Oh, now that's clever! So you'll attempt to deny the existence of any God by suggesting there might be more than one.
There are roughly 10'000 Gods, all invented by man in the course of history.
You and I are both atheistic about them (I doubt you believe in Zeus).

The funny thing is, Christians claim their God is an exception.
But... the difference between you and I is that I just go one step further in my atheism than you do.

No, you haven't. I don't think you've ever attempted any rational refutation of God, so I have to guess.
A very transparent attempt at reversing the burden of proof. This burden of proof lies with YOU as claimant, that the christian God exists.
Some of us are just skeptical.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 4:16:56 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/11/2017 8:16:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Well, yeah. If the cosmos had a beginning, for instance... Do the math, as they say.
Christians say THEIR God is eternal. Why? If everything had a cause, why not God?


Yeah, why not? But that's above my pay grade - I can only follow the evidence available to me.

OTH, maybe the cosmos had no beginning? Could you accept that?

Talk to IAintForReal - he says there is absolutely no doubt about the big bang. It's been demonstrated, he says.

Some of us are just skeptical.

No, I know skeptical people. The angry atheist species is something different. You are actively opposed to that which you say doesn't exist.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:39:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 4:22:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:16:56 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/11/2017 8:16:11 PM, v3nesl wrote:

Well, yeah. If the cosmos had a beginning, for instance... Do the math, as they say.
Christians say THEIR God is eternal. Why? If everything had a cause, why not God?


Yeah, why not? But that's above my pay grade - I can only follow the evidence available to me.

... that you haven't rejected or denied because it jeopardizes your religious beliefs.

OTH, maybe the cosmos had no beginning? Could you accept that?

Talk to IAintForReal - he says there is absolutely no doubt about the big bang. It's been demonstrated, he says.

Yes, it has, sorry that you don't understand and are compelled to deny and reject the science.

Some of us are just skeptical.

No, I know skeptical people. The angry atheist species is something different. You are actively opposed to that which you say doesn't exist.

You are actively trolling this forum to that which you have no hope of ever understanding.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Annnaxim
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 4:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 4:22:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:16:56 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
If everything had a cause, why not God?


Yeah, why not? But that's above my pay grade - I can only follow the evidence available to me.
Was that an answer?
Are you accepting your inability to think for yourself?


OTOH, maybe the cosmos had no beginning? Could you accept that?
Talk to IAintForReal - he says there is absolutely no doubt about the big bang. It's been demonstrated, he says.
I'm not denying the Big Bang.
I'm talking about the Cosmos as a whole, of which the BB is just a small piece.
Could you accept that?
keithprosser
Posts: 3,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 5:29:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 4:59:11 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
I'm talking about the Cosmos as a whole, of which the BB is just a small piece.
Could you accept that?

I wonder what people understand by 'big bang'. I take it only as general idea that 13.8 billion years ago the universe was a concentrated, very dense and very hot region of spacetime that has been expanding ever since. There are lots of details about it that are unknown or uncertain - in particular how come it happened in the first place - but I think something resembling a 'big bang' almost certainly did happen 13.8 billion years ago. Currently accepted details of the theory will no doubt have to be re-jigged, but the BB is much closer to the truth than, say, the steady state theory.

I wouldn't stake the farm on any detail of current BB theory, but as a 'big picture' it is surely on the right lines.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 5:30:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 4:59:11 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:22:21 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:16:56 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
If everything had a cause, why not God?


Yeah, why not? But that's above my pay grade - I can only follow the evidence available to me.
Was that an answer?
Are you accepting your inability to think for yourself?


OTOH, maybe the cosmos had no beginning? Could you accept that?
Talk to IAintForReal - he says there is absolutely no doubt about the big bang. It's been demonstrated, he says.
I'm not denying the Big Bang.
I'm talking about the Cosmos as a whole, of which the BB is just a small piece.

A 'piece' - ? Are you alluding to multiverse or something like that?
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 845
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 5:56:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 12:23:29 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 2:22:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
...

Why is following evidence wrong?

It's what I think you should do. Follow it, don't try to lead it.

That's not what I've ever tried to do.
In fact, doth protest too much here.
v3nesl
Posts: 5,569
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2017 8:23:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 5:29:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:59:11 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
I'm talking about the Cosmos as a whole, of which the BB is just a small piece.
Could you accept that?

I wonder what people understand by 'big bang'. I take it only as general idea that 13.8 billion years ago the universe was a concentrated, very dense and very hot region of spacetime that has been expanding ever since.

It's spacetime itself that is expanding, not a region thereof. That's how it was explained to me. So the cosmos wasn't 'part of' anything, it was the universe. But the universe was a singularity.

Apparently an explosion as we imagine it is not sufficient to explain the universal expansion we see. It has to be space itself inflating, and if you run that tape backwards... well, one's head should explode, is what should happen. The math can go there, the mind cannot.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 3,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2017 1:16:25 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2017 8:23:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/12/2017 5:29:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/12/2017 4:59:11 PM, Annnaxim wrote:
I'm talking about the Cosmos as a whole, of which the BB is just a small piece.
Could you accept that?

I wonder what people understand by 'big bang'. I take it only as general idea that 13.8 billion years ago the universe was a concentrated, very dense and very hot region of spacetime that has been expanding ever since.

It's spacetime itself that is expanding, not a region thereof. That's how it was explained to me. So the cosmos wasn't 'part of' anything, it was the universe. But the universe was a singularity.

Apparently an explosion as we imagine it is not sufficient to explain the universal expansion we see. It has to be space itself inflating, and if you run that tape backwards... well, one's head should explode, is what should happen. The math can go there, the mind cannot.

Oops - yes, I should have said it is 'spacetime itself' that is expanding' not the 'region'. I confess I don't really succeed in visualising an expanding universe without a an exterior space for it to expand into. I pretty much agree with you that one is at the mercy of the maths, and intuitive, pop-sci images are mostly unreliable simplifications. Such images are not 'wrong' or 'misleading' as such, just not good enough to make definitive, oracular statements based on them.
Taust
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2017 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

Any reaction that matter and energy undergo will not change the amount of matter and energy; at the most they will be converted to different forms. Violating the law of conservation of mass-energy goes against laws of causality unless there is some reaction that can cause mass-energy to be created out of nothing or destroyed.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" -Einstein
Vision13
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2017 11:16:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 12/31/2016 8:42:40 PM, janesix wrote:
I don't understand. How do they know this is a law? How do they know this is true everywhere in the universe? What is the proof?

In physics a law is not really a fundamental axiom.
For exemple, the law of the universal gravitation is not really a ' law' because we can demonstrate it with the theory of general relativity.
A law is an equation that physicts deduced with experimentation.

With the law of conservation of energy there is a mathematical theorem which says that the conservation of enegery is linked with the Invariance of physical laws in the time.
This is the theorem of Noether :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem

This theorem says an equivalence.
The theorem of conservation of energy is linked with a mathematical symmetry. This is the symmetry of passage of time.
The laws physics before and now are same so they are symmetrics.

The proof that the law of the conservation of energy is true is that the laws physics seem do not change with time.
Today the law of gravitation universel is valid and tomorrow too.
It is the proof of the conservation of energy.

Nevertheless, the principle of conservation of energy is false in the mechanics quantum. Indeed, some particles can appearded from empty thanks to the principle of indertimantion of Heisenberg (which is not a principle because it is a consequence of the theorem of Robertson-Schrodinger in Linear Algebra).
In this context there are a lot of violations of the principle of conservation of energy during a time interval imposed by the Heisenberg inequality.

The fact that the principle of conservation of energy is false in quantum mechanics show us that laws of quantum mechanics change with time so that we can't make determinist and universal law.
But with a big number of particles we can make statistical laws (the laws of quantum mechanics are determinist and statistical).

The principle of conservation of energy is ok if we consider an interval of time big enought.
Else, we have energitical quantum fluctuations of empty and so the principle of conservation of energy is false.