Can You Show the Universe and Earth Was Created by the Big Bang by Showing the Energy?

[ReinyDays]

The third Law says there is no temperature where all motion stops.

An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.
[/QUOTE]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero ... like saying an empty pool has zero cubic furlongs of water in it ...

"If ... friction existed in the atom" ... there's no friction in an atom that I know of ... unless æther has a viscosity ... QM predicts an electron in it's ground state can only slow down, it can never orbit any closer to the nucleus ... I believe there's a form of beta decay where this happens, but it doesn't split the atom, just transmutes it ...

 

[Dr Grump]

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

But it makes just soooooo much more sense that some omnipresent being just went 'abracadbra' right? Fucking religion loons...

It absolutely does, but I don't think it was 'abracadbra.' I think it was more like mind willed existence into being. After all... everything is just information.

Why else do you think a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence?

I can think of several more reasons than some super being. Where you guys ALWAYS lose me is that you find it hard to believe the science (even with its flaws) and that something can't come from nothing (according to you - however if you actually read a lot of science many things have come from something), yet this super being has always just 'been'. I ask where did it come from? "Oh, it's always been there". Yeah, right.

You do realise that your particular religion (Christianity??), is just a recycled rehash of other religions that existed before it. There is ample evidence that such things as the virgin birth and the ressurection are just rehashes of previous events mentioned in pre-Christian religions.

 

[ding]

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.

I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed. You don't.

You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.

Trying to change the subject, Ed?

 

[ReinyDays]

You do realise that your particular religion (Christianity??), is just a recycled rehash of other religions that existed before it. There is ample evidence that such things as the virgin birth and the ressurection are just rehashes of previous events mentioned in pre-Christian religions.

Are you seriously suggesting that Christianity "evolved" from more primitive forms? ... [smile] ... Allow me to be the first to flame you:

BLASPHEMER ...

I believe ancient Egypt has a fairly well documented course of religious understanding ... switching back and forth between monotheism and polytheism ... depending on which set of clerics the Pharaoh favored ... for a Biblical certainty Christianity evolved from Judaism ... religions from before that are very poorly documented, although clearly they existed, some speculate we inherited religion from our Neanderthal ancestors based on what appears to be funeral practices ...

Just tell me where to find the original marinara and I'll wear a damn colander on my head ...

 

[ding]

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

But it makes just soooooo much more sense that some omnipresent being just went 'abracadbra' right? Fucking religion loons...

It absolutely does, but I don't think it was 'abracadbra.' I think it was more like mind willed existence into being. After all... everything is just information.

Why else do you think a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence?

I can think of several more reasons than some super being. Where you guys ALWAYS lose me is that you find it hard to believe the science (even with its flaws) and that something can't come from nothing (according to you - however if you actually read a lot of science many things have come from something), yet this super being has always just 'been'. I ask where did it come from? "Oh, it's always been there". Yeah, right.

You do realise that your particular religion (Christianity??), is just a recycled rehash of other religions that existed before it. There is ample evidence that such things as the virgin birth and the ressurection are just rehashes of previous events mentioned in pre-Christian religions.

So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok? What are they?

 

[ding]

The third Law says there is no temperature where all motion stops.

An example of perpetual motion in nature is the electron. If the entropy of the atom was not zero and friction existed in the atom, the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero ... like saying an empty pool has zero cubic furlongs of water in it ...

"If ... friction existed in the atom" ... there's no friction in an atom that I know of ... unless æther has a viscosity ... QM predicts an electron in it's ground state can only slow down, it can never orbit any closer to the nucleus ... I believe there's a form of beta decay where this happens, but it doesn't split the atom, just transmutes it ...

Does this seem to you like a good argument for the universe being a perpetual motion machine?

It seems pretty nebulous to make the argument of electrons vibrating or oscillating or whatever it is that they do to the universe exists forever expanding and contracting. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Dr Grump]

So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok? What are they?

Who knows? I don't know all the answers, however science has explained a lot of unexplained things over the years - what gases we breath in and omit, how gravity works, what causes thunder. All of these things were the purview of gods centuries ago. Time after time science gives explanations. Time after time religion gives us nothing but dogma. Thing is your explanation is the least believable of anything out there. By a long shot.

 

[ding]

So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok? What are they?

Who knows? I don't know all the answers, however science has explained a lot of unexplained things over the years - what gases we breath in and omit, how gravity works, what causes thunder. All of these things were the purview of gods centuries ago. Time after time science gives explanations. Time after time religion gives us nothing but dogma. Thing is your explanation is the least believable of anything out there. By a long shot.

You just wrote that you did. See?

I can think of several more reasons than some super being.

 

[ding]

So many different subjects, let's focus on your claim that you can think of several more reasons for why a universe created from nothing that was hardwired to produce intelligence would pop into existence, Ok? What are they?

Who knows? I don't know all the answers, however science has explained a lot of unexplained things over the years - what gases we breath in and omit, how gravity works, what causes thunder. All of these things were the purview of gods centuries ago. Time after time science gives explanations. Time after time religion gives us nothing but dogma. Thing is your explanation is the least believable of anything out there. By a long shot.

I am telling you what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence. Crazy huh?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the electron would lose energy and couldn't maintain its orbit and would be drawn into the nucleus, splitting it, and no matter could exist.

Ummm......an electron can't split a nucleus. When an electron is absorbed by a proton in the nucleus (electron capture), the proton becomes a neutron.

 

[Dr Grump]

I am telling you what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence. Crazy huh?

Over millions of years. Certainly sounds more believable than your option.
Tell me, where did your superbeing come from. And no, "always been there" is not an answer. If that is your answer, then you are being hypocritical with regard to what I believe - ie, you can't believe a whole universe popped out of nowhere, but somehow it is easy to believe that some being did - even though, no doubt, you'll say (via something totally unprovable), that this being has always been there. Phooey. Clap trap and belongs in the same annuls where superstitious folk used to scare their kids about the bogeyman.

 

[ding]

I am telling you what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence. Crazy huh?

Over millions of years. Certainly sounds more believable than your option.
Tell me, where did your superbeing come from. And no, "always been there" is not an answer. If that is your answer, then you are being hypocritical with regard to what I believe - ie, you can't believe a whole universe popped out of nowhere, but somehow it is easy to believe that some being did - even though, no doubt, you'll say (via something totally unprovable), that this being has always been there. Phooey. Clap trap and belongs in the same annuls where superstitious folk used to scare their kids about the bogeyman.

Try billions of years.

You are the one who needs to ask what came before that. I don't. Because I believe that mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the material world. The only possible solution is something which is eternal and unchanging. To be more correct, no thing, as things are not eternal and things are not unchanging. So the only "thing" that could have existed before space and time is consciousness without form.

So I have an answer. You are the one who does not have an answer or a even a clue.

 

[Dr Grump]

I am telling you what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence. Crazy huh?

Over millions of years. Certainly sounds more believable than your option.
Tell me, where did your superbeing come from. And no, "always been there" is not an answer. If that is your answer, then you are being hypocritical with regard to what I believe - ie, you can't believe a whole universe popped out of nowhere, but somehow it is easy to believe that some being did - even though, no doubt, you'll say (via something totally unprovable), that this being has always been there. Phooey. Clap trap and belongs in the same annuls where superstitious folk used to scare their kids about the bogeyman.

Try billions of years.

You are the one who needs to ask what came before that. I don't. Because I believe that mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the material world. The only possible solution is something which is eternal and unchanging. To be more correct, no thing, as things are not eternal and things are not unchanging. So the only "thing" that could have existed before space and time is consciousness without form.

So I have an answer. You are the one who does not have an answer or a even a clue.

That's not an answer. That's a pie in the sky story. Nothing more.
Science takes time to prove things, and prove things it does. All the time. Religion has proven nothing. What you believe, is not fact. It is faith and belief. Nothing more. I can prove gravity. I can prove oxygen exists. I can prove many such things. You have nothing.

Who says consciousness without form is the only thing that could have existed before space and time? You? ha!

 

[ding]

I am telling you what science tells us. Science tells us that the universe popped into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence. Crazy huh?

Over millions of years. Certainly sounds more believable than your option.
Tell me, where did your superbeing come from. And no, "always been there" is not an answer. If that is your answer, then you are being hypocritical with regard to what I believe - ie, you can't believe a whole universe popped out of nowhere, but somehow it is easy to believe that some being did - even though, no doubt, you'll say (via something totally unprovable), that this being has always been there. Phooey. Clap trap and belongs in the same annuls where superstitious folk used to scare their kids about the bogeyman.

Try billions of years.

You are the one who needs to ask what came before that. I don't. Because I believe that mind has always existed as the source or matrix of the material world. The only possible solution is something which is eternal and unchanging. To be more correct, no thing, as things are not eternal and things are not unchanging. So the only "thing" that could have existed before space and time is consciousness without form.

So I have an answer. You are the one who does not have an answer or a even a clue.

That's not an answer. That's a pie in the sky story. Nothing more.
Science takes time to prove things, and prove things it does. All the time. Religion has proven nothing. What you believe, is not fact. It is faith and belief. Nothing more. I can prove gravity. I can prove oxygen exists. I can prove many such things. You have nothing.

Who says consciousness without form is the only thing that could have existed before space and time? You? ha!

Untrue. At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

Can't wait to hear your articulate response.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

I never said

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.

I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed. You don't.

You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.

Trying to change the subject, Ed?

You are projecting.

 

[ding]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

I never said

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.

I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed. You don't.

You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.

Trying to change the subject, Ed?

You are projecting.

Again... I actually understand what the CMB is, Ed. I understand how it came to pass. I understand that an infinite acting cyclical universe has no explanation for it. And I understand your argument against thermal equilibrium is stupid. So, no. I am not projecting.

 

[edthecynic]

Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible

NOT impossible, but DIFFERENT!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

I never said

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.

I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed. You don't.

You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.

Trying to change the subject, Ed?

You are projecting.

Again... I actually understand what the CMB is, Ed. I understand how it came to pass. I understand that an infinite acting cyclical universe has no explanation for it. And I understand your argument against thermal equilibrium is stupid. So, no. I am not projecting.

You still understand NOTHING, you only pretend to.

 

[ding]

Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible

NOT impossible, but DIFFERENT!!!!!

Wrong.

 

[ding]

Yes ... temperature is the measure of motion ... of course if motion is zero, temperature will be zero

Temperature is the measure of heat. There is no temperature where the motion is zero.

I never said

Where is the evidence for your created energy?

There is NO evidence of "created" energy, as you well know, in fact it has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You mean other than the CMB?

There is no such thing as nothing!!!
So your video falls apart before it even starts.
Positive energy is SOMETHING and negative energy is another SOMETHING, two somethings in equal amounts do NOT make a nothing!!!!!

I think I'm going to go with Alexander Vilenkin on this one over some anonymous internet troll who has no grasp of science.

Alexander Vilenkin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You would back a loser in the face of the truth you can't handle. All you and he are doing is playing perverted word games with the meaning of "nothing."

That doesn't convince me to believe you over a renowned cosmologist.

Truth will never convince you!
Is positive energy something or is it nothing?
Is negative energy something or is it nothing?
Do two somethings make nothing or do two nothings make nothing?

I'm sorry... I am still laughing at your ignorance of how the CMB came about. I need a moment.

As I pointed out the CMB came about AFTER the big bang when the universe cooled. Obviously that went over your pointy little head.

And still doesn't answer the question, dummy.

It's ok that you don't know, Mr. Fake Science Guy.

Obviously it is YOU who know nothing about the CMB since your question has been answered accurately!!!! If you can't see that it is only because you are completely IGNORANT of the CMB or any other physics. All you can do is copy and past stuff you have no understanding of.

I understand what the source of CMB is, Ed. You don't.

You understand "nothing" and there is no such thing as nothing.

Trying to change the subject, Ed?

You are projecting.

Again... I actually understand what the CMB is, Ed. I understand how it came to pass. I understand that an infinite acting cyclical universe has no explanation for it. And I understand your argument against thermal equilibrium is stupid. So, no. I am not projecting.

You still understand NOTHING, you only pretend to.

Well... I'm getting ready to school you on something else. You are the gift that keeps on giving.