Creation and so forth

[ding]

If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.

I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it. I've done that.

Like I said before there are only two options; the universe began or the universe always existed. Despite your objections, the universe always existing violate the SLoT, so that can be ruled out.

So for the case of the universe began there are also only two options; it was created from existing matter or it was created from nothing. Of these two options we can eliminate the universe being created from existing matter because under that scenario there is no mechanism (i.e. no paired production) to create the background radiation which is massive to say the least; two billion times more matter went into creating the CMB than the remaining matter in the universe.

I wasn't insulting you. I truly believe you don't understand the CMB or how it came to be or its significance in answering the origin questions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You emphatically said the CMB was not thermal radiation. Do you disagree with the Wiki citation?
Because if you disagree then all bets are off. But I'm not going to insult you as is your custom.

If you want me to say that the universe came from a sort of vacuum fluctuation with some small asymmetric property of matter/antimatter. Sure that's the best bet, but I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. But when you disagree with some basic physics like the thermal nature of the CMB I pursued that to see if you clearly knew what the physics is.
.

Yes, he's always blatantly disregarded everything I've shared from Wikipedia as well. Because his few gods like George Wald said this or that it simply must be so. Why be imaginative? Why think critically? Why question any of the self-flatulating malarkey trickled down upon us from those deemed most worthy in academia? Talking to a wall is more productive. At least they'll shut up and actually listen to a different perspective once in a while.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't care what you believe

They ya go. 'Nuff said.

 

[ding]

Yes, he's always blatantly disregarded everything I've shared from Wikipedia as well. Because his few gods like George Wald said this or that it simply must be so. Why be imaginative? Why think critically? Why question any of the self-flatulating malarkey trickled down upon us from those deemed most worthy in academia? Talking to a wall is more productive. At least they'll shut up and actually listen to a different perspective once in a while.

You are just like FortFun.

 

[ding]

They ya go. 'Nuff said.

Leave it to you to take a post out of context, FortFun.

At least you have surada on your side.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Leave it to you to take a post out of context, FortFun.

Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?

 

[ding]

Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?

Yeah, especially when you don't finish the sentence.

I would say that....

I don't care what you believe ​

​

versus​

​

I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it. ​

Have two totally different meanings.

 

[ding]

Wow, so you really think "I don't care what you believe" calls for context?

Maybe you should ask surada if she agrees with you

 

[Grumblenuts]

I would say that....

I don't care what you believe

says "It's all about ME!!! I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

 

[ding]

says "It's all about ME!!! I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Whereas I would say that about someone who intentionally parsed posts to take them out of context for the express purpose of bearing false witness.

 

[ding]

says "It's all about ME!!! I mean, here I am on a public forum simply demanding you answer everything my way or hit the highway. It says you're akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Seriously, bro... you can't see how...

I don't care what you believe ​

​

versus​

​

I don't care what you believe as long as you can reconcile the existence of CMB with it. ​

...have two totally different meanings? Seriously?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Whereas I would say that about someone who intentionally parsed posts to take them out of context for the express purpose of bearing false witness.

You would. And did!

 

[ding]

You would.

Absolutely. People who bear false witness should suffer consequences, no?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Absolutely. People who bear false witness should suffer consequences, no?

It's a public forum. Anyone who cares can easily see the entire context. I'm done. Bubbye!

 

[ding]

It's a public forum. Anyone who cares can easily see the entire context. I'm done. Bubbye!

Which makes it even more strange that you would try to take it out of context and expect to not get called on it. Bubbye!

 

[Wuwei]

Yes. CMB is not thermal radiation. So says E=MC^2. Thermal radiation is infrared or heat.

Look up black body radiation. Also look up Wein Displacement Law. It will tell you that it is not just LWIR. Look up sun black body radiation. It will show you it radiates well into the UV - short wave.

Einstein's law has absolutely nothing to do with BB radiation. BB radiation was investigated in the mid 1800's long before relativity. You seem to think that the CMB radiation is directly from matter-antimatter interactions, but you never said that directly, So I have no idea what you are thinking. What is happening is that those interactions heat up the early universe, and it's BB radiation from that heat that escapes.

From YOUR link: Cosmic background radiation is electromagnetic radiation from the Big Bang. The origin of this radiation depends on the region of the spectrum that is observed. ... This component is redshifted photons that have freely streamed from an epoch when the Universe became transparent for the first time to radiation.

You used wrong key words (Cosmic background radiation). We are not interested in radiation that comes from other miscellaneous places. You should have used Cosmic microwave background because that is the subject.

I know your primary interest is how the energy of the big bang came about, but nevertheless if you don't believe in the Wiki quote I cited, then all bets are off. Also physics, including SLoT is not defined at a singularity. The same as trying to solve the physics at a black hole singularity.... Hasn't been done yet.
.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There was obviously SOMETHING before The Big Bang... something outside of our 3 Dimensional Universe.

There are several theories along those lines, but no way has yet been imagined to design any experiments to confirm them.

There are still things in this universe that we cannot perceive with our 3D dimensional sense and instruments. Someday, we may develop the mathematics and instrumentation model those theories .... or completely different ones.

Until then, it remains tantalizing speculation.

By paragraph:

1. Yes, especially for those arguing that the entire Universe resulted from the Bang, "3D" or otherwise
2. True, but only 3 more generations of ultra-super-duper atom smashers at a cost of 20, 100, and 600 trillion dollars will Shirley do the trick.
3. I think our observational senses are great. We just need to stop the madness and pick back up where we left off, before Einstein distracted everyone with space warpages and silly particles for every occasion,.. experimentally researching the field of electrical science.
4. Yup.

But before worrying overmuch about our possible dimensional sense limitations, we should seriously review some of our basic physics premises to ferret out some of the accumulated, distracting rot that's been holding us back. I'll provide just one example for now and hope others can add more of the most obvious ones.

Dividing energy into two distinct classes, namely "potential energy" and "kinetic energy," serves no useful purpose. It just confuses everyone and thereby everything involved. Energy is just energy. We commonly define it as "the ability to do work" but more simply it's potential to do work or just potential. Defining "kinetic energy" as "energy in motion" as we've been taught is just crazy. Motion is always relative and where said motion involves work, the energy is expended simultaneously so there's never any net accumulation of energy (or potential).

Dropping a ball is not work. As a ball falls it gains momentum (not energy) due to its increasing speed. In fact, it supposedly loses classical "potential energy" as it approaches the Earth's surface or any other point of impact. A falling ball performs no work until it's moment of impact where it finally does some work, incrementally exchanging some of its momentum to produce heat until it either comes to rest or rebounds back up with reduced momentum. At each increment the ball's potential (to do work) remains strictly a function of its height and momentum, never its "motion."

It's mass, elasticity, size (when subject to friction), speed, and direction all "potentially" influence the work a falling ball can perform at any given moment. But at no point does its "motion" actually add anything to its potential (to do work). Neither does its "motion" when someone performs the work of lifting back up again.

 

[ding]

Look up black body radiation. Also look up Wein Displacement Law. It will tell you that it is not just LWIR. Look up sun black body radiation. It will show you it radiates well into the UV - short wave.

Einstein's law has absolutely nothing to do with BB radiation. BB radiation was investigated in the mid 1800's long before relativity. You seem to think that the CMB radiation is directly from matter-antimatter interactions, but you never said that directly, So I have no idea what you are thinking. What is happening is that those interactions heat up the early universe, and it's BB radiation from that heat that escapes.

You used wrong key words (Cosmic background radiation). We are not interested in radiation that comes from other miscellaneous places. You should have used Cosmic microwave background because that is the subject.

I know your primary interest is how the energy of the big bang came about, but nevertheless if you don't believe in the Wiki quote I cited, then all bets are off. Also physics, including SLoT is not defined at a singularity. The same as trying to solve the physics at a black hole singularity.... Hasn't been done yet.
.

You are kidding, right?

 

[james bond]

Damn you are weak. Read your posts.

I don't have to. Atheists need to die like you in order to get your proof. Surprising that I have a feeling that it will be a SHOCKING one for you, i.e. lightning or electricity.

ETA: Here's an interesting forum -- "These Are The Lies You Were Taught About Electricity".

 

[Wuwei]

I don't have to. Atheists need to die like you in order to get your proof. Surprising that I have a feeling that it will be a SHOCKING one for you, i.e. lightning or electricity.

Another really sick post.