Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[ding]

The Aether is not "nothing" you putz. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it nothing. Just because Einstein didn't fully comprehend Maxwell's electrodynamic theories doesn't mean Maxwell didn't. Where Einstein was clever, Maxwell was a genius and a true, experimentally grounded scientist / physicist. Just as Tesla laughed at Einstein in disgust, I now laugh at you and your pathetic attempts to sound open minded and knowledgeable.

What does that have to do with the creation of the universe?

You do accept the science behind the big bang, right?

 

[ding]

The Aether is not "nothing" you putz. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it nothing. Just because Einstein didn't fully comprehend Maxwell's electrodynamic theories doesn't mean Maxwell didn't. Where Einstein was clever, Maxwell was a genius and a true, experimentally grounded scientist / physicist. Just as Tesla laughed at Einstein in disgust, I now laugh at you and your pathetic attempts to sound open minded and knowledgeable.

Do you know what CERN is? Do you find them reputable in matters of science?

Do you know that CERN's position is that the universe was created ~13 billion years ago?

The Big Bang | Exploratorium

www.exploratorium.edu

"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..."

 

[Grumblenuts]

Albert Einstein at the age of 70 wrote in a letter to a friend: “You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”

I relate this to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, from quantum mechanics.

There are fundamental limits to the precision with which certain properties of atomic particles can be known. For example, the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

At the most essential level, uncertainty and doubt are implicit in Nature.

Flip Heisenberg on its head and the exact same applies to our upper limits of observability.

 

[ding]

The Aether is not "nothing" you putz. Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it nothing. Just because Einstein didn't fully comprehend Maxwell's electrodynamic theories doesn't mean Maxwell didn't. Where Einstein was clever, Maxwell was a genius and a true, experimentally grounded scientist / physicist. Just as Tesla laughed at Einstein in disgust, I now laugh at you and your pathetic attempts to sound open minded and knowledgeable.

So please explain the role the aether had in the creation of the universe.

 

[ding]

Albert Einstein at the age of 70 wrote in a letter to a friend: “You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”

I relate this to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, from quantum mechanics.

There are fundamental limits to the precision with which certain properties of atomic particles can be known. For example, the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

At the most essential level, uncertainty and doubt are implicit in Nature.

Flip Heisenberg on its head and the exact same applies to our upper limits of observability.

And what does Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle have to do with the creation of the universe?

Because it looks to me like you are just posting random things.

 

[ding]

Albert Einstein at the age of 70 wrote in a letter to a friend: “You imagine that I look back on my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.”

I relate this to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, from quantum mechanics.

There are fundamental limits to the precision with which certain properties of atomic particles can be known. For example, the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.

At the most essential level, uncertainty and doubt are implicit in Nature.

Flip Heisenberg on its head and the exact same applies to our upper limits of observability.

Do you know what cosmic background radiation is? Or red shift? Can you tell me what those things tell us about the creation of the universe?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What does that have to do with the creation of the universe?

Again "the universe." Nothing could make clearer that you're simply here to bark and learn absolutely nothing. So you can't be reached. Sorry, not my problem.

 

[Grumblenuts]

it looks to me like you are just posting random things.

Yeah, it would to anyone so wedded to status quo physics they can't think for themself, outside the box. Again, not my problem. I can only point you in the right direction. You have to do the actual work required to extract that fat head from your ass.

 

[ding]

What does that have to do with the creation of the universe?

Again "the universe." Nothing could make clearer that you're simply here to bark and learn absolutely nothing. So you can't be reached. Sorry, not my problem.

So you are just posting random stuff about science with no real intent?

 

[ding]

it looks to me like you are just posting random things.

Yeah, it would to anyone so wedded to status quo physics they can't think for themself, outside the box. Again, not my problem. I can only point you in the right direction. You have to do the actual work required to extract that fat head from your ass.

So you are a arguing that science in general is wrong?

Do you believe that objects will equilibrate or is that bogus science too?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So you are a arguing that science in general is wrong?

Science is simply a word, you idiot. Physics is one of many "sciences." "Status quo physics" is then a portion of physics. Learn to speak logically and coherently.. then get back to me.

 

[ding]

So you are a arguing that science in general is wrong?

Science is simply a word, you idiot. Physics is one of many "sciences." "Status quo physics" is then a portion of physics. Learn to speak logically and coherently.. then get back to me.

Carry on. You are doing a fabulous job.

I can tell you have great knowledge of science.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Exactly what I just said. That sort of flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[ding]

Exactly what I just said. That sort of flattery will get you nowhere.

I really appreciate you taking it easy on me and not challenging what I have written.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Lets say we agree with you. What are you saying that proves?

That the logical conclusion is that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time, is the source or matrix of the material world such that the universe evolved to create beings that know and create.

The other logical conclusion is that everything alive dies eventually. So god is an impossibility.

 

[Meriweather]

Nothing in my comments suggested you or your Gods were inferior to Hindu Gods. I was making the point that the Hindu Gods like the Mayan Gods (like all Gods), are a reflection of the cultures/societies that formulated those Gods.

Have you ever read any book that was not a reflection of the culture of the person who wrote it? This is not news to anyone--at least not to anyone who reads.

When an American writes of an experience of God it is going to be just as much a reflection of American culture as the Hebrew Bible is a reflection of the Jewish culture, and so on and so forth.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Look you stupid ****. The first thing I look up and see is this

What is nothing? Empty space? The absence of something? Scientists are hard-pressed to define the concept.

What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate

Physicists and philosophers debated the meaning of nothing, and whether nothing even exists, at a recent presentation at the American Museum of Natural History.

www.livescience.com

So if scientists are hard pressed to define the concept, what makes you think you are an expert on it?

First of all, that has nothing to do with what I am saying. We know that their description of nothing doesn’t contain the energy existing in this universe. Secondly, it has nothing to do with the thermodynamic reality that energy cannot exist eternally without equilibrating. To say nothing of the fact that the presence of energy creates space time. All of which tells us that the cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it. And lastly, we know that the same laws that describe the evolution of space and time also describe how space and time could be created from nothing without violating the law of conservation.

So here I am having lots of reasons to believe as I do and you having zero reasons to believe as you do and you are calling me a ****? Really?

The things you know that are facts have nothing to do with proving anything about a god.

cause of the universe is something that is beyond energy and matter as we know it.

Yes. It's something we don't understand. Not a god. At least not he one that visits you.

 

[ding]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Lets say we agree with you. What are you saying that proves?

That the logical conclusion is that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time, is the source or matrix of the material world such that the universe evolved to create beings that know and create.

The other logical conclusion is that everything alive dies eventually. So god is an impossibility.

Actually death is required for life to continue.

Think about it.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe instead of looking at turds they should be looking at the fabric of existence to see the signs of a creator.

all that amazing stuff you see in nature are not signs of a creator. our ignorant ancestors thought so but the more we learned the more we realized this world wasn't made for us.

I know you think there must be but there doesn't have to be a god.

So you guys had to make up a book that said god visited you because before that lie you didn't have enough to start an organized religion. You had to lie and say he visited. Then spent centuries cramming that like down our throats until we were brainwashed as a society same way in the middle east.

Then you say you've seen god? Yea, like he visits assholes like you. LOL

How do you know?

Because it's ridiculous. It's like my friends when we were growing up said they saw ghosts. Sure they did.

But I know they weren't lying. You aren't lying either. You're delusional.

What is ridiculous? That consciousness without form created existence from nothing? Why is that ridiculous? How do you know consciousness without form didn't create existence?

I thought you said you were open minded, right?

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

Sure it's possible.

Which part? That space and time were created from nothing? Or that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Or that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Which one do you dispute and why?

I don't know all I know is the stuff you argue about does not prove a god exists. I could ask you abut dark matter and space time continuoms and flux capacitors and your inability to answer my questiions doesn't prove I'm right.

Were space and time really created from nothing? Do you even know what that means? Because I can tell you it doesn't mean what you think it means. Your tiny brain can't fathom the truth and it's clear you make shit up in your head.

So tell me about thermal dynamics and how there can be a realm you call heaven based on any of the dumb shit you say.

I believe it actually does prove God created space and time. How else do you think a universe that was wired to produce beings that know and create popped into existence from nothing 14 billion years ago?

The SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe and it precludes energy being an eternal source for the creating the universe. So matter and energy being created from nothing without violating the FLoT is the only way the universe could have been created. Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations confirm that 14 billion years ago all of the energy in the universe occupied a tiny space and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were able to study what was created and conclude that the universe was created from nothing. So you don't find it odd that a universe that was wired to create beings that know and create popped into existence from nothing?

But hey if you want to explain "abut dark matter and space time continuoms and flux capacitors" and how they informed your opinion that there is no God, I am all ears.

As for questions I haven't answered, what do you want to know?

As for heaven, I have no idea about that. I just believe that the universe was created by consciousness without form.

The answer is we don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

Show me the peer reviewed scientific research on this theory/hypothesis.

He posted a link to an essay by an old hippie for backup on another thread. Don't hold your breath

He also used to go nuts arguing that the Earth was only about 6,000 years old and that carbon dating, dinosaur fossils and so forth were all horribly wrong or fake.

Creation science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Same questions to you.

Which one do you dispute and why? Do you dispute that space and time were created from nothing? Do you dispute that energy cannot be eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium? Do you dispute that the presence of energy creates space and time?

Because I would really really like to know what basis you have for disputing any of these consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Do you have a scientific background that allows you to speak intelligently about the consequences of the SLoT? Because I'd like to know what peer reviewed papers you have that disprove the SLoT.

Lets say we agree with you. What are you saying that proves?

That the logical conclusion is that mind, rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time, is the source or matrix of the material world such that the universe evolved to create beings that know and create.

The other logical conclusion is that everything alive dies eventually. So god is an impossibility.

Actually death is required for life to continue.

Think about it.

not in heaven