Op-Ed from a Prophet

[ding]

And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shoots each and every one of them down.

100% incorrect. That's why not only are they viable theories, but are actually starting to gain favor over the idea of a singularity.

Ding, you are being kind of a weaselly little liar. You have never bothered to read up on any of these theories, nor have you ever tried (or do you even have the capacity) to sort through them and chill them with mathematics. Please spare me the dog and pony show, thanks.

Maybe you don’t understand the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. I do. Why don’t you tell me why you believe the second law of thermodynamics would allow matter and energy to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. Can you do that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Let me correct some of your terms and false claims, here. I can tell you are getting rattled and digging deep for that one theist blog you read that one time:

1) you are referring to subverses, not multiverses or universes. I can provide you a link to a basic primer on the differences, if you like..

2) you don't actually know our subverse had a beginning. You simply assert it as true. Over and over and over. And it is false that this is absolutely certain, every time you say it. And it is always your "first premise".

So, you are operating from a dubious first premise, which makes you argument n9nsense. You might as well start with the premise that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[ding]

So, let's review all the ways you have been wrong and have had to be corrected:

1) the CMB is a snapshot of the universe well after the big bang, not a direct observation of the big bang itself.

2) the evidence at hand only refers to the spacetime we could ever 9bserve,not strictly "all there is"

3) the CMB is not "proof" of a beginning to our spacetime, but only evidence of the states predicted by our laws after a rapid inflationary period

4) we are not certain that our universe had a strict beginning , and the theories iy did not our actually favored ober those proposing a singluarity

So just to be clear here, you are arguing that space and time were not created from nothing ~14 billion years ago?

 

[ding]

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Let me correctly some of your terms and false claims, here. I can tell you are getting rattled amd digging deep for that one theist blog your read that one time:

1) you are referring to subverses, not multiverses or universes. I can provide you a link to a basic primer on the differences, if you like..

2) you don't actually know our subverse had a beginning. You simply assert it as truem. And it is false, every time you say it. And it is always your "first premise".

So, you are operating from a dubious first premise, which makes you argument n9nsense. You might as well start with the premise that the moon is made of cheese.

Yes, I would love for you to provide that link. You should provide that link to CERN as well so they can correct their website which states the exact same things I am telling you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe you don’t understand the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. I do.

Haha, here comes the quack, with his red herring. I did not write or research the theories that show no actual beginning to our subverse . Career physicists did.

So, feel free to ring them up and tell them they don't understand the consequences of the second law. Because that is what you are saying, and you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Let me correctly some of your terms and false claims, here. I can tell you are getting rattled amd digging deep for that one theist blog your read that one time:

1) you are referring to subverses, not multiverses or universes. I can provide you a link to a basic primer on the differences, if you like..

2) you don't actually know our subverse had a beginning. You simply assert it as truem. And it is false, every time you say it. And it is always your "first premise".

So, you are operating from a dubious first premise, which makes you argument n9nsense. You might as well start with the premise that the moon is made of cheese.

Yes, I would love for you to provide that link. You should provide that link to CERN as well so they can correct their website which states the exact same things I am telling you.

CERNs website does not make the false claims you are making. That is a shameless lie.

 

[ding]

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Let me correct some of your terms and false claims, here. I can tell you are getting rattled and digging deep for that one theist blog you read that one time:

1) you are referring to subverses, not multiverses or universes. I can provide you a link to a basic primer on the differences, if you like..

2) you don't actually know our subverse had a beginning. You simply assert it as true. Over and over and over. And it is false that this is absolutely certain, every time you say it. And it is always your "first premise".

So, you are operating from a dubious first premise, which makes you argument n9nsense. You might as well start with the premise that the moon is made of cheese.

So can I expect an explanation from you on how the second law of thermodynamics allows for matter and energy to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium?

Because we don’t see thermal equilibrium, right?

 

[ding]

No, you are wrong about that too. Any multiverse which exists would have had its own beginning just as our universe had its beginning.

Let me correctly some of your terms and false claims, here. I can tell you are getting rattled amd digging deep for that one theist blog your read that one time:

1) you are referring to subverses, not multiverses or universes. I can provide you a link to a basic primer on the differences, if you like..

2) you don't actually know our subverse had a beginning. You simply assert it as truem. And it is false, every time you say it. And it is always your "first premise".

So, you are operating from a dubious first premise, which makes you argument n9nsense. You might as well start with the premise that the moon is made of cheese.

Yes, I would love for you to provide that link. You should provide that link to CERN as well so they can correct their website which states the exact same things I am telling you.

CERNs website does not make the false claims you are making. That is a shameless lie.

They make the exact same claims I make.

Do you want that link?

Where’s your link again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...aaand this is why I have ding on ignore 99% of the time.

He pinches off these huge, steaming piles of shit in the middle of the room, and it is left the yhe audience to sift through it to dispel ding's lies, fallacies, obfuscations, and diversions.

The true hallmark of a quack.

 

[ding]

Maybe you don’t understand the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. I do.

Haha, here comes the quack, with his red herring. I did not write or research the theories that show no actual beginning to our subverse . Career physicists did.

So, feel free to ring them up and tell them they don't understand the consequences of the second law. Because that is what you are saying, and you are embarrassing yourself.

So no link?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They make the exact same claims I make.

Shameless lie. Ding the liar.

 

[ding]

...aaand this is why I have ding on ignore 99% of the time.

He pinches off these huge, steaming piles of shit in the middle of the room, and it is left the yhe audience to sift through it to dispel ding's lies, fallacies, obfuscations, and diversions.

The true hallmark of a quack.

So no link?

 

[ding]

They make the exact same claims I make.

Shameless lie. Ding the liar.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

You were saying?

Hey, where's that link of yours. I'd love to read it so I can see how badly you took it out of context.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great care to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

 

[ding]

Maybe you don’t understand the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics. I do.

Haha, here comes the quack, with his red herring. I did not write or research the theories that show no actual beginning to our subverse . Career physicists did.

So, feel free to ring them up and tell them they don't understand the consequences of the second law. Because that is what you are saying, and you are embarrassing yourself.

Here's a talk on why the universe had to had a beginning. Do you have anything like this to prove that space and time did not have a beginning?

 

[ding]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great pride to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

The first three paragraphs from the link from CERN I provided.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[Taz]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great pride to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

The first three paragraphs from the link from CERN I provided.

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old?

According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.

The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang..."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

“Scientists believe”, that’s called a theory, not proof.

 

[ding]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great care to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

I guess you missed this at the top of the page you linked to.

 

[Taz]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great care to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

I guess you missed this at the top of the page you linked to.

View attachment 246771

And it could have been a super massive black hole exploding.

 

[ding]

For anyone interested in ding's quackery:

The early universe | CERN

At no time does it say the "universe began", or had a beginning. At no time does it say there was a singularity. In fact , they take great care to make it clear they are only describing ( can indeed only describe with any certainty) the our local 'universe' starting just after the start of expansion.

It only said that, "All matter in the universe was formed in one explosive event 13.7 billion years ago, right?

But I guess you don't think that means CERN is telling us there was a beginning, right?

And you believe I am the quack?