Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[luchitociencia]

We have two main sources to explain the beginning of the universe.

Religion: Based on beliefs

Science: Based on conjectures.

I don't know why such a deep discussion about. Do you really believe in conjectures or make conjectures about those beliefs?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science: Based on conjectures.

*based on evidence

fixed

 

[Frannie]

We have two main sources to explain the beginning of the universe.

Religion: Based on beliefs

Science: Based on conjectures.

I don't know why such a deep discussion about. Do you really believe in conjectures or make conjectures about those beliefs?

Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....

If there was a big bang 14 billion years ago there would be a vast empty area where this happened, but no one seems to mind that this area does not exist

 

[ding]

In fact, it is because of me that FortFun knows anything at all about inflation theory.

I just didn’t teach him everything I know.

When I first started these discussions he believed the universe had existed forever.

The universe has existed forever, not in it's present form but it has existed forever until someone proves how it came to be

That’s silly talk. Why do you believe the universe has existed forever?

Do you believe that God created the universe, or that it just created itself one day

Neither has any basis in fact

There is zero doubt that the universe began. So it was created from nothing one way or another.

So you can believe all of this has no purpose if you want to but I see it otherwise.

 

[ding]

3) Ding the pseudo-intellectual charlatan claims he knows what caused the inflationary period, despite the fact that scientists who dedicate their lives to this field don't know. And the best part? he says it was caused by matter, even though matter did not exist until after the inflationary period. And what explains this nonsense? God created the universe. Yep, fully explained, in true ding glory.

I make no claims to be an intellectual. There’s nothing special about me. I know more than you about this subject which is why I don’t have to act like you.

I’m not sure where you are getting your belief that scientists don’t believe that the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Because I got that belief from them.

I’m also not sure why you don’t believe that scientists believe that the energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations is what provided the energy for the expansion of the universe.

For some odd reason you seem to believe they don’t have a clue why the universe expanded. That just isn't true.

Actually kid the scientific understanding about matter and antimatter is that they annihilate each other so what you propose s not scientifically possible

And yet that is exactly what the scientists will tell you that they believed happened.

Do you need a link, kid?

You have no link to the beginning of the universe, just to morons claiming they know.

Now kid, do tell us how Einstein was right when entire galaxies are traveling at least 5 times the speed of light.

Scientist say, you are pond scum

Are they right?

I don’t believe they are exceeding the speed of light.

You claim to know the universe wasn’t created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Right?

 

[Frannie]

3) Ding the pseudo-intellectual charlatan claims he knows what caused the inflationary period, despite the fact that scientists who dedicate their lives to this field don't know. And the best part? he says it was caused by matter, even though matter did not exist until after the inflationary period. And what explains this nonsense? God created the universe. Yep, fully explained, in true ding glory.

I make no claims to be an intellectual. There’s nothing special about me. I know more than you about this subject which is why I don’t have to act like you.

I’m not sure where you are getting your belief that scientists don’t believe that the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Because I got that belief from them.

I’m also not sure why you don’t believe that scientists believe that the energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations is what provided the energy for the expansion of the universe.

For some odd reason you seem to believe they don’t have a clue why the universe expanded. That just isn't true.

Actually kid the scientific understanding about matter and antimatter is that they annihilate each other so what you propose s not scientifically possible

And yet that is exactly what the scientists will tell you that they believed happened.

Do you need a link, kid?

You have no link to the beginning of the universe, just to morons claiming they know.

Now kid, do tell us how Einstein was right when entire galaxies are traveling at least 5 times the speed of light.

Scientist say, you are pond scum

Are they right?

I don’t believe they are exceeding the speed of light.

You claim to know the universe wasn’t created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Right?

You can not say you believe the scientist then say you do not. Well in truth you can but it demonstrates how confused you are.

NASA disagrees with you

 

[ding]

I make no claims to be an intellectual. There’s nothing special about me. I know more than you about this subject which is why I don’t have to act like you.

I’m not sure where you are getting your belief that scientists don’t believe that the universe was created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Because I got that belief from them.

I’m also not sure why you don’t believe that scientists believe that the energy released from matter and antimatter annihilations is what provided the energy for the expansion of the universe.

For some odd reason you seem to believe they don’t have a clue why the universe expanded. That just isn't true.

Actually kid the scientific understanding about matter and antimatter is that they annihilate each other so what you propose s not scientifically possible

And yet that is exactly what the scientists will tell you that they believed happened.

Do you need a link, kid?

You have no link to the beginning of the universe, just to morons claiming they know.

Now kid, do tell us how Einstein was right when entire galaxies are traveling at least 5 times the speed of light.

Scientist say, you are pond scum

Are they right?

I don’t believe they are exceeding the speed of light.

You claim to know the universe wasn’t created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Right?

You can not say you believe the scientist then say you do not. Well in truth you can but it demonstrates how confused you are.

NASA disagrees with you

I don’t believe you understood what they were saying.

They never said objects were moving faster than the speed of light. They were saying that space was warped and they appeared to be moving faster than the speed of light.

 

[Frannie]

Actually kid the scientific understanding about matter and antimatter is that they annihilate each other so what you propose s not scientifically possible

And yet that is exactly what the scientists will tell you that they believed happened.

Do you need a link, kid?

You have no link to the beginning of the universe, just to morons claiming they know.

Now kid, do tell us how Einstein was right when entire galaxies are traveling at least 5 times the speed of light.

Scientist say, you are pond scum

Are they right?

I don’t believe they are exceeding the speed of light.

You claim to know the universe wasn’t created with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Right?

You can not say you believe the scientist then say you do not. Well in truth you can but it demonstrates how confused you are.

NASA disagrees with you

I don’t believe you understood what they were saying.

They never said objects were moving faster than the speed of light. They were saying that space was warped and they appeared to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Wrong they measured galaxies farthest away moving 5 times the speed of light. Your world is crumbling and you are clearly in denial. Einstein was too stupid to know what a comb was. Now Tyson says the entire universe is a simulation on a hard drive

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa

How Are Galaxies Moving Away Faster Than Light? - Universe Today

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....

Shameless lie. There is copious evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[Frannie]

Science determines that codes do not form randomly, yet they claim that dna wrote itself in a pond without any evidence.....

Shameless lie. There is copious evidence for abiogenesis.

There is zero evidence for abiogenesis. You can prove me wrong by providing your evidence

Which does not exist

 

[hadit]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

Yep! Something...

 

[Frannie]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

Energy comes from matter always. Energy can also flux back into matter, as such the mass of the universe never changes

The only thing physics determines can come from nothing, is nothing

 

[hadit]

The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..

False.

NASA says that the universe is expanding at 5 times light speed

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then how do galaxies collide?

There would also need to be a void where expansion began

And where did the void come from, and where does the void end?

The big bang determines that matter should form a sort of a shell of expanded matter traveling out from the center that now would be a void. The lack of this huge area is a major flaw to the big bang theory as is the speeding of expansion

Unless the expansion is taking place in a fourth dimension, undetectable by us. Put black dots all over an empty balloon. Then blow up it up. The black dots will all separate from each other, and if you were a two dimensional being on the surface of the balloon, you would be unable to find a "center" from which the balloon is expanding, because the "center" is in the third dimension that you could not detect. That's one theory.

 

[Frannie]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

Yep! Something...

Total lack of substance as usual

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..

False.

NASA says that the universe is expanding at 5 times light speed

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then how do galaxies collide?

There would also need to be a void where expansion began

And where did the void come from, and where does the void end?

The big bang determines that matter should form a sort of a shell of expanded matter traveling out from the center that now would be a void. The lack of this huge area is a major flaw to the big bang theory as is the speeding of expansion

Unless the expansion is taking place in a fourth dimension, undetectable by us. Put black dots all over an empty balloon. Then blow up it up. The black dots will all separate from each other, and if you were a two dimensional being on the surface of the balloon, you would be unable to find a "center" from which the balloon is expanding, because the "center" is in the third dimension that you could not detect. That's one theory.

Not really. While the balloon surface is a decent way to narrowly illustrate expansion, the idea that there is a "center" in a higher spatial dimension is not accurate. To help, imagine the universe geometry is flat. No "curve" to the surface. There would be no "center of the balloon" in that case to give rise to this misconception.

 

[Frannie]

The laws of physics determine that the universe can not be expanding as fast as it is..

False.

NASA says that the universe is expanding at 5 times light speed

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then how do galaxies collide?

There would also need to be a void where expansion began

And where did the void come from, and where does the void end?

The big bang determines that matter should form a sort of a shell of expanded matter traveling out from the center that now would be a void. The lack of this huge area is a major flaw to the big bang theory as is the speeding of expansion

Unless the expansion is taking place in a fourth dimension, undetectable by us. Put black dots all over an empty balloon. Then blow up it up. The black dots will all separate from each other, and if you were a two dimensional being on the surface of the balloon, you would be unable to find a "center" from which the balloon is expanding, because the "center" is in the third dimension that you could not detect. That's one theory.

Wrong because if the big bang were real every bit of mass that was ejected would have a mathematically determinable reverse trajectory which would pinpoint the zero space, and as said there would be a 14 billion year wide void

 

[hadit]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

Energy comes from matter always. Energy can also flux back into matter, as such the mass of the universe never changes

The only thing physics determines can come from nothing, is nothing

True, but given the third law of thermodynamics, in a closed system (the universe in this case), entropy must increase. Thus, something greater than the laws of thermodynamics had to start everything with a very low entropy (the singularity in the beginning), because natural processes (unguided by intelligence) increase entropy.

 

[hadit]

False.

NASA says that the universe is expanding at 5 times light speed

Good point... if the universe is expanding from a central spot, then how do galaxies collide?

There would also need to be a void where expansion began

And where did the void come from, and where does the void end?

The big bang determines that matter should form a sort of a shell of expanded matter traveling out from the center that now would be a void. The lack of this huge area is a major flaw to the big bang theory as is the speeding of expansion

Unless the expansion is taking place in a fourth dimension, undetectable by us. Put black dots all over an empty balloon. Then blow up it up. The black dots will all separate from each other, and if you were a two dimensional being on the surface of the balloon, you would be unable to find a "center" from which the balloon is expanding, because the "center" is in the third dimension that you could not detect. That's one theory.

Not really. While the balloon surface is a decent way to narrowly illustrate expansion, the idea that there is a "center" in a higher spatial dimension is not accurate. To help, imagine the universe geometry is flat. No "curve" to the surface. There would be no "center of the balloon" in that case to give rise to this misconception.

Yes, the center in another dimension requires the universe to have a curved geometry, something that to date has not been proven.

 

[Frannie]

Sure you did, when you say that expansion created matter you are saying that something came from nothing.

False. At that point, per the theory, energy was converted to matter.

Now you're up to speed on 30 year old physics.

Which, of course, doesn't say anything about where all the energy came from in the first place. At some point, you have to arrive at a place where the laws of physics as we know them no longer apply, because they state that energy is never lost or created, but something had to put that energy into that state of exteme heat and density, then release it to cause expansion.

Energy comes from matter always. Energy can also flux back into matter, as such the mass of the universe never changes

The only thing physics determines can come from nothing, is nothing

True, but given the third law of thermodynamics, in a closed system (the universe in this case), entropy must increase. Thus, something greater than the laws of thermodynamics had to start everything with a very low entropy (the singularity in the beginning), because natural processes (unguided by intelligence) increase entropy.

Entropy may well increase but the total mass of matter and energy combined can never change. True creation is impossible unless everything known is wrong