Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[Taz]

It's probably just a coincidence that a universe hardwired to produce intelligence just popped into existence out of nothing.

"popped into existence out of nothing". Again, not proven with empirical evidence. It must scare you not to know, because you need to make something up, instead of waiting to see what we find, which is way more exciting.

First we need to teach you some science. Start here.

View attachment 470499

From your personal collection no doubt.

What scares you about not knowing what the BB is and how/why it started?

But we do know. Maybe this will help you to understand.

What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Why do we call it that?

spaceplace.nasa.gov

You know as well as I do that we can't see it. Seriously brah...

You can't see it because there was no light at that point, dummy.

What's your education level anyway?

Ok, so we agree that we can't see the BB. Good start. Now go tell your sock.

But we can see the artifacts of the big bang and we know from super colliders that the artifacts are from matter / anti matter annihilation and we know that since the universe is expanding it must have started from a single point and we know that Einstein's field equations confirm the universe started from a single point.

What's your education level anyway?

Einstein didn't grasp Quantum physics, And anyways, so what if he did say that? Anyone can say anything, and when we can see the BB, we'll know who got it right, if anyone. I'd suggest that it's possibly something we never imagined.

 

[Ringtone]

Until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure if it's the separation of the 4 forces or something else. And I get multi-verses, and like everything else, I'm agnostic on that, until empirical proof...

There is no until. We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof—not now, not ever!

WE DON'T HAVE TO OBSERVE THEM TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology. Thusly, what we may be able to do in the near future is extrapolate the precise order of their separation backwards from the point of unification.

It's almost as if you're a lobotomized zombie or something.

 

[ding]

It's probably just a coincidence that a universe hardwired to produce intelligence just popped into existence out of nothing.

"popped into existence out of nothing". Again, not proven with empirical evidence. It must scare you not to know, because you need to make something up, instead of waiting to see what we find, which is way more exciting.

First we need to teach you some science. Start here.

View attachment 470499

From your personal collection no doubt.

What scares you about not knowing what the BB is and how/why it started?

But we do know. Maybe this will help you to understand.

What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids

Why do we call it that?

spaceplace.nasa.gov

You know as well as I do that we can't see it. Seriously brah...

You can't see it because there was no light at that point, dummy.

What's your education level anyway?

Ok, so we agree that we can't see the BB. Good start. Now go tell your sock.

But we can see the artifacts of the big bang and we know from super colliders that the artifacts are from matter / anti matter annihilation and we know that since the universe is expanding it must have started from a single point and we know that Einstein's field equations confirm the universe started from a single point.

What's your education level anyway?

Einstein didn't grasp Quantum physics, And anyways, so what if he did say that? Anyone can say anything, and when we can see the BB, we'll know who got it right, if anyone. I'd suggest that it's possibly something we never imagined.

Except for all that data you are dismissing, right?

What's your education level anyway?

 

[jackflash]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

Our laws and political leanings are moving us towards laïcité, a rather rigid form of the best religious freedoms/ideology, quirky or not, for all. Keep it to yourself will be the order of the day. Happy days. All within a Western style of freedom seeking governance.

Should our backwards thinking mainstream religions be asked to be more representative of good law?

Negative discrimination without a just cause is what Yahweh admits to doing in Job 2;3., when he allowed Satan to move him to sin against Job.

Christians should admit their sin and stop preaching that it is a good to be homophobic and misogynous, contradicting the law of the land.

Regards
DL

Religion = belief = acceptance. If one accepts a viewpoint then that is the individuals right to believe so no matter how ridiculous ones personal belief(eg. flat earthers) may appear to other folks in a society. If an individual or society does not allow other folks in a society to think their own thoughts then such a society ends up with names like Himmler, Pot & Amin running the society. As long as an individual is not harming/murdering another fellow human being(eg. assault, abortion, thievery etc.) then I could care less what others believe in.

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally 'cracked' to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Edit:

Archive link: ISSUE 2847 | MAGAZINE COVER DATE: 14 January 2012 | New Scientist

Article Link: Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

 

[Hollie]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally 'cracked' to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Edit:

Archive link: ISSUE 2847 | MAGAZINE COVER DATE: 14 January 2012 | New Scientist

Article Link: Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

As much as you want to spackle your gods into every gap in our knowledge, nothing about a beginning event of the universe points to your various gods or other supernatural / magical events.

 

[DudleySmith]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally 'cracked' to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Edit:

Archive link: ISSUE 2847 | MAGAZINE COVER DATE: 14 January 2012 | New Scientist

Article Link: Why physicists can't avoid a creation event

As much as you want to spackle your gods into every gap in our knowledge, nothing about a beginning event of the universe points to your various gods or other supernatural / magical events.

That is merely a quibble over semantics and word definitions, not a refutation of anything he said.

 

[Taz]

Until we can see the BB, we won't know for sure if it's the separation of the 4 forces or something else. And I get multi-verses, and like everything else, I'm agnostic on that, until empirical proof...

There is no until. We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof—not now, not ever!

WE DON'T HAVE TO OBSERVE THEM TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology. Thusly, what we may be able to do in the near future is extrapolate the precise order of their separation backwards from the point of unification.

It's almost as if you're a lobotomized zombie or something.

There you go stating shit that you can't support, "We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof", You don't know that, you only say that because it supports all your made up shit.

"We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology" Hasn't happened yet, so save your conclusion for that happening and when it can be observed. You're trying to jump the gun. With no empirical proof. Even know what that is?

 

[Taz]

Except for all that data you are dismissing, right?
What's your education level anyway?

I have a Phd in astrophysics.

You can't see the BB. Too bad for you.

 

[ding]

Except for all that data you are dismissing, right?
What's your education level anyway?

I have a Phd in astrophysics.

You can't see the BB. Too bad for you.

Seriously, did you go to college?

 

[Ringtone]

There you go stating shit that you can't support, "We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof", You don't know that, you only say that because it supports all your made up shit.

What are you babbling about? We will never be able to observe the Universe prior to the recombination epoch of the Big Bang state, which was captured by the CMB, when it was 380, 000 years old. There were no free photons prior to the beginning of the recombination epoch. No light, dummy!

"We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology" Hasn't happened yet, so save your conclusion for that happening and when it can be observed. You're trying to jump the gun. With no empirical proof. Even know what that is?

Jumping what gun?! Proof for what?!

First, any kind of reunification achieved by us would be at the quantum level, not the cosmic level. Second, we have unified the the weak force and the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Even if we can never unify all of the forces, what would that have to do with their initial unification or with the beginning of the cosmos in the finite past?

Answer: nothing!

Your questions are nonsensical.

 

[Taz]

Except for all that data you are dismissing, right?
What's your education level anyway?

I have a Phd in astrophysics.

You can't see the BB. Too bad for you.

Seriously, did you go to college?

Where did you go that they know what the BB was?

 

[Taz]

There you go stating shit that you can't support, "We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof", You don't know that, you only say that because it supports all your made up shit.

What are you babbling about? We will never be able to observe the Universe prior to the recombination epoch of the Big Bang state, which was captured by the CMB, when it was 380, 000 years old. There were no free photons prior to the beginning of the recombination epoch. No light, dummy!

"We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology" Hasn't happened yet, so save your conclusion for that happening and when it can be observed. You're trying to jump the gun. With no empirical proof. Even know what that is?

Jumping what gun?! Proof for what?!

First, any kind of reunification achieved by us would be at the quantum level, not the cosmic level. Second, we have unified the the weak force and the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Even if we can never unify all of the forces, what would that have to do with their initial unification or with the beginning of the cosmos in the finite past?

Answer: nothing!

Your questions are nonsensical.

dingbat, you just called me dummy. Your cover’s blown. Nice try, but too obvious. Better luck next time.

 

[Ringtone]

There you go stating shit that you can't support, "We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof", You don't know that, you only say that because it supports all your made up shit.

What are you babbling about? We will never be able to observe the Universe prior to the recombination epoch of the Big Bang state, which was captured by the CMB, when it was 380, 000 years old. There were no free photons prior to the beginning of the recombination epoch. No light, dummy!

"We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology" Hasn't happened yet, so save your conclusion for that happening and when it can be observed. You're trying to jump the gun. With no empirical proof. Even know what that is?

Jumping what gun?! Proof for what?!

First, any kind of reunification achieved by us would be at the quantum level, not the cosmic level. Second, we have unified the the weak force and the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Even if we can never unify all of the forces, what would that have to do with their initial unification or with the beginning of the cosmos in the finite past?

Answer: nothing!

Your questions are nonsensical.

dingbat, you just called me dummy. Your cover’s blown. Nice try, but too obvious. Better luck next time.

I'm not ding, dummy. I call folks like you dummy all the time, dummy. ding and I do no agree on evolution, for example. My actual name is Michael Rawlings.

 

[ding]

Except for all that data you are dismissing, right?
What's your education level anyway?

I have a Phd in astrophysics.

You can't see the BB. Too bad for you.

Seriously, did you go to college?

Where did you go that they know what the BB was?

I have an engineering degree. How about you?

 

[Taz]

There you go stating shit that you can't support, "We will never be able to observe the initial break in the symmetry of the grand unification of the four fundamental forces of nature and the initial cosmic inflation thereof", You don't know that, you only say that because it supports all your made up shit.

What are you babbling about? We will never be able to observe the Universe prior to the recombination epoch of the Big Bang state, which was captured by the CMB, when it was 380, 000 years old. There were no free photons prior to the beginning of the recombination epoch. No light, dummy!

"We are trying to unify them now using super collider technology" Hasn't happened yet, so save your conclusion for that happening and when it can be observed. You're trying to jump the gun. With no empirical proof. Even know what that is?

Jumping what gun?! Proof for what?!

First, any kind of reunification achieved by us would be at the quantum level, not the cosmic level. Second, we have unified the the weak force and the electromagnetic force into an electroweak force. Even if we can never unify all of the forces, what would that have to do with their initial unification or with the beginning of the cosmos in the finite past?

Answer: nothing!

Your questions are nonsensical.

dingbat, you just called me dummy. Your cover’s blown. Nice try, but too obvious. Better luck next time.

I'm not ding, dummy. I call folks like you dummy all the time, dummy. ding and I do no agree on evolution, for example. My actual name is Michael Rawlings.

dingbat, you're a total fool.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

Our first allegiance is to our countries.

You begin with a lie and proceed from that lie.

"ONE NATION UNDER GOD."

God is not under the nation, as you and Marxist claim.

Would you give your children and grandchildren over to homosexuals (NOT "Gays". They are anything BUT "gay.")

Nor are women inferior. Another lie of yours. I have told my wife and children I would give my life for any of them any day. I put them above me. But I am stronger and do the heavy lifting and the dirty work, as manly men do. You would not understand, being a girly-man.

 

[ChemEngineer]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

 

[Ringtone]

So, Taz, now that we have reduced you to spouting the same mindless slogan over and over again regarding issue number one, let us now move on to issue number two, as science has recently caught up with what the imperatives of logic and mathematics have told us for centuries, namely, that the cosmological order at large cannot be past eternal. The proof is in the pudding, Taz. Taste it. It's simply scrumptious!

To access the original article below, one must subscribe to New Scientist. Fortunately, I saved it to Word in 2012 because it was the very best summary of the matter for the layman I had come across. After you read it, we can systematically review the pre-reviewed proofs I discuss in my article.

Why physicists can't avoid a creation event
by Lisa Grossman
ISSUE 2847
14 January 2012

Excerpt:

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. "A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God", Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.​

​

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as an eternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well as the future. . . .​

​

. . . However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.​

​

His first target was eternal inflation. Proposed by Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981, inflation says that in the few slivers of a second after the big bang, the universe doubled in size thousands of times before settling into the calmer expansion we see today.​

​

This helped to explain why parts of the universe so distant that they could never have communicated with each other look the same.​

​

Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller 'bubble' universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation.​

​

Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time.​

​

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe.​

​

They found that the equations didn't work. "You can't construct a space-time with this property", says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can’t possibly be eternal in the past", says Vilenkin. "There must be some kind of boundary."​

​

Not everyone subscribes to eternal inflation, however, so the idea of an eternal universe still had a foothold. Another option is a cyclic universe, in which the big bang is not really the beginning but more of a bounce back following a previous collapsed universe. The universe goes through infinite cycles of big bangs and crunches with no specific beginning[. . . .] Yet when he looked at what this would mean for the universe’s disorder, again the figures didn’t add up.​

​

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists—nothing like the one we see around us.​

​

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.​

​

Vilenkin's final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg.​

​

This finally "cracked" to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed—and therefore also after a finite amount of time.​

​

"This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe", Vilenkin concludes. "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."​

Please, I beg you, send me the entire article. I'll pay you for it, Friend.

“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.” – Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., who received the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the first known binary pulsar, and for his work which supported the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. Taylor is a devout Christian.

.

“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” – Albert Einstein

(The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

.

“Atoms are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe is also weird, with its laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it passes beyond the scale of our comprehension.”

“Technology is a gift of God. After the gift of life it is perhaps the greatest of God’s gifts. It is the mother of civilizations, of arts and of sciences.”

“You ask: what is the meaning or purpose of life? I can only answer with another question: do you think we are wise enough to read God’s mind?” – Physicist Freeman Dyson. When Einstein died, there was an opening for the title of “most brilliant physicist on the planet.” Dyson filled the opening by assuming Einstein’s professorship in physics at Princeton University. He is the winner of the 1981 Wolf Prize in Physics, the 1993 Enrico Fermi Award, the 1969 Max Planck Medal, amongst many other awards.

You don't have to pay me for anything. All you need is a Youtube account, then sign in. Then go to my Discussion Page and see "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument".

Use this link after you sign in: "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion