Serious question for atheists.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

 

[ding]

They absolutely are dead.

100% wrong, and you are embarrassing yourself. Ding, I really don't care if you want to make shit up to soothe yourself. I am content to call you a shameless liar, and any child with google can find out for themselves that you are embarrassing yourself.

Go back and address the two posts you skipped. I explained it such that a six year old could follow it.

No ding. Masturbate on your own time.

Good Lord, you are dense.

 

[ding]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

So imaginary time means that heat doesn't flow from higher energy objects to lower energy objects?

How many laws do you want to violate?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good Lord, you are dense.

And you are a shameless liar.

Meanwhile, research on anomalies in the CMB -- unexplainable by current theories -- continues, with cyclical theories providing the only plausible explanations thus far.

Apparently, ding can explain things so a 6 year old can understand...but not so teams of physicists who have dedicated their lives to their fields can understand....

 

[ding]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

I didn't realize CERN was a creationists blog site.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[ding]

Good Lord, you are dense.

And you are a shameless liar.

Meanwhile, research on anomalies in the CMB -- unexplainable by current theories -- continues, with cyclical theories providing the only plausible explanations thus far.

Apparently, ding can explain things so a 6 year old can understand...but not so teams of physicists who have dedicated their lives to their fields can understand....

I am telling you what they believe. That's where I learned about it from.

Look how crazy this shit makes you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

I didn't realize CERN was a creationists blog site.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Oh look, another link ding didn't read and doesn't understand.

To everyone else:

As anyone who has had the excruciating boredom/pain of reading ding's plagiarized nonsense we call "his posts" can see for themselves, nowhere in the link is it claimed that cyclical models are implausible or "dead". Also, big bang theory does not address what happened before our causal timeline, nor is it meant to do so.

Yes, ding just posted a link he never even looked at and doesn't understand. Again.

 

[ding]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

I didn't realize CERN was a creationists blog site.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Oh look, another link ding didn't read and doeant understand.

To everyone else:

As anyone who has had the exceuciating boredom/pain of reading ding's plagiarized nonsense we call "his posts" can see for themselves, nowhere in the link is it claimed that cyclical models are implausible or "dead". Also, big bang theory does not address what happened before our causal timeline, nor is it meant to do so.

Yes, ding just posted a link he never even looked at and doesn't understand. Again.

What are you talking about?

by definition a cyclical universe has no beginning. That’s why you like it so much. Because it doesn’t offend your materialistic world view.

The CERN link begins with the creation of space and time from nothing.

I read it. You are the one who didn’t understand it.

 

[ding]

Which brings me to the next problem with cyclical models. Where did the cycle begin?

Forget about the problem of an endless supply of energy and ass fucking the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

I didn't realize CERN was a creationists blog site.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Oh look, another link ding didn't read and doeant understand.

To everyone else:

As anyone who has had the exceuciating boredom/pain of reading ding's plagiarized nonsense we call "his posts" can see for themselves, nowhere in the link is it claimed that cyclical models are implausible or "dead". Also, big bang theory does not address what happened before our causal timeline, nor is it meant to do so.

Yes, ding just posted a link he never even looked at and doesn't understand. Again.

Cyclical models are dead.

 

[ding]

Which means that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. Cyclical models cannot avoid this fate.

100% wrong. In fact, the core of literally every single cyclical model is a mathematical solution that eludes this fate. Ding, i think you should probably never ever open your mouth about cosmology again.

No they don’t. It isn’t possible for matter / energy to exist forever without equilibrating.

Yes they do, and yes, it is. Theory of time and imaginary time has come a long way since you plagiarized that creationist blog in 1985.

I didn't realize CERN was a creationists blog site.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Oh look, another link ding didn't read and doeant understand.

To everyone else:

As anyone who has had the exceuciating boredom/pain of reading ding's plagiarized nonsense we call "his posts" can see for themselves, nowhere in the link is it claimed that cyclical models are implausible or "dead". Also, big bang theory does not address what happened before our causal timeline, nor is it meant to do so.

Yes, ding just posted a link he never even looked at and doesn't understand. Again.

Only a moron would argue that energy doesn’t flow from high energy to low energy objects.

Only a moron would argue that there is not a limit to this flow.

Only a moron would argue that the limit wasn’t the uniform temperature of all objects.

Are you a moron?

 

[Grumblenuts]

In light of the fact that not only is our Universe observed to be expanding but inexplicably doing so at an accelerating rate, only a moron would start arguing about energy always going from high to low or things always having to follow similar natural laws within this context.

Oh, did I just say "inexplicable"? Well excuse me! "Astronomers theorize that the faster rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pushing galaxies apart." That explains it. Look out!

 

[Taz]

Be serious, you have no idea where things came from. You just wish they came from a single creator. That's called wishful thinking.

I already told you. All the matter and energy were created from nothing by no thing.

Prove it.

There’s no thermal equilibrium. Done.

That’s retarded. The question is, are you?

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

 

[BreezeWood]

In light of the fact that not only is our Universe observed to be expanding but inexplicably doing so at an accelerating rate, only a moron would start arguing about energy always going from high to low or things always having to follow similar natural laws within this context.

Oh, did I just say "inexplicable"? Well excuse me! "Astronomers theorize that the faster rate is due to a mysterious, dark force that is pushing galaxies apart." That explains it. Look out!

.

In light of the fact that not only is our Universe observed to be expanding ...

the interpretation of a bell shape is inaccurate -

it is a linear expansion of an acute angle for all matter trajecting similarly at an exact radius that will return the matter without changing direction at the same time to its origin as a mirror image of its initial burst w/ a new compaction, cyclical singularity.

Boomerang Theory.

 

[ding]

I already told you. All the matter and energy were created from nothing by no thing.

Prove it.

There’s no thermal equilibrium. Done.

That’s retarded. The question is, are you?

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

 

[Taz]

Prove it.

There’s no thermal equilibrium. Done.

That’s retarded. The question is, are you?

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

The bible also says that there was a world wide flood. That true as well?

 

[ding]

There’s no thermal equilibrium. Done.

That’s retarded. The question is, are you?

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

The bible also says that there was a world wide flood. That true as well?

Men wrote the Bible, Taz.

 

[Taz]

That’s retarded. The question is, are you?

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

The bible also says that there was a world wide flood. That true as well?

Men wrote the Bible, Taz.

So it's not "just like the bible says".Thanks for walking that back.

 

[ding]

There is no thermal equilibrium. That’s how we know the universe has not existed forever. It is that simple.

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

The bible also says that there was a world wide flood. That true as well?

Men wrote the Bible, Taz.

So it's not "just like the bible says".Thanks for walking that back.

No. It's not like how you are reading it. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Taz]

The answer is "yes"

The universe did have a beginning.

Just like the Bible said.

The bible also says that there was a world wide flood. That true as well?

Men wrote the Bible, Taz.

So it's not "just like the bible says".Thanks for walking that back.

No. It's not like how you are reading it. Thanks for proving my point.

So the bible is only true if you read it a certain way? Man, that's dumb.