Science isn’t always the answer.

[james bond]

So much wrong in a few sentences.

Sorry but I refuse to be lectured by any individual who insists the earth is 6000 years old.

The Earth is around six thousand years old. The young or thousands of years old estimates are much better than the billions you believe when there is no chance any celestial body can be that old. They would all be gone by now. What you believe is such a big lie that people are fooled, even the educated ones, based on the false assumptions of radioisotope dating.

Instead, common sense should tell us that rocks and fossils do not last that long. Scientific evidence should tell us that other things should provide evidence to back up its age such as more fossils or rocks that can stand up to weathering, chemical testing, and can withstand incredible pressures. For example, meteors shouldn't burn up due to friction if they can withstand incredible frictional pressures.

None do. We have plenty of fossil evidence in terms of the skulls of humans. Compare them to people of today. That's what they are over thousands of years. You can match them to some of the strange shaped skulls people of today have. You only assume they're transitional fossils such as Neanderthals. Another lie your atheist scientists tell you haha.

What does it mean? It means science isn't the answer when it is wrong.

 

[BreezeWood]

hey do not know when or how clouds form

Another silly lie. And again, that's weather, not climate.

they do not know more then they know about climate or weather

Empty, meaningless whining. They know what they know. And you don't know what that is, because you are an ignorant, cackling, uneducated moron who thinks he outsmarted career scientists using his gut feelings and a case of PBR.

Still no link to any actually predictions that came true I see.

It's not my job to prove wrong every stupid, ignorant lie that dribbles from your mouth. Do you think you can take a shit in a science thread, and everyone else is supposed to then spoonfeed to your lazy, ignorant ass why you are wrong? Everyone already knows you are wrong. This is your problem, not mine.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

You claimed there were computer models that accurately predicted warming and now you can not link to one to prove your claim, I accept your acknowledgement you either lied ir were duped.

.
- and you are just waiting to show yours, who would guess.

Siberia experiences hottest spring on record, fueling wildfires

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit), even though it should be much cooler at this time of the year. Other parts of Siberia, and the...

news.mongabay.com

A few hundred miles south of the Arctic Circle, the small town of Boguchany in Siberia, Russia, had its hottest April on record. On April 25, the temperature soared to 31° Celsius (87.8° Fahrenheit) -

.
no matter what's one planet among the many.

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

,

And STILL no link to a computer model that actually has predicted the future in climate change.

.
I gave you mine in the beginning - the asphalt juggle, item no.1 ...

View attachment 346761
.
where's yours, too afraid ...

You did NOT link to a computer model at all. Go figure

You did NOT link to a computer model at all. Go figure

.
what's your point - where's yours ... did you say climate change what exactly are you creeping about.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

Yeah, I understand ballistics. Do you? The bullet does not return to the barrel.

And still no link from you. Why is that?

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

A void. As in no time or space.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

A void. As in no time or space.

A void. As in no time or space.

.
a void is space with nothing else ...

you would have to define what you mean by space because other than the the point of singularity that's supposedly all there was relative to the influence of the singularity we are associated with - Earth. fine with that however there may be other universes beyond our own void so your definition is lacking perspective.

time is a dimension that always exists.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

A void. As in no time or space.

A void. As in no time or space.

.
a void is space with nothing else ...

you would have to define what you mean by space because other than the the point of singularity that's supposedly all there was relative to the influence of the singularity we are associated with - Earth. fine with that however there may be other universes beyond our own void so your definition is lacking perspective.

time is a dimension that always exists.

Space is created by the presence of matter and/or energy. Space and time can only exist with the presence of matter and/or energy. No matter and energy, no space and time.

And you are still misusing the term singularity.

Time does not exist outside of space and time. Time is a measure of expansion of the universe.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ BreezeWood, ding, et al,

BLUF: Cosmologists believe that they can provide an objective description of the universe back to a point ≈ 10^-43 seconds (The Plank Epoch) before the event called the "Big Bang." But then, they draw a blank; more than one paradox emerges.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

A void. As in no time or space.

.a void is space with nothing else ...

you would have to define what you mean by space because other than the point of singularity that's supposedly all there was relative to the influence of the singularity we are associated with - Earth. fine with that however there may be other universes beyond our own void so your definition is lacking perspective.

time is a dimension that always exists.

(COMMENT)

To be an objective observer, to scale the event\.

◈ To scale the event for documentation you have to be outside the event. ​

​

◈ At the point of origin of the event, there is no dimension. There is no "x,y,z," axis. There is no coordinate. ​

​

◈ The "Big Bang" might not have happened in the traditional way scientist normally think. Maybe the event was actually the rapid spherical expansion of the space-time creating an omnidirectional framework for energy to gradually form into particles and the four forces of the universe to develop in the framework. ​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ding]

But then, they draw a blank;

No. That's when Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations yield infinities. That's the singularity that Breezewood knows nothing about. That's where the math breaks down so to speak. The physics are just fine. The physics and thermodynamics still say that it went from nothing to something.

 

[ding]

The "Big Bang" might not have happened in the traditional way scientist normally think. Maybe the event was actually the rapid spherical expansion of the space-time creating an omnidirectional framework for energy to gradually form into particles and the four forces of the universe to develop in the framework.

That runs into problems with thermodynamics. Where did THAT energy come from? How was THAT ENERGY able to defy the laws of thermodynamics?

You see... there has to be a beginning from nothing. It's the only way it can be. Energy and matter were created from nothing.

What possible thing - that is not energy or matter - could create energy and matter out of thin air so to speak?

The logical answer is something beyond energy and matter.

So what could create energy and matter out of thin air such that what was created eventually evolved intelligence?

The answer is intelligence without form. It makes perfect sense.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ ding, et al,

But then, they draw a blank;

... That's the singularity that Breezewood knows nothing about.

(COMMENT)

Anything before 10^43 Seconds before the event (The Plank Epoch) is pure speculation at this point. In fact, at this point, it is not even science. While there are several reasonable-sounding (deductive) theories; whether they actually depend on (at the end of the day) the inferences, assumptions, and premises (on which the theories are based) are actually true.

I don't get the impression that our friend "Breezewood" is, in any fashion, outside the ballpark. I know there are a number of Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, and Astronomers that love the idea of a Black Hole (a singularity), but we actually know very little about them. And relative to our discussion here, the idea of a Primordial Supermassive Black Hole (SmBH) as the point of origin is very romantic, but strictly speculation. There are plenty of great theories presented, but no way to test, measure, and evaluate the theories.

BTW: I don't go in for any ad Hominen responses.

The "Big Bang" might not have happened in the traditional way scientist normally think. Maybe the event was actually the rapid spherical expansion of the space-time creating an omnidirectional framework for energy to gradually form into particles and the four forces of the universe to develop in the framework.

That runs into problems with thermodynamics. Where did THAT energy come from? How was THAT ENERGY able to defy the laws of thermodynamics?

(COMMENT)

There is always going to be a question on the issue of first energy and first motion.

You see... there has to be a beginning from nothing. It's the only way it can be. Energy and matter were created from nothing.

What possible thing - that is not energy or matter - could create energy and matter out of thin air so to speak?

(COMMENT)

Again, that is an interesting question. No one seems to know the answer.

The logical answer is something beyond energy and matter.

(COMMENT)

I'm not to the point yet where I accept the "supernatural" as a legitimate response.

So what could create energy and matter out of thin air such that what was created eventually evolved intelligence?

(COMMENT)

AH, two entirely different issues (sentience 'v' energy).

The answer is intelligence without form. It makes perfect sense.

(COMMENT)

Ah - Yeah... Exactly what does that mean? And is it subject to the Scientific Method?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[james bond]

Sorry but I refuse to be lectured by any individual who insists the earth is 6000 years old.

To those who think the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, I'll wager you will learn how long that is. First, it is incredibly long and boring. Second, it will be painful as the planet or body where you reside will not last that long. IOW, you will experience death many times over. Finally, the persons, such as myself, who were right will get the last laugh. Mine will be like the following, so you'll know it's me... (I think Heath Ledger's is the best)



Just think, billions of years. Billions of laughs haha.

 

[ding]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ ding, et al,

But then, they draw a blank;

... That's the singularity that Breezewood knows nothing about.

(COMMENT)

Anything before 10^43 Seconds before the event (The Plank Epoch) is pure speculation at this point. In fact, at this point, it is not even science. While there are several reasonable-sounding (deductive) theories; whether they actually depend on (at the end of the day) the inferences, assumptions, and premises (on which the theories are based) are actually true.

I don't get the impression that our friend "Breezewood" is, in any fashion, outside the ballpark. I know there are a number of Astrophysicist, Cosmologist, and Astronomers that love the idea of a Black Hole (a singularity), but we actually know very little about them. And relative to our discussion here, the idea of a Primordial Supermassive Black Hole (SmBH) as the point of origin is very romantic, but strictly speculation. There are plenty of great theories presented, but no way to test, measure, and evaluate the theories.

BTW: I don't go in for any ad Hominen responses.

The "Big Bang" might not have happened in the traditional way scientist normally think. Maybe the event was actually the rapid spherical expansion of the space-time creating an omnidirectional framework for energy to gradually form into particles and the four forces of the universe to develop in the framework.

That runs into problems with thermodynamics. Where did THAT energy come from? How was THAT ENERGY able to defy the laws of thermodynamics?

(COMMENT)

There is always going to be a question on the issue of first energy and first motion.

You see... there has to be a beginning from nothing. It's the only way it can be. Energy and matter were created from nothing.

What possible thing - that is not energy or matter - could create energy and matter out of thin air so to speak?

(COMMENT)

Again, that is an interesting question. No one seems to know the answer.

The logical answer is something beyond energy and matter.

(COMMENT)

I'm not to the point yet where I accept the "supernatural" as a legitimate response.

So what could create energy and matter out of thin air such that what was created eventually evolved intelligence?

(COMMENT)

AH, two entirely different issues (sentience 'v' energy).

The answer is intelligence without form. It makes perfect sense.

(COMMENT)

Ah - Yeah... Exactly what does that mean? And is it subject to the Scientific Method?

Most Respectfully,
R

Cyclical models can't get around the SLoT. They're dead. Let me fill you in on what happened before 10^-43 seconds. The universe popped into existence with nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter. Anti-matter particles collided with matter particles and annihilated each other releasing massive amounts of energy which propelled the remaining matter particles outward.

You want to measure God using the scientific measure? Look you aren't ready to accept God as a creator because you aren't ready to accept something which is beyond matter and energy. But matter and energy cannot be an eternal source. It just can't. So we are left with the only remaining possibility. God. It's your perception of God that is keeping you from accepting the truth.

 

[ding]

The laws of nature could be anything but they just so happen to be such that existence itself is hardwired to create intelligence. It's not an accident.

 

[the other mike]

Sorry but I refuse to be lectured by any individual who insists the earth is 6000 years old.

To those who think the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, I'll wager you will learn how long that is. First, it is incredibly long and boring. Second, it will be painful as the planet or body where you reside will not last that long. IOW, you will experience death many times over. Finally, the persons, such as myself, who were right will get the last laugh. Mine will be like the following, so you'll know it's me... (I think Heath Ledger's is the best)



Just think, billions of years. Billions of laughs haha.

Jehovah's Witness. I knew it.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are NOT open minded you are dogmatic at claiming guesses are facts.

What dogma?

I didn't claim guesses were facts, ya shameless little liar.

I don't have absolute faith in science. That's just you being a whiny baby and trying to drag down honorable evidence based thinking into the shitty muck where your magical faith resides...since that's the only way you could ever get them on the same level...

Scence is nothing more then guess and then assumptions. Very few things science claims are proven yet YOU BELIEVE with out facts, just admit it you lying loser.

Science says challenge anything that doesn’t make sense. This is why Islam squashed science when it took over that part of the world.

christianity still fights science today for its reasons. Not as bad as Islam but still.

All we believe is your religions are all lies. Not just all the others except yours. Yours too.

We miss the days before Moses said he met and talked to god. Then it was fun debating the existence of god. I’m even open minded to the idea. But don’t come to us with those holy books

Biblical Christianity doesn't fight against true science or true in-depth scientific methodology. Biblical Christianity challenges the SECULAR notion that SECULAR opinion is more valuable than spiritual reflection, and any attempt to eliminate its influence and consideration at all cost.

One thing about the Bible is that it is a prophetic book, unlike most other religious literature. All one needs to do is put its revelations to the test. However, one MUST study the Bible to consider its validity in that regard.

Unlike MOST other religious literature? Can you name one other holy book that is prophetic? If not then you meant to say is unlike all other religous literature.

No surprise you find your holy book to be the best one. Muslims and mormons do that too.

Unlike the Bible (which rests entirely on itself and the physical evidence), both the Book of Mormon and the Koran depend on the existence of the Bible for support and any coherency.

 

[BreezeWood]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, et al,

BLUF: Commentary on the original domain that the point of origin for the "Big Bang" is not science. You cannot make a hypothesis and then immerse it into the Scientific Method for evaluation. It is a necessary criterion for something of Scientific Study.

When I listen to Big Bang enthusiasts, and I often do because (like Dr Carl Sagan -•- Dr Michelle Thaller -•- Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson) they usually have such vivid imaginations, they are so inspirational.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

why be the elephant in the room ...

(COMMENT)

It is a question of thresholds. Remembering that the Earth is only ≈ 4.5 Billion y/o and the Universe (we believe) is ≈ 13.8 Billion y/o.

Space.com Article By Clara Moskowitz May 25, 2011
Scientists can't be sure exactly how far away the so-called gamma-ray burst was,
but their best estimates place it at around 13.14 billion light-years away, making it
potentially the farthest object yet detected in space.

View attachment 345095
​

In general, today we are taught, that:

"In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. ​

Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars ​

and galaxies we see today."​

​

So the thresholds are defined (sort of):

◈ That inside the surface of the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter."​

◈ That which was outside the "infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter"​

​

Later on, we learn (or are taught) that the " infinitely dense, tiny ball" was really a "singularity" filled with "energy." We assume that at this point, the forces were:

◈ Gravityª​

◈ Electromagnetism​

◈ Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)​

◈ Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)​

​

Infinitely dense would probably suggest that the ever-elusive "unified force" had once existed:

​

View attachment 345135​

​

✦ Is the fabric of space-time like a fluid that takes the shape of the Universe as the primordial ball?
✦ Did the fabric of space-time already exist, and that is what the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" expanding into.

MUSING:

If the "primordial ball" filled with "energy" was infinitely dense, then there would have been no excitement of anything. It would have been at absolute zero (no movement, no frequency, no wave action).

IF this is NOT TRUE - THEN, we do not understand what the impact is on an infinitely dense → "primordial ball" filled with "energy" is or what it describes.

Anyway, I think you might have already gathered were this is going?

What can break the bond of the "quantum gravity" to offset the equilibrium of the "infinitely dense" → "primordial ball" and force the release of the energy? (RHETORICAL) Of course, the answer is heat (new energy → first motion).º

Just my thought.

FOOTNOTE infinitely dense → "primordial ball"
______________________________
a: Although we generally define "gavity" as a "force;" it is really an effect we can directly detect and measure when mass deforms the fabric of space-time.
0: In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was no symmetry because the universe did not begin with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation. The CMB also tells us that how much matter and anti-matter the universe originally started with. We can literally calculate it using the residual background radiation. And lastly the motion was created by the release of energy when the matter and anti-matter annihilated each other. It was this force which created the expansion of the universe.

We know this from the CMB which is the radiation left over from the matter / anti-matter annihilation.

.
your certainty overwhelms you - the CMB is a fragmentary relic, what makes you believe a light beam travels in a straight line just hold your flashlight long enough and the beam will return to you ...

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

You are an idiot. The background radiation is a remnant of the matter and antimatter annihilations that occurred when the universe was created from nothing and caused the universe to expand. There is no returning back to that point as everything is moving away from that point.

.
does the boomerang ever change direction on its return path ...

in a vacuum all matter is traveling at a finite angle of trajectory from a single point of origin and will return as a mirror image of the initial event the impetuous from its origin directing the forces for the new recompaction till dissipated as the matter is pressed into energy.

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

.
you did not answer that question - isn't that the reason there are most likely muti-universes and is a mind staggering concept. that is why there is a metaphysical Almighty guidance not a being of image however not the same as spiritual being the physiological component and can have a physical means of existence presently the human body.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

All matter is traveling away from all other matter. There is no boomerang.

.
how dense can a person be ...

finite angle of trajectory is a loop - cyclical bb.


you still have not answered roco's question.

Do you have any links, nutjob?

Do you have any links, nutjob?

you still have not answered roco's question.

.
try ballistics ...
....
been too busy - no answer

Last question: What did the Big Band expand into?

there is a formula for ... physiology, do you think - how about roco's question give it a shot bing.

A void. As in no time or space.

A void. As in no time or space.

.
a void is space with nothing else ...

you would have to define what you mean by space because other than the the point of singularity that's supposedly all there was relative to the influence of the singularity we are associated with - Earth. fine with that however there may be other universes beyond our own void so your definition is lacking perspective.

time is a dimension that always exists.

Space is created by the presence of matter and/or energy. Space and time can only exist with the presence of matter and/or energy. No matter and energy, no space and time.

And you are still misusing the term singularity.

Time does not exist outside of space and time. Time is a measure of expansion of the universe.

Space is created by the presence of matter and/or energy. Space and time can only exist with the presence of matter and/or energy. No matter and energy, no space and time.

.
there is no such presence as a void than a lack of substance which is open space what existed outside the confines of the concentrate was no different before the concentrate was formed and became no different after the moment of singularity as that occurrence and the open space were already one in the same.

- and is defined by the furthest most expanse before the apex of trajectory guides the matter in a mirror image back to its origin. if there is an actual void it would be outside the parameters of the expanse not at the location of the initial expansion - more likely as a limitless multiuniverse.

Time does not exist outside of space and time. Time is a measure of expansion of the universe.

.
time is a dimension that always exists.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sorry but I refuse to be lectured by any individual who insists the earth is 6000 years old.

To those who think the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, I'll wager you will learn how long that is. First, it is incredibly long and boring. Second, it will be painful as the planet or body where you reside will not last that long. IOW, you will experience death many times over. Finally, the persons, such as myself, who were right will get the last laugh. Mine will be like the following, so you'll know it's me... (I think Heath Ledger's is the best)



Just think, billions of years. Billions of laughs haha.

Jehovah's Witness. I knew it.

I studied with Jehovah Witnesses and at no time did they claim the Earth was only 6000 years old, if they had I would have left because that simply is NOT true. God does not give man a time line in the Bible. He states he is unknowable and so a the "days" before man was created could be millions of years or even billions. Anyone claiming the bible says the earth is 6000 years old is misguided and wrong.

 

[BreezeWood]

Sorry but I refuse to be lectured by any individual who insists the earth is 6000 years old.

To those who think the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, I'll wager you will learn how long that is. First, it is incredibly long and boring. Second, it will be painful as the planet or body where you reside will not last that long. IOW, you will experience death many times over. Finally, the persons, such as myself, who were right will get the last laugh. Mine will be like the following, so you'll know it's me... (I think Heath Ledger's is the best)



Just think, billions of years. Billions of laughs haha.

.
the laughs of madmen ... ?

surly you did not watch that entire video -



there is something wrong with you bond, maybe I now know why you read that book.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
SUBREF: "[E]vidence for God's existence"
⁜→ BreezeWood, ding, et al,

BLUF: Sometimes it is not immediately obvious to me that we are NOT speaking a common language. Void means something different to me.

Time does not exist outside of space and time. Time is a measure of expansion of the universe.

. time is a dimension that always exists.

(COMMENT)

Time is a calibrated measure either in set increments or between events. Time exists (much like our friend Breezewood says) anywhere there is an observable event or movement. It is part of the framework of the universe.

The concept of absolute time is a hypothetical model from the laws of classical physics postulated by Isaac Newton in the Principia in 1687. Although the Newtonian model of absolute time has since been opposed and rejected in light of more recent scholarship, it still provides a way to study science with reference to time and understand the phenomena
of time within the scientific tradition. According to this model, it is assumed that time runs at the same rate for all the observers in the universe, or in other words, the rate of time of each observer can be scaled to the absolute time by multiplying the rate by a constant. This concept of absolute time suggests absolute simultaneity by the coincidence of two or more events at different points in space for all observers in the universe. So, absolute time has been discussed in two senses of absoluteness.

In first sense, absoluteness means independent of events, while in second sense, it means independent of observer or frame of reference.
SOURCE: {LINK}

Most Respectfully,
R