Big bang As Proof Of Origin Was Proven False Long Ago And It Was A Breeze And My Pleasure

[IsaacNewton]

The OP is just a bogus argument. In essence the argument is "science hasn't found out yet so it can't be true".

You can travel back in time 300 years and most of what we know today wasn't known. "There is no proof that creatures smaller than we can see are alive and swimming around in the water and in the air, so it can't be true". "Scientists can't prove that draining blood from a person harms them so it can't be true that it does and we should continue blood letting as a cure for illness". "Science hasn't found this so-called 'Higgs Boson' so their theories on the physics of the universe are wrong and can't be true".

Science on the cutting edge of the more complex things in nature is generally filled in by bits, and even when we don't have all the bits we know that even though we haven't discovered something there in the lab we still know it's there. The Higgs Boson is a good example. It is like there was a three legged table and we had only discovered two of the legs. But the table didn't tip over so we knew, even though we couldn't see the third leg, that it was in fact there. And it took almost 50 years but by new technology, the Large Hadron Collider, we have gained the evidence the Higgs particle is real. And science does not stop. More research into Higgs related particles, waves, or fields continues.

Isn't it utterly bizarre how human beings today are never satisfied with progress. If you showed the Wright Brother's plane to a person 300 years ago they'd think you a wizard. Or a television. Or a computer. Or the transplanting of human organs. Yet today people ignore these things as they ignore grass.

 

[Muhammed]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on "Big Bang" theorists to prove their extraordinary claim. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had to have a beginning.

They have spent kazillions of dollars the taxpayers' limited scientific research funds trying to do that, but failing.

The most egregious thing about it is that they have wasted all of those funds on totally irrelevant ventures. Even if it was possible to prove their absurd theory, it would not improve the human condition.

Those funds should be spent on things that actually matter to the people.

Using those limited funds to try to prove some Catholic Church official's "big bang" theory is a huge waste.

I'm sorry but your ignorance is showing. The Big Bang is an accepted scientific fact, one that did not cost much at all to prove. Not sure what the link is with the Catholic Church but how the universe began does matter, at least to some of us.

Wow, so much irony.

It is very ironic that you claim I am ignorant on the matter and in the same paragraph admit your incredible ignorance. Since you admit to being so ignorant regarding the subject and I feel sorry for you, I shall educate you regarding the subject.

A dude named Georges Lemaitre proposed the theory that the universe is expanding while he was a Priest and astronomy professor at a Catholic university. He referred to it as the "Cosmic Egg" theory. It hypothesized that there was a primeval atom that started expanding at the moment of the creation of the universe.

The Pope claimed it was scientific validation of Catholicism. Einstein said the calculations were correct but the physics were atrocious. In a radio interview a professor of astronomy derided it as Lemaitre's "big bang theory".

It is very ironic that the proponents of the "big bang theory" use that term even though it was coined to make fun of the theory.

It presumes that there was a moment of creation in the first place. Why must there have been a moment of creation? Because the bible says so?

What is even more ironic is that today many who are proponents of the "big bang" theory deride creationists as being unscientific when they themselves are also creationists.

It would be fucking hilarious if they were not wasting the taxpayers' limited scientific research funds.

Thanks for the info on Georges Lemaitre, I had not heard the name before. At least now I understand your Catholic Church official's "big bang" theory comment. However, I don't see how any of that is supposed to change my response. The "big bang theory" is much better than the "steady state" in explaining the expansion of the universe, regardless of where the theory comes from.

To say big bangers are creationists is inaccurate. We don't know the start of the universe prior to the big bang so we can't say there was nothing there.

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

 

[alang1216]

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

 

[eflatminor]

...as a world class activist primary factual fundamentalist...

Hmm...does that come with dental?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

The OP is just a bogus argument. In essence the argument is "science hasn't found out yet so it can't be true".

You can travel back in time 300 years and most of what we know today wasn't known. "There is no proof that creatures smaller than we can see are alive and swimming around in the water and in the air, so it can't be true". "Scientists can't prove that draining blood from a person harms them so it can't be true that it does and we should continue blood letting as a cure for illness". "Science hasn't found this so-called 'Higgs Boson' so their theories on the physics of the universe are wrong and can't be true".

Science on the cutting edge of the more complex things in nature is generally filled in by bits, and even when we don't have all the bits we know that even though we haven't discovered something there in the lab we still know it's there. The Higgs Boson is a good example. It is like there was a three legged table and we had only discovered two of the legs. But the table didn't tip over so we knew, even though we couldn't see the third leg, that it was in fact there. And it took almost 50 years but by new technology, the Large Hadron Collider, we have gained the evidence the Higgs particle is real. And science does not stop. More research into Higgs related particles, waves, or fields continues.

Isn't it utterly bizarre how human beings today are never satisfied with progress. If you showed the Wright Brother's plane to a person 300 years ago they'd think you a wizard. Or a television. Or a computer. Or the transplanting of human organs. Yet today people ignore these things as they ignore grass.

You are obviously confused, there is no argument, there is recognition of fact or ignorance towards fact and you obviously apply deliberate ignorance likely because like physicists, you are easily intimidated.

Science is merely a process that determines recognition of fact. At one time we didn't have nuclear bombs but through the process of science that humans can make nuclear bombs became fact therefor no longer a science once the successful formula was created. Of course nuclear energy was still enduring the scientific process of how it could be harnessed to be transformed into electricity to power cities etc. Once a nuclear reactor became a fact it was no longer a science but a successful formula. Other science after the fact would be how to improve the safety etc. of using such.

Unless you have one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness (which you / no one ever will) you will never have so much as a shred of validity contesting the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter no matter how desperately you scramble to try and make anything else the issue.

Truth is the garbage that crumbles when pit vs fact every time. It makes sense that the religious created the word truth because they couldn't pass off their lies as fact. From my understanding, higgs first theorized the higss field to support the big bang theory as proof of origin of which has been falsified by the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter because again no bang no matter how large or small can occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. Even the HLC consists of energy and matter and is used to re create energy and matter through experimentation.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on "Big Bang" theorists to prove their extraordinary claim. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had to have a beginning.

They have spent kazillions of dollars the taxpayers' limited scientific research funds trying to do that, but failing.

The most egregious thing about it is that they have wasted all of those funds on totally irrelevant ventures. Even if it was possible to prove their absurd theory, it would not improve the human condition.

Those funds should be spent on things that actually matter to the people.

Using those limited funds to try to prove some Catholic Church official's "big bang" theory is a huge waste.

I'm sorry but your ignorance is showing. The Big Bang is an accepted scientific fact, one that did not cost much at all to prove. Not sure what the link is with the Catholic Church but how the universe began does matter, at least to some of us.

Wow, so much irony.

It is very ironic that you claim I am ignorant on the matter and in the same paragraph admit your incredible ignorance. Since you admit to being so ignorant regarding the subject and I feel sorry for you, I shall educate you regarding the subject.

A dude named Georges Lemaitre proposed the theory that the universe is expanding while he was a Priest and astronomy professor at a Catholic university. He referred to it as the "Cosmic Egg" theory. It hypothesized that there was a primeval atom that started expanding at the moment of the creation of the universe.

The Pope claimed it was scientific validation of Catholicism. Einstein said the calculations were correct but the physics were atrocious. In a radio interview a professor of astronomy derided it as Lemaitre's "big bang theory".

It is very ironic that the proponents of the "big bang theory" use that term even though it was coined to make fun of the theory.

It presumes that there was a moment of creation in the first place. Why must there have been a moment of creation? Because the bible says so?

What is even more ironic is that today many who are proponents of the "big bang" theory deride creationists as being unscientific when they themselves are also creationists.

It would be fucking hilarious if they were not wasting the taxpayers' limited scientific research funds.

Thanks for the info on Georges Lemaitre, I had not heard the name before. At least now I understand your Catholic Church official's "big bang" theory comment. However, I don't see how any of that is supposed to change my response. The "big bang theory" is much better than the "steady state" in explaining the expansion of the universe, regardless of where the theory comes from.

To say big bangers are creationists is inaccurate. We don't know the start of the universe prior to the big bang so we can't say there was nothing there.

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

Everything in this universe always did exist through an endless duration of constant change and the fact again the proves it is that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. Not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which proves that everything always was and not anything that exists goes poof into nothingness which proves that everything will always be.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly does anyone know 'energy and matter were around before the Big Bang'.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing has been proven wrong mathematically. Certainly anyone that wants to believe in a 'god' has to believe said 'god' could conjure things out of nothing. If a 'god' has to follow the same laws of physics as physical beings, does that not disqualify said deity as a deity.

And to argue YOU know something can't come from nothing is just laughable. The greatest minds that exist and have ever existed say otherwise. Have you read the book A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss? Or other works by renowned physicists?

I think the real question for individuals is, why do you need absolutes to stand on where there are none. It's because standing on moving Earth is scary. Scientists not only stand on unsteady ground they seek it out. This is the essence between dogma and enlightenment. Pushing through the fear to find the fact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.


Why do you feel the Big Bang is falsified by the existence of matter before the Big Bang?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

How exactly does anyone know 'energy and matter were around before the Big Bang'.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing has been proven wrong mathematically. Certainly anyone that wants to believe in a 'god' has to believe said 'god' could conjure things out of nothing. If a 'god' has to follow the same laws of physics as physical beings, does that not disqualify said deity as a deity.

And to argue YOU know something can't come from nothing is just laughable. The greatest minds that exist and have ever existed say otherwise. Have you read the book A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss? Or other works by renowned physicists?

I think the real question for individuals is, why do you need absolutes to stand on where there are none. It's because standing on moving Earth is scary. Scientists not only stand on unsteady ground they seek it out. This is the essence between dogma and enlightenment. Pushing through the fear to find the fact.

That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. No bang no matter how large or small can first occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. So if any bang has ever occurred, it occurred because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

You (or anyone / any physicist etc.) go right ahead and share with us all one factual example (in English) of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness to contest with so much as a shred of validity the facts I share.

Krauss lmfao they (He and one other physicist working together at the time, forget the others name at the moment) were referring to space as the nothing which is an obvious lie and a poor attempt at trying to redefine the word. I had fun ripping them apart on that one (been through all of this with so many people over the years would likely make your head spin) I'll see if I can find one of my compositions on this subject from years ago and post the link to it here some time if and when I get the chance.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.


Why do you feel the Big Bang is falsified by the existence of matter before the Big Bang?

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

type photons colliding with photons in search, or here is a quick wiki link to get you started. Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly does anyone know 'energy and matter were around before the Big Bang'.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing has been proven wrong mathematically. Certainly anyone that wants to believe in a 'god' has to believe said 'god' could conjure things out of nothing. If a 'god' has to follow the same laws of physics as physical beings, does that not disqualify said deity as a deity.

And to argue YOU know something can't come from nothing is just laughable. The greatest minds that exist and have ever existed say otherwise. Have you read the book A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss? Or other works by renowned physicists?

I think the real question for individuals is, why do you need absolutes to stand on where there are none. It's because standing on moving Earth is scary. Scientists not only stand on unsteady ground they seek it out. This is the essence between dogma and enlightenment. Pushing through the fear to find the fact.

That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. No bang no matter how large or small can first occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. So if any bang has ever occurred, it occurred because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

You (or anyone / any physicist etc.) go right ahead and share with us all one factual example (in English) of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness to contest with so much as a shred of validity the facts I share.

Krauss lmfao they (He and one other physicist working together at the time, forget the others name at the moment) were referring to space as the nothing which is an obvious lie and a poor attempt at trying to redefine the word. I had fun ripping them apart on that one (been through all of this with so many people over the years would likely make your head spin) I'll see if I can find one of my compositions on this subject from years ago and post the link to it here some time if and when I get the chance.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

"That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter."

Last time, this is a false premise. All the physicists in the world say so, as well as mathematicians.

YOU need to believe it, knock yourself out. But it isn't true. We don't know for sure what was before the big bang. But the best minds in the pertinent fields agree something from nothing is not only possible but probable. And for you to state YOU know there was energy and matter before the Big Bang is ludicrous and you know that. If you don't and you think YOU have figured it all out and the preeminent physicists in the world are all wrong then no need for further discussion.

Did you also spark evolution? Or are there really no living things it is all a computer simulation? LOL

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

...as a world class activist primary factual fundamentalist...

Hmm...does that come with dental?

ironically it does but since my city is infested with compulsive obsessive lying deceiving bigoted bias activist imbeciles I do not trust medical anything around here any more. It's been years since I was checked out or had a dentist work on my teeth. My health card expired a year and a half ago. To bad for me cause my physical health is deteriorating.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.


Why do you feel the Big Bang is falsified by the existence of matter before the Big Bang?

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

type photons colliding with photons in search, or here is a quick wiki link to get you started. Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

Why do you feel that?

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

Thanks for the link. Lot's of neat stuff there.
One thing missing was photons colliding.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

How exactly does anyone know 'energy and matter were around before the Big Bang'.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing has been proven wrong mathematically. Certainly anyone that wants to believe in a 'god' has to believe said 'god' could conjure things out of nothing. If a 'god' has to follow the same laws of physics as physical beings, does that not disqualify said deity as a deity.

And to argue YOU know something can't come from nothing is just laughable. The greatest minds that exist and have ever existed say otherwise. Have you read the book A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss? Or other works by renowned physicists?

I think the real question for individuals is, why do you need absolutes to stand on where there are none. It's because standing on moving Earth is scary. Scientists not only stand on unsteady ground they seek it out. This is the essence between dogma and enlightenment. Pushing through the fear to find the fact.

That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. No bang no matter how large or small can first occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. So if any bang has ever occurred, it occurred because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

You (or anyone / any physicist etc.) go right ahead and share with us all one factual example (in English) of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness to contest with so much as a shred of validity the facts I share.

Krauss lmfao they (He and one other physicist working together at the time, forget the others name at the moment) were referring to space as the nothing which is an obvious lie and a poor attempt at trying to redefine the word. I had fun ripping them apart on that one (been through all of this with so many people over the years would likely make your head spin) I'll see if I can find one of my compositions on this subject from years ago and post the link to it here some time if and when I get the chance.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

"That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter."

Last time, this is a false premise. All the physicists in the world say so, as well as mathematicians.

YOU need to believe it, knock yourself out. But it isn't true. We don't know for sure what was before the big bang. But the best minds in the pertinent fields agree something from nothing is not only possible but probable. And for you to state YOU know there was energy and matter before the Big Bang is ludicrous and you know that. If you don't and you think YOU have figured it all out and the preeminent physicists in the world are all wrong then no need for further discussion.

Did you also spark evolution? Or are there really no living things it is all a computer simulation? LOL

Why do you seek to waste my time by making up cheap pathetic lies instead of sharing one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness? You show me one factual example from anyone that something can go poof into existence out of nothingness instead of making up lies in the form of vacant un backed claims because you and no one else that will ever exist will ever share one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and I know this because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Facts are not believed, they are either recognized or ignored. Facts are also what falsify or verify belief since your brain appears to be way too small to realize something so simple all by yourself.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[David Jeffrey Spetch]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter, and not one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and no one ever will and I know this because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves beyond any shadow of doubt as well beyond anyone's deliberate ignorance that the big bang theory as proof of origin is not even a remote possibility.

Piece of cake and my pleasure.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.


Why do you feel the Big Bang is falsified by the existence of matter before the Big Bang?

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

First of all, you are a creationist. The fact that you claimed to want to know how the universe was created in your other post is plenty evidence of that. In your statement you implied that it was created, therefore you are a creationist. There is no law of physics that implies that the universe had a beginning. The universe could be eternal and infinite.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

Furthermore, you are using faulty logic to argue your position. Your "Steady State vs. Big Bang" argument is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

It is not an either/or proposition. Actually, they could both be wrong.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

type photons colliding with photons in search, or here is a quick wiki link to get you started. Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

Why do you feel that?

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

Thanks for the link. Lot's of neat stuff there.
One thing missing was photons colliding.

Thanks for the laugh.

I recognize the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter of which no bang can occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which is the factual evidence that proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

Like I said, that will get you started and yes it does give brief description of the result of photons colliding without mentioning that they are colliding. I suspect because they feel most people involved in physics get that it is the result of collision. type photons colliding in search, that's all I did and sent you the link to the first thing I saw so if you want to find more, you are capable of researching it for yourself.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Notice not one factual example of any bang occurring (no matter how large or small) without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter,

The original matter and energy weren't in an incomprehensibly small and dense point before the Big Bang?

No matter anyones theories, claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Keep repeating your mantra and maybe, someday, someone besides you will be convinced.

You keep desperately scrambling to try and make your delusions the issue because you are unable to contest with so much as a shred of validity the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter or the fact that not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness which is the factual evidence which has so very easily falsified the big bang theory as proof of origin. Your deliberate ignorance is transparent.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?[/

claiming you recognize the fact that energy & matter were around before any so called big bang could occur is acknowledging recognition of the fact that the big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the fact that for any bang to occur no matter how large or small it first takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.


Why do you feel the Big Bang is falsified by the existence of matter before the Big Bang?

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

A semantic quibble. I can create an omelet without having to create the eggs. You are correct about physical laws but you fail to address the physical evidence of expansion.

I say the universe either had a beginning, "Big Bang" or it didn't, "Steady State". I look forward to hearing your alternative(s).

If everything were ever in steady state, it would always be in steady state because everything would be the same thus no catalyst for change. For two photons to come together it first takes a force of energy and matter which proves steady state theory as false because for example, it takes a great mass of combined energy and matter particles such as the sun to send an electron into a positron thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon thus creating two electron positron pairs.

Yeah, I've already been through all of this over the years several times.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

thus creating the photon before the photon has the potential to collide with another photon

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

type photons colliding with photons in search, or here is a quick wiki link to get you started. Two-photon physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada

The big bang as proof of origin is falsified by the existence of that which existed before any such bang can occur.

Why do you feel that?

When did photons start colliding with photons? Link?

LMAO @ when, you mean as in you were unaware that this occurs?!

Thanks for the link. Lot's of neat stuff there.
One thing missing was photons colliding.

Thanks for the laugh.

I recognize the fact that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter of which no bang can occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which is the factual evidence that proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

Like I said, that will get you started and yes it does give brief description of the result of photons colliding without mentioning that they are colliding. I suspect because they feel most people involved in physics get that it is the result of collision. type photons colliding in search, that's all I did and sent you the link to the first thing I saw so if you want to find more, you are capable of researching it for yourself.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Like I said, that will get you started and yes it does give brief description of the result of photons colliding without mentioning that they are colliding.

Colliding without colliding.
When you pull your head out of your ass, you'll realize how stupid that is.

if you want to find more, you are capable of researching it for yourself.

I don't need to find more proof of your idiocy.

 

[IsaacNewton]

How exactly does anyone know 'energy and matter were around before the Big Bang'.

The premise that something cannot come from nothing has been proven wrong mathematically. Certainly anyone that wants to believe in a 'god' has to believe said 'god' could conjure things out of nothing. If a 'god' has to follow the same laws of physics as physical beings, does that not disqualify said deity as a deity.

And to argue YOU know something can't come from nothing is just laughable. The greatest minds that exist and have ever existed say otherwise. Have you read the book A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss? Or other works by renowned physicists?

I think the real question for individuals is, why do you need absolutes to stand on where there are none. It's because standing on moving Earth is scary. Scientists not only stand on unsteady ground they seek it out. This is the essence between dogma and enlightenment. Pushing through the fear to find the fact.

That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. No bang no matter how large or small can first occur without there first be energy matter and time to re create energy and matter. So if any bang has ever occurred, it occurred because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter which proves that the big bang theory as proof of origin is false.

You (or anyone / any physicist etc.) go right ahead and share with us all one factual example (in English) of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness to contest with so much as a shred of validity the facts I share.

Krauss lmfao they (He and one other physicist working together at the time, forget the others name at the moment) were referring to space as the nothing which is an obvious lie and a poor attempt at trying to redefine the word. I had fun ripping them apart on that one (been through all of this with so many people over the years would likely make your head spin) I'll see if I can find one of my compositions on this subject from years ago and post the link to it here some time if and when I get the chance.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

"That's easy because again, not anything goes poof into existence out of nothingness because the fact remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter."

Last time, this is a false premise. All the physicists in the world say so, as well as mathematicians.

YOU need to believe it, knock yourself out. But it isn't true. We don't know for sure what was before the big bang. But the best minds in the pertinent fields agree something from nothing is not only possible but probable. And for you to state YOU know there was energy and matter before the Big Bang is ludicrous and you know that. If you don't and you think YOU have figured it all out and the preeminent physicists in the world are all wrong then no need for further discussion.

Did you also spark evolution? Or are there really no living things it is all a computer simulation? LOL

Why do you seek to waste my time by making up cheap pathetic lies instead of sharing one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness? You show me one factual example from anyone that something can go poof into existence out of nothingness instead of making up lies in the form of vacant un backed claims because you and no one else that will ever exist will ever share one factual example of anything going poof into existence out of nothingness and I know this because the fact always remains that it takes energy matter and time to re create energy and matter.

Facts are not believed, they are either recognized or ignored. Facts are also what falsify or verify belief since your brain appears to be way too small to realize something so simple all by yourself.

love

Primary Factual Fundamentalist World Class Activist
David Jeffrey Spetch
Ps. Be good, be strong!
Hamilton Ontario Canada?

Post up an image of an electron. No absolute proof? Stop wasting everyone's time.

See how stupid your 'theory' is.